Advertisement

PET imaging of distinct brain uptake of a nanobody and similarly-sized PAMAM dendrimers after intra-arterial administration

  • Wojciech G. LesniakEmail author
  • Chengyan Chu
  • Anna Jablonska
  • Babak Behnam Azad
  • Olivier Zwaenepoel
  • Michal Zawadzki
  • Ala Lisok
  • Martin G. Pomper
  • Piotr Walczak
  • Jan Gettemans
  • Miroslaw JanowskiEmail author
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Neurology

Abstract

Introduction

We have recently shown that intracerebral delivery of an anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab using an intra-arterial (IA) infusion is more effective than intravenous administration. While antibodies are quickly emerging as therapeutics, their disadvantages such as large size, production logistics and immunogenicity motivate search for alternatives. Thus we have studied brain uptake of nanobodies and polyamidoamine (PAMAM) dendrimers.

Methods

Nanobodies were conjugated with deferoxamine (DFO) to generate NB(DFO)2. Generation-4 PAMAM dendrimers were conjugated with DFO, and subsequently primary amines were capped with butane-1,2-diol functionalities to generate G4(DFO)3(Bdiol)110. Resulting conjugates were radiolabeled with zirconium-89. Brain uptake of 89ZrNB(DFO)2 and 89ZrG4(DFO)3(Bdiol)110 upon carotid artery vs tail vein infusions with intact BBB or osmotic blood–brain barrier opening (OBBBO) with mannitol in mice was monitored by dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) over 30 min to assess brain uptake and clearance, followed by whole-body PET-CT (computed tomography) imaging at 1 h and 24 h post-infusion (pi). Imaging results were subsequently validated by ex-vivo biodistribution.

Results

Intravenous administration of 89ZrNB(DFO)2 and 89ZrG4(DFO)3(Bdiol)110 resulted in their negligible brain accumulation regardless of BBB status and timing of OBBBO. Intra-arterial (IA) administration of 89ZrNB(DFO)2 dramatically increased its brain uptake, which was further potentiated with prior OBBBO. Half of the initial brain uptake was retained after 24 h. In contrast, IA infusion of 89ZrG4(DFO)3(Bdiol)110 resulted in poor initial accumulation in the brain, with complete clearance within 1 h of administration. Ex-vivo biodistribution results reflected those on PET-CT.

Conclusions

IA delivery of nanobodies might be an attractive therapeutic platform for CNS disorders where prolonged intracranial retention is necessary.

Keywords

PET Nanobody Dendrimer Intra-arterial Zirconium Brain 

Notes

Funding

This work was funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01NS091110, R21NS106436, P41 EB024495.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosure of potential conflict of interest

JAG has a financial and/or business interests in Gulliver Biomed BVBA, a company that licensed the tested nanobody; however, since the nanobody does not have a brain target there are no direct benefits to Gulliver Biomed. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interest related to the current work.

Ethical approval

All animal procedures were carried out under protocols approved by the Johns Hopkins Animal Care and Use Committee. All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

259_2019_4347_MOESM1_ESM.docx (154 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 154 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Woodworth GF, Dunn GP, Nance EA, Hanes J, Brem H. Emerging insights into barriers to effective brain tumor therapeutics. Front Oncol. 2014;4:126.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2014.00126.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mayhan WG, Heistad DD. Permeability of blood–brain barrier to various sized molecules. Am J Phys. 1985;248:H712–8.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.1985.248.5.H712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    On NH, Miller DW. Transporter-based delivery of anticancer drugs to the brain: improving brain penetration by minimizing drug efflux at the blood–brain barrier. Curr Pharm Des. 2014;20:1499–509.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oldendorf WH. Lipid solubility and drug penetration of the blood brain barrier. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1974;147:813–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boockvar JA, Tsiouris AJ, Hofstetter CP, Kovanlikaya I, Fralin S, Kesavabhotla K, et al. Safety and maximum tolerated dose of superselective intraarterial cerebral infusion of bevacizumab after osmotic blood–brain barrier disruption for recurrent malignant glioma. Clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2011;114:624–32.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.9.JNS101223.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lesniak WG, Chu C, Jablonska A, Du Y, Pomper MG, Walczak P, et al. A distinct advantage to intraarterial delivery of 89zr-bevacizumab in pet imaging of mice with and without osmotic opening of the blood–brain barrier. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(5):617–22.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.218792.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Banks WA. Characteristics of compounds that cross the blood–brain barrier. BMC Neurol. 2009;9(Suppl 1):S3.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-9-S1-S3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Janowski M, Walczak P, Pearl MS. Predicting and optimizing the territory of blood–brain barrier opening by superselective intra-arterial cerebral infusion under dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI guidance. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2016;36:569–75.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0271678X15615875.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lyczek A, Arnold A, Zhang J, Campanelli JT, Janowski M, Bulte JW, et al. Transplanted human glial-restricted progenitors can rescue the survival of dysmyelinated mice independent of the production of mature, compact myelin. Exp Neurol. 2017;291:74–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2017.02.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zawadzki M, Walecki J, Kostkiewicz B, Kostyra K, Pearl MS, Solaiyappan M, et al. Real-time MRI guidance for intra-arterial drug delivery in a patient with a brain tumor: technical note. BMJ Case Rep. 2019;12:pii: e014469.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2018-014469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ingram JR, Schmidt FI, Ploegh HL. Exploiting Nanobodies’ singular traits. Annu Rev Immunol. 2018;36:695–715.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-immunol-042617-053327.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bannas P, Lenz A, Kunick V, Well L, Fumey W, Rissiek B, et al. Molecular imaging of tumors with nanobodies and antibodies: timing and dosage are crucial factors for improved in vivo detection. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2015;10:367–78.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cmmi.1637.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kannan RM, Nance E, Kannan S, Tomalia DA. Emerging concepts in dendrimer-based nanomedicine: from design principles to clinical applications. J Intern Med. 2014;276:579–617.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12280.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chauhan AS. Dendrimers for Drug Delivery. Molecules. 2018;23:938.  https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23040938.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kannan S, Dai H, Navath RS, Balakrishnan B, Jyoti A, Janisse J, et al. Dendrimer-based postnatal therapy for neuroinflammation and cerebral palsy in a rabbit model. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4:130ra46.  https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3003162.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Balakrishnan B, Nance E, Johnston MV, Kannan R, Kannan S. Nanomedicine in cerebral palsy. Int J Nanomedicine. 2013;8:4183–95.  https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S35979.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang F, Mastorakos P, Mishra MK, Mangraviti A, Hwang L, Zhou J, et al. Uniform brain tumor distribution and tumor associated macrophage targeting of systemically administered dendrimers. Biomaterials. 2015;52:507–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.02.053.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Qiu J, Kong L, Cao X, Li A, Wei P, Wang L, et al. Enhanced delivery of therapeutic siRNA into glioblastoma cells using dendrimer-entrapped gold nanoparticles conjugated with beta-cyclodextrin. Nanomaterials. 2018;8:131.  https://doi.org/10.3390/nano8030131.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van den Abbeele A, De Clercq S, De Ganck A, De Corte V, Van Loo B, Soror SH, et al. A llama-derived gelsolin single-domain antibody blocks gelsolin-G-actin interaction. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2010;67:1519–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-010-0266-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vosjan MJ, Perk LR, Visser GW, Budde M, Jurek P, Kiefer GE, et al. Conjugation and radiolabeling of monoclonal antibodies with zirconium-89 for PET imaging using the bifunctional chelate p-isothiocyanatobenzyl-desferrioxamine. Nat Protoc. 2010;5:739–43.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2010.13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chu C, Liu G, Janowski M, Bulte JWM, Li S, Pearl M, et al. Real-time MRI guidance for reproducible hyperosmolar opening of the blood–brain barrier in mice. Front Neurol. 2018;9:921.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00921.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tellinghuisen J. Least squares with non-normal data: estimating experimental variance functions. Analyst. 2008;133:161–6.  https://doi.org/10.1039/b708709h.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laznickova A, Biricova V, Laznicek M, Hermann P. Mono(pyridine-N-oxide) DOTA analog and its G1/G4-PAMAM dendrimer conjugates labeled with 177Lu: radiolabeling and biodistribution studies. Appl Radiat Isot. 2014;84:70–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2013.10.021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sadekar S, Ray A, Janat-Amsbury M, Peterson CM, Ghandehari H. Comparative biodistribution of PAMAM dendrimers and HPMA copolymers in ovarian-tumor-bearing mice. Biomacromolecules. 2011;12:88–96.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm101046d.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang Y, Sun Y, Xu X, Zhang X, Zhu H, Huang L, et al. Synthesis, biodistribution, and microsingle photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging study of technetium-99m labeled PEGylated dendrimer poly(amidoamine) (PAMAM)-folic acid conjugates. J Med Chem. 2010;53:3262–72.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jm901910j.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lesniak WG, Mishra MK, Jyoti A, Balakrishnan B, Zhang F, Nance E, et al. Biodistribution of fluorescently labeled PAMAM dendrimers in neonatal rabbits: effect of neuroinflammation. Mol Pharm. 2013;10:4560–71.  https://doi.org/10.1021/mp400371r.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boswell CA, Sun X, Niu W, Weisman GR, Wong EH, Rheingold AL, et al. Comparative in vivo stability of copper-64-labeled cross-bridged and conventional tetraazamacrocyclic complexes. J Med Chem. 2004;47:1465–74.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jm030383m.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gomes JR, Cabrito I, Soares HR, Costelha S, Teixeira A, Wittelsberger A, et al. Delivery of an anti-transthyretin Nanobody to the brain through intranasal administration reveals transthyretin expression and secretion by motor neurons. J Neurochem. 2018;145:393–408.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jnc.14332.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Samec N, Jovcevska I, Stojan J, Zottel A, Liovic M, Myers MP, et al. Glioblastoma-specific anti-TUFM nanobody for in-vitro immunoimaging and cancer stem cell targeting. Oncotarget. 2018;9:17282–99.  https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.24629.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McMurphy T, Xiao R, Magee D, Slater A, Zabeau L, Tavernier J, et al. The anti-tumor activity of a neutralizing nanobody targeting leptin receptor in a mouse model of melanoma. PLoS One. 2014;9:e89895.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089895.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vaidyanathan G, McDougald D, Choi J, Koumarianou E, Weitzel D, Osada T, et al. Preclinical evaluation of 18F-labeled anti-HER2 Nanobody conjugates for imaging HER2 receptor expression by Immuno-PET. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:967–73.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.171306.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bala G, Blykers A, Xavier C, Descamps B, Broisat A, Ghezzi C, et al. Targeting of vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 by 18F-labelled nanobodies for PET/CT imaging of inflamed atherosclerotic plaques. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17:1001–8.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jev346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wojciech G. Lesniak
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chengyan Chu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anna Jablonska
    • 1
    • 2
  • Babak Behnam Azad
    • 1
  • Olivier Zwaenepoel
    • 3
  • Michal Zawadzki
    • 4
  • Ala Lisok
    • 1
  • Martin G. Pomper
    • 1
  • Piotr Walczak
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jan Gettemans
    • 3
  • Miroslaw Janowski
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological ScienceJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Cell EngineeringJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biomolecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyCentre of Postgraduate Medical EducationWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations