Advertisement

Glucose-6-phosphatase Expression–Mediated [18F]FDG Efflux in Murine Inflammation and Cancer Models

  • Mi Jeong Kim
  • Chul-Hee Lee
  • Youngeun Lee
  • Hyewon Youn
  • Keon Wook Kang
  • JoonHo Kwon
  • Abass AlaviEmail author
  • Sean Carlin
  • Gi Jeong Cheon
  • June-Key ChungEmail author
Research Article
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

2-Deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose ([18F]FDG) accumulation in inflammatory lesions can confound the diagnosis of cancer. In this study, we investigated [18F]FDG accumulation and efflux in relation to the genes and proteins involved in glucose metabolism in murine inflammation and cancer models.

Procedures

[18F]FDG accumulation and [18F]FDG efflux were measured in cancer cells (breast cancer, glioma, thyroid cancer, and hepatoma cells) and RAW 264.7 cells (macrophages) activated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS). The levels of mRNA expression were measured by real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR). The expression of glucose metabolism–related proteins was detected by western blotting. Dynamic [18F]FDG positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) images were acquired for 2 h in tumor-bearing BALB/c nude mice and inflammatory mice induced by turpentine oil.

Results

[18F]FDG accumulation in MDA-MB-231 (breast cancer) increased with time, but that of HepG2 (hepatoma) reached a constant level after 120 min. [18F]FDG efflux in HepG2 was faster than that in MDA-MB-231. HepG2 strongly expressed glucose-6-phosphatase (G6Pase) compared with MDA-MB-231. [18F]FDG accumulation increased with time, and [18F]FDG efflux accelerated after the activation of RAW 264.7 cells. The expression levels of G6Pase, glucose transporter1 and glucose transporter3 (GLUT1 and GLUT3), and hexokinase II (HK II) increased after the activation of RAW 264.7 cells. [18F]FDG efflux in activated macrophages was faster than that in MDA-MB-231 cancer cells. MDA-MB-231 strongly expressed HK II protein compared with the activated RAW 264.7. In murine models, [18F]FDG accumulation in MDA-MB-231 cancer and inflammatory lesions increased with time, but that in HepG2 tumor increased until 20–30 min (SUVmeans ± SD (tumor/muscle), 3.0 ± 1.3) and then decreased (2.1 ± 0.9 at 110–120 min).

Conclusions

There was no difference in the pattern of [18F]FDG accumulation with time in MDA-MB-231 tumors and inflammatory lesions. We found that [18F]FDG efflux accelerated in activated macrophages reflecting increased G6Pase expression after activation and lower expression of HK II protein than that in MDA-MB-231 cancer cells.

Key words

2-Deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose ([18F]FDG) Positron emission tomography (PET) Inflammation Cancer Glucose-6-phosphatase (G6Pase) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor Jae Sung Lee and Seung Kwan Kang for the support of dynamic [18F]FDG PET imaging, and Young Ju Kim for technical assistant of mouse PET imaging.

Funding

This work was supported by internal research funds from the Seoul National University Cancer Research Institute (cri-15-4, cri-16-3, and cri-17-3) and grants of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (grant numbers HI14C1072 and HI14C1277); the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant for the Global Core Research Center (GCRC) funded by the Korea government Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (MSIP) (No. 2011-0030001) (2017-R1A2B4012813); and Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2009-0093820).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11307_2019_1316_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (282 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 282 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Rigo P, Paulus P, Kaschten BJ, Hustinx R, Bury T, Jerusalem G, Benoit T, Foidart-Willems J (1996) Oncological applications of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. Eur J Nucl Med 23:1641–1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bomanji JB, Costa DC, Ell PJ (2001) Clinical role of positron emission tomography in oncology. Lancet Oncol 2:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haberkorn U, Ziegler SI, Oberdorfer F, Trojan H, Haag D, Peschke P, Berger MR, Altmann A, van Kaick G (1994) FDG uptake, tumor proliferation and expression of glycolysis associated genes in animal tumor models. Nucl Med Biol 21:827–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ong LC, Jin Y, Song IC, Yu S, Zhang K (2008) 2-[18F]-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) uptake in human tumor cells is related to the expression of GLUT-1 and hexokinase II. Acta Radiol 49:1145–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith TA (1999) Facilitative glucose transporter expression in human cancer tissue. Br J Biomed Sci 56:285–292Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adams V, Kempf W, Hassam S, Briner J (1995) Determination of hexokinase isoenzyme I and II composition by RT-PCR: increased hexokinase isoenzyme II in human renal cell carcinoma. Biochem Mol Med 54:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Izuishi K, Yamamoto Y, Mori H et al (2014) Molecular mechanisms of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose accumulation in liver cancer. Oncol Rep 31:701–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ishimori T, Saga T, Mamede M, Kobayashi H, Higashi T, Nakamoto Y, Sato N, Konishi J (2002) Increased 18F-FDG uptake in a model of inflammation: concanavalin A-mediated lymphocyte activation. J Nucl Med 43:658–663Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Strauss LG (1996) Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose and false-positive results: a major problem in the diagnostics of oncological patients. Eur J Nucl Med 23:1409–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nakamoto Y, Saga T, Ishimori T, Higashi T, Mamede M, Okazaki K, Imamura M, Sakahara H, Konishi J (2000) FDG-PET of autoimmune-related pancreatitis: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med 27:1835–1838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shreve PD (1998) Focal fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose accumulation in inflammatory pancreatic disease. Eur J Nucl Med 25:259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhuang H, Pourdehnad M, Lambright ES, Yamamoto AJ, Lanuti M, Li P, Mozley PD, Rossman MD, Albelda SM, Alavi A (2001) Dual time point 18F-FDG PET imaging for differentiating malignant from inflammatory processes. J Nucl Med 42:1412–1417Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheng G, Torigian DA, Zhuang H, Alavi A (2013) When should we recommend use of dual time-point and delayed time-point imaging techniques in FDG PET? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:779–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu RS, Chou TK, Chang CH, Wu CY, Chang CW, Chang TJ, Wang SJ, Lin WJ, Wang HE (2009) Biodistribution, pharmacokinetics and PET imaging of [(18)F]FMISO, [18F]FDG and [18F]FAc in a sarcoma- and inflammation-bearing mouse model. Nucl Med Biol 36:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsuji AB, Kato K, Sugyo A, Okada M, Sudo H, Yoshida C, Wakizaka H, Zhang MR, Saga T (2012) Comparison of 2-amino-[3-(1)(1)C]isobutyric acid and 2-deoxy-2-[(1)(8)F]fluoro-D-glucose in nude mice with xenografted tumors and acute inflammation. Nucl Med Commun 33:1058–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaneko K, Sadashima E, Irie K et al (2013) Assessment of FDG retention differences between the FDG-avid benign pulmonary lesion and primary lung cancer using dual-time-point FDG-PET imaging. Ann Nucl Med 27:392–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yamada S, Kubota K, Kubota R et al (1995) High accumulation of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in turpentine-induced inflammatory tissue. J Nucl Med 36:1301–1306Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim SJ, Lee JS, Im KC, Kim SY, Park SA, Lee SJ, Oh SJ, Lee DS, Moon DH (2008) Kinetic modeling of 3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine for quantitative cell proliferation imaging in subcutaneous tumor models in mice. J Nucl Med 49:2057–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Satomi T, Ogawa M, Mori I, Ishino S, Kubo K, Magata Y, Nishimoto T (2013) Comparison of contrast agents for atherosclerosis imaging using cultured macrophages: FDG versus ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide. J Nucl Med 54:999–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Longo DL, Bartoli A, Consolino L, Bardini P, Arena F, Schwaiger M, Aime S (2016) In vivo imaging of tumor metabolism and acidosis by combining PET and MRI-CEST pH imaging. Cancer Res 76:6463–6470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Behrooz A, Ismail-Beigi F (1997) Dual control of glut1 glucose transporter gene expression by hypoxia and by inhibition of oxidative phosphorylation. J Biol Chem 272:5555–5562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Airley R, Loncaster J, Davidson S, Bromley M, Roberts S, Patterson A, Hunter R, Stratford I, West C (2001) Glucose transporter glut-1 expression correlates with tumor hypoxia and predicts metastasis-free survival in advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Clin Cancer Res 7:928–934Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yasuda S, Arii S, Mori A, Isobe N, Yang W, Oe H, Fujimoto A, Yonenaga Y, Sakashita H, Imamura M (2004) Hexokinase II and VEGF expression in liver tumors: correlation with hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha and its significance. J Hepatol 40:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gautier-Stein A, Soty M, Chilloux J, Zitoun C, Rajas F, Mithieux G (2012) Glucotoxicity induces glucose-6-phosphatase catalytic unit expression by acting on the interaction of HIF-1alpha with CREB-binding protein. Diabetes 61:2451–2460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hustinx R, Smith RJ, Benard F, Rosenthal DI, Machtay M, Farber LA, Alavi A (1999) Dual time point fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: a potential method to differentiate malignancy from inflammation and normal tissue in the head and neck. Eur J Nucl Med 26:1345–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shinya T, Fujii S, Asakura S, Taniguchi T, Yoshio K, Alafate A, Sato S, Yoshino T, Kanazawa S (2012) Dual-time-point F-18 FDG PET/CT for evaluation in patients with malignant lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med 26:616–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xiu Y, Bhutani C, Dhurairaj T, Yu JQ, Dadparvar S, Reddy S, Kumar R, Yang H, Alavi A, Zhuang H (2007) Dual-time point FDG PET imaging in the evaluation of pulmonary nodules with minimally increased metabolic activity. Clin Nucl Med 32:101–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Laffon E, de Clermont H, Begueret H, Vernejoux JM, Thumerel M, Marthan R, Ducassou D (2009) Assessment of dual-time-point 18F-FDG-PET imaging for pulmonary lesions. Nucl Med Commun 30:455–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matthies A, Hickeson M, Cuchiara A, Alavi A (2002) Dual time point 18F-FDG PET for the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. J Nucl Med 43:871–875Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lan XL, Zhang YX, Wu ZJ, Jia Q, Wei H, Gao ZR (2008) The value of dual time point 18F-FDG PET imaging for the differentiation between malignant and benign lesions. Clin Radiol 63:756–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Molecular Imaging Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Laboratory of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Cancer Research InstituteSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Tumor Microenvironment Global Core Research CenterSeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Biomedical SciencesSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  5. 5.Tumor Biology ProgramSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  6. 6.Cancer Imaging CenterSeoul National University Cancer HospitalSeoulSouth Korea
  7. 7.Institute of Radiation MedicineSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  8. 8.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of RadiologyHospital of the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations