Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Dec 5.
Published in final edited form as: Chem Commun (Camb). 2023 Dec 5;59(97):14387–14390. doi: 10.1039/d3cc04212j

Development of 18F-Labeled hydrophilic trans-cyclooctene as a bioorthogonal tool for PET probe construction

Muyun Xu a,, Xinrui Ma a,, Jessica E Pigga b,, He Zhang a, Shuli Wang a, Weiling Zhao a, Huaifu Deng a, Anna M Wu c, Rihe Liu d, Zhanhong Wu a, Joseph M Fox b, Zibo Li a
PMCID: PMC10785124  NIHMSID: NIHMS1952058  PMID: 37877355

Abstract

We report the development of a hydrophilic 18F-labeled a-TCO derivative [18F]3 (LogP = 0.28) through a readily available precursor and a single-step radiofluorination reaction (RCY up to 52%). We demonstrated that [18F]3 can be used to construct not only multiple small molecule/peptide-based PET agents, but protein/diabody-based imaging probes in parallel.


Bioorthogonal reactions are chemical reactions that occur in biological environments without interfering with existing biochemical processes.1 As an inverse electron-demand Diels-Alder (IEDDA) cyclo-addition, ligation between 1,2,4,5-tetrazine and strained dienophiles represents one of the fastest types of bio-orthogonal reactions and has been shown to be a valuable tool in conjugation chemistry.1,2 In particular, trans-cyclooctene (TCO) has risen to the forefront as a dienophile, as the TCO-tetrazine ligation is the fastest known bioorthogonal reaction with reaction rates typically ranging from 104 to 106 M−1·s−1.2,3

Numerous applications of tetrazine ligation have been reported for intracellular imaging and chemical probe assembly, chemical proteomics, nuclear medicine, and drug release.4-9 From a tumor imaging perspective, tetrazine ligation has been successfully used for radiolabeling of antibodies that are difficult to label directly with short-lived radioactive isotopes.10,11 Tetrazine ligation has allowed for a pretargeted method of tumor imaging that significantly improves contrast.12 Over the past decade, we and others have focused on the development of 18F-labeled PET agents based on tetrazine ligation with TCO. Efforts have been made to introduce 18F into both tetrazine and TCO derivatives. Some previous attempts at direct 18F labeling of tetrazine derivatives using [18F]Kryptofix or [18F]TBAF have been reported by Mikula’s group, Airaksinen’s group, and us.13-16 Herth’s group reported their recent studies of direct 18F labeling of tetrazine derivatives and showed dramatically increased RCYs under less basic conditions or Cu-mediation.17-20 Instead of direct fluorination of tetrazine, Keinänen et al. reported an indirect tetrazine labeling method by conjugation with 5-deoxy-5-[18F]fluoro-D-ribose ([18F]FDR) in almost quantitative yields.21 For 18F-labeled TCO derivatives, the radiofluorination procedure is relatively straightforward and high-yielding. 18F-labeled TCOs, such as strained trans-cyclooctene (s-TCO), trans-5-oxocene (oxo-TCO), and dioxolane-fused trans-cyclooctene (d-TCO) for the rapid construction of PET agents, has been developed (Fig. 1A), with [18F]s-TCO having the fastest reaction rates.7,22,23 Despite these advances, the hydrophobic nature of the TCO motif can lead to high background and slow clearance in vivo.22 Although we can exploit the hydrophobic nature of the resulting PET agents to enhance tumor accumulation in some cases, improved hydrophilicity is often preferred to accelerate clearance from normal organs/tissues.24,25 Previously, we reported [18F]oxoTCO, which displays greatly improved tumor-to-background contrast due to the increased hydrophilicity of its conjugates.7,26 (Fig. 1B) Despite the promising results, the synthesis of the [18F]oxoTCO precursor is lengthy and has an overall low yield.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Example of our previous investigation of radiolabeled (A) [18F]s-TCO and (B) [18F]oxo-TCO in tetrazine ligation. (C) The development of 18F-labeled a-TCO for tetrazine ligation.

Recently, 5-axial-hydroxy-5-alkyl-trans-cyclooctene (a-TCO) derivatives have been developed and applied in live-cell fluorescence imaging and proteomic applications.27 Compared to previous generations of TCO agents, the hydroxyl group on the a-TCOs significantly improves the physicochemical properties, making the analogs suitable for applications in biomolecular conjugation, such as protein modification.27 Moreover, in terms of reaction kinetics, a-TCO maintains a high rate constant (k2= 150,000 ± 8,000 M−1s−1), which is higher than the parent TCO.22,27 Taking advantage of the synthetic scalability, fast reactivity, and improved physicochemical properties, we herein report the development of an 18F-labeled a-TCO as a bioorthogonal tool for the construction of positron emission tomography (PET) Imaging probes. (Fig. 1C)

To evaluate whether 18F-labeled a-TCOs could be prepared as a prosthetic group for PET probe construction, an a-TCO precursor with a tosylate leaving group for fluorination was first synthesized. Briefly, compound 1 was synthesized from amino-PEG4-alcohol through amino protection, tosylation, and Boc deprotection. Conjugation with a-TCO NHS ester was then performed to obtain the a-TCO precursor 2 by simple amide 6more stable when stored in solution compared to neat. The compound was prepared as a stock solution in DCM at a concentration of 35 μg/μL and remained stable at −20 °C over three months. Repeated warm-up/freeze cycles did induce a small amount of degraded byproduct over time. The standard compound [19F]3 was synthesized by direct fluorination of 2 in the presence of Kryptofix222 and potassium fluoride at 45 °C.

The 18F labeling reaction (Scheme 2) conditions were first evaluated to obtain the highest radiochemical yield (RCY). Reaction solvent, reaction time, and temperature were investigated. For labeling reactions, the DCM solution of 2 was used directly without removing the solvent. Azeotropically dried [18F]TBAF was prepared according to the previous report and then redissolved in MeCN.28 The optimal reaction time was 10 minutes at 80 °C in dichloromethane and acetonitrile (RCY = 52%, Table S1, entry 9). Increasing the reaction time to 30 min led to a significantly reduced yield and the formation of side products. We also performed a large-scale preparation of [18F]3 was performed in a hot cell with a semi-prep HPLC using the optimal condition. Briefly, 700 μg 2 in stock solution was mixed with 15.5 Gbq [18F]TBAF (approximately 100 μL in total volume). The mixture was heated at 80 °C for 10 minutes and then quenched with 1 mL of 10% acetonitrile aqueous solution. The reaction mixture was then passed through an alumina light cartridge to remove unreacted [18F]TBAF, and the radioactivity (8.62 Gbq) was then purified by semi-preparative HPLC. 1.96 Gbq [18F]3 was obtained with >95% radiochemical purity. The RCY was determined to be 27% (decay-corrected). The experimental LogP of [18F]3 is 0.28, which is indeed more hydrophilic than previously reported 18F-labeled TCOs, such as [18F]-oxoTCO (LogP = 0.57) using a partitioning experiment.7,22

Scheme 2.

Scheme 2

18F labeling reaction to obtain [18F]3.

Tetrazine-modified small molecules 4 and 5 were synthesized, targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), and fibroblast activation protein (FAP), respectively.29,30 (Fig. 2A & B) The [18F]3 solution obtained from HPLC was added directly to the tetrazine-modified small-molecule ligand solutions. The mixtures were thoroughly mixed and then injected into HPLC within a couple of minutes to obtain pure PET imaging agents, [18F]6 and [18F]7. The RCYs of the ligation step ranged from 38% to 44%.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Ligation of [18F]3 with tetrazine-modified small molecules (A) 4 (targeting PSMA) to generate [18F]6 and (B) 5 (targeting FAP) to generate [18F]7. PET imaging of (C) [18F]6 at 0.5 h p.i. in PC3-PIP mouse model and (D) [18F]7 at 4.0 h p.i. in U87-MG mouse model.

We performed imaging studies and compared the results with some known compounds. Compound [18F]6 was injected into PC3-PIP tumor-bearing mice for in vivo PET imaging studies. (Fig. 2C & Table S3) The tumor/kidney ratio was 1.79 at 3 h p.i. For comparison, we also evaluated [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 imaging on PC3-PIP tumor-bearing mouse models, and the tumor/kidney ratios are 0.135, 0.134, and 0.169 at 0.5, 1.5, and 4 h p.i., respectively.31 In another study, Banerjee et al. reported tumor/kidney ratios of about 0.2 for [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 in the imaging of PC3-PIP tumor-bearing mouse models at 1, 2, and 3 h p.i., although the tumor uptake was about 26 %ID/g.32 The comparison of some PSMA agent tumor/kidney ratios is listed in Table S2. The comparison suggests that compared to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11, [18F]7 has better tumor-to-kidney contrast, potentially partially due to easier wash-out from the kidneys after the tetrazine ligation with [18F]3. However, side by side comparison is needed before a conclusion is drawn. For [18F]7, we injected it in U87 tumor-bearing mice. (Fig. 2D & Table S4) The average tumor uptake of was 9.77 ± 4.41, 9.75 ± 3.88, and 8.10 ± 2.77 at 0.5, 1.5, and 4 h p.i., respectively. Our results indicate that [18F]7 has a longer retention time on U87 tumors than some known tracers, such as [18F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04. Tumor uptake of [18F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04 peaked at 1 h p.i. (15 %ID/g) and rapidly decreased to one-third of the peak value (approximately 5 %ID/g).33 However, unlike [18F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04, [18F]7 has relatively high uptake and slow clearance in the kidney, liver, heart, and muscle, which may be caused by the long PEG linker. Further evaluation of the impact of PEG length on organ uptake is needed.

High molecular weight biological macromolecules, such as single-stranded oligonucleotides, peptides, and proteins (including antibody fragments), are of great interest in the imaging field. [18F]3’s fast reaction rate, coupled with favorable physicochemical properties, may lead to unique applications in the generation of 18F-labeled proteins. Because proteins can be sensitive to organic solvents, we chose to use a C18 cartridge (Waters) to remove ACN from [18F]3 in the HPLC purification process. Like other reports34, we observed radiolysis during the QC, which could be caused by the high activity concentration during the cartridge trapping step. We then dissolved [18F]3 in PBS buffer to form a stock solution that could be aliquoted to different tetrazine-modified proteins (mouse serum albumin or MSA 8, anti-CD8 diabody 9, anti-CD4 diabody 10, and a HER2-binding protein ligand 11) in parallel. The resulting radiolabeled proteins (18F labeled MSA [18F]12, 18F labeled anti-CD8 diabody [18F]13, 18F labeled anti-CD4 diabody [18F]14, and 18F labeled HER2-binding protein ligand [18F]15) were purified on PD-10 columns to remove unreacted small molecules. These radiolabeled proteins were then analyzed by SDS-PAGE (Fig. 3). Since the 18F labeled 13-15 has a high molar activity (47.69 – 85.06 GBq/μmol), unlabeled protein samples were added to a separate gel to detect the signal from Coomassie Blue. As shown in Fig 5, multiple 18F labeled proteins can be obtained in parallel with high purity. The autoradiography and Coomassie blue staining correlated well.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Coomassie blue stained SDS-PAGE gel (left) of tetrazine-modified proteins and their corresponding radiolabeled products. The autoradiography (right) was also performed for the SDS-PAGE gel for the radiolabeled products, which were barely visualized by Coomassie blue staining due to trace amounts.

As a working example, we investigated the infiltration of CD 8+ T cells into tumors using 18F-labeled anti-CD8 diabody. The [18F]13 was injected into B16F10 tumor-bearing mice for in vivo PET imaging study. (Fig. 4 & Table S5) As expected, like other anti-CD8 tracers,35-37 high spleen uptake was observed with both [89Zr]Zr-labeled anti-CD8 and [18F]13 imaging, indicating accumulation of CD 8+ T cells in the spleen. Compared with the previously reported [89Zr]Zr-labeled anti-CD8 diabody35, we did not observe high bone uptake with [18F]14 during the imaging course, suggesting that the labeling motif was stable in vivo. Radioactivity accumulation in tumor tissue was also observed due to the infiltration of CD 8+ T cells. The tumor was well visualized at 3 hours post-injection. The tumor/muscle ratios of CD 8+ cells for [18F]13 were 5.63, 4.28, and 6.18 at 0.5, 1.5, and 3 h p.i., respectively.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

PET imaging of [18F]13 at 0.5 h p.i. in B16F10 mouse model. The spleen is indicated with a white arrow, and the tumor region is indicated with a red arrow.

In conclusion, we report the development of the compound [18F]3 as a versatile radiolabeling tool to construct PET agents on both small molecules and proteins. Radiochemical labeling was optimized, and large-scale radiolabeling was also tested, allowing for multi-dose preparations from a single batch of [18F]3. In vivo imaging demonstrated that the corresponding PET agents could achieve prominent tumor accumulation. Initial comparison with previously reported probes warrants further investigation of the newly constructed agent to understand its normal organ distribution, metabolism, toxicity, etc.

Supplementary Material

Supp Info

Scheme 1.

Scheme 1

Synthesis of a-TCO precursor 2 and standard 3. Reaction conditions: (a) (Boc)2O, DCM, room temperature, 1 h; (b) 4-DMAP, Et3N, 4-toluenesulfonyl chloride, DCM, 0 °C to room temperature, overnight; (c) TFA, DCM, 25 min; (d) a-TCO NHS ester, Et3N, DCM, 30 min, 97% yield based on 1; (e) KF, Kryptofix® 222, K2CO3, ACN, 45 °C, 1 h, 61% yield by NMR.

Notes

‡ We would like to thank Dr. Gerald Thomas Bida for his outstanding support on cyclotron maintenance and 18F production. The research was partially funded by the UNC-Chapel Hill (start-up fund from the Department of Radiology, Biomedical Research Imaging Center, and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center to Z.L.) and NIH (1S10OD023611, 5R01EB029451, 5R01CA233904) (Z.L.), and R01DK128447 (Z.W.). PET/CT imaging was carried out in the UNC Small Animal Imaging Core Facility. The imaging core is supported in part by an NIH grant P30-CA016086, and the PET/CT system was funded by an NIH grant, S10-OD023611.

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest

A provisional patent application is submitted by Z.L., Z.W., M.X., X.M., & H.Z. Other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Electronic Supplementary Information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/x0xx00000x

references

  • 1.Scinto SL, Bilodeau DA, Hincapie R, Lee W, Nguyen SS, Xu M, am Ende CW, Finn MG, Lang K, Lin Q, Pezacki JP, Prescher JA, Robillard MS and Fox JM, Nat. Rev. Methods Primers, 2021, 1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Blackman ML, Royzen M and Fox JM, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2008, 130, 13518–13519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Darko A, Wallace S, Dmitrenko O, Machovina MM, Mehl RA, Chin JW and Fox JM, Chem. Sci, 2014, 5, 3770–3776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lebraud H, Wright DJ, Johnson CN and Heightman TD, ACS Cent. Sci, 2016, 2, 927–934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rieder U and Luedtke NW, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed, 2014, 53, 9168–9172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kang K, Park J and Kim E, Proteome Sci., 2016, 15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wang M, Vannam R, Lambert WD, Xie Y, Wang H, Giglio B, Ma X, Wu Z, Fox J and Li Z, Chem. Commun, 2019, 55, 2485–2488. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Versteegen RM, Rossin R, ten Hoeve W, Janssen HM and Robillard MS, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed, 2013, 52, 14112–14116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Murrey HE, Judkins JC, am Ende CW, Ballard TE, Fang Y, Riccardi K, Di L, Guilmette ER, Schwartz JW, Fox JM and Johnson DS, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2015, 137, 11461–11475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zhou Z, Devoogdt N, Zalutsky MR and Vaidyanathan G, Bioconjugate Chem., 2018, 29, 4090–4103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zhou Z, Zalutsky MR and Vaidyanathan G, Bioorg. Med. Chem, 2020, 28, 115634. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rossin R, Renart Verkerk P, van den Bosch SM, Vulders RCM, Verel I, Lub J and Robillard MS, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed, 2010, 49, 3375–3378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Li Z, Cai H, Hassink M, Blackman ML, Brown RC, Conti PS and Fox JM, Chem. Commun, 2010, 46, 8043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Denk C, Svatunek D, Filip T, Wanek T, Lumpi D, Fröhlich J, Kuntner C and Mikula H, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed, 2014, 53, 9655–9659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Otaru S, Martinmäki T, Kuurne I, Paulus A, Helariutta K, Sarparanta M and Airaksinen AJ, RSC Adv., 2023, 13, 22606–22615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Otaru S, Paulus A, Imlimthan S, Kuurne I, Virtanen H, Liljenbäck H, Tolvanen T, Auchynnikava T, Roivainen A, Helariutta K, Sarparanta M, Airaksinen AJ, Bioconjugate Chem., 2022, 33, 1393–1404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.García-Vázquez R, Jørgensen JT, Bratteby KE, Shalgunov V, Hvass L, Herth MM, Kjær A and Battisti UM, Pharmaceuticals, 2022, 15, 245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Battisti UM, Bratteby K, Jørgensen JT, Hvass L, Shalgunov V, Mikula H, Kjær A and Herth MM, J. Med. Chem, 2021, 64, 15297–15312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Andersen IV, García-Vázquez R, Battisti UM and Herth MM, Molecules, 2022, 27, 4022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.García-Vázquez R, Battisti UM, Jørgensen JT, Shalgunov V, Hvass L, Stares DL, Petersen IN, Crestey F, Löffler A, Svatunek D, Kristensen JL, Mikula H, Kjaer and M A. Herth M, Chem. Sci, 2021, 12, 11668–11675. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Keinänen O, Li X-G, Chenna NK, Lumen D, Ott J, Molthoff CF, Sarparanta M, Helariutta K, Vuorinen T, Windhorst AD and Airaksinen AJ, ACS Med. Chem. Lett, 2016, 7, 62–66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wang M, Svatunek D, Rohlfing K, Liu Y, Wang H, Giglio B, Yuan H, Wu Z, Li Z and Fox J, Theranostics, 2016, 6, 887–895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ruivo E, Elvas F, Adhikari K, Vangestel C, Van Haesendonck G, Lemière F, Staelens S, Stroobants S, Van der Veken P, wyffels L and Augustyns K, ACS Omega, 2020, 5, 4449–4456. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wang M, Wang H, Niu CQ, Zhang T, Wu Z and Li Z, Bioconjugate Chem., 2020, 31, 1795–1803. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Stéen J, Jørgensen JT, Christoph D, Battisti UM, Nørregaard K, Edem P, Bratteby K, Shalgunov V, Martin W, Svatunek D, Poulie CB, Hvass L, Simon M, Thomas W, Rossin R, Robillard M, Kristensen JL, Mikula H, Kjaer A and Herth M, ACS Pharmacol. Transl. Sci 2021, 4, 824–833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lambert WD, Scinto SL, Dmitrenko O, Boyd SJ, Magboo R, Mehl RA, Chin JW, Fox JM and Wallace S, Org. Biomol. Chem, 2017, 15, 6640–6644. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pigga JE, Rosenberger JE, Jemas A, Boyd SJ, Dmitrenko O, Xie Y and Fox JM, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed, 2021, 60, 14975–14980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tay NE, Chen W, Levens A, Pistritto VA, Huang Z, Wu Z, Li Z and Nicewicz DA, Nat. Catal, 2020, 3, 734–742. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Maresca KP, Hillier SM, Femia FJ, Keith D, Barone C, Joyal JL, Zimmerman CN, Kozikowski AP, Barrett JA, Eckelman WC and Babich JW, J. Med. Chem, 2009, 52, 347–357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lindner T, Loktev A, Altmann A, Giesel F, Kratochwil C, Debus J, Jäger D, Mier W and Haberkorn U, J. Nucl. Med, 2018, 59, 1415–1422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zhang T, Cai J, Xu M, Ma X, Wang H, Wang M, Han Z, Wang J, Smith E, Li Z and Wu Z, Mol. Pharmaceutics, 2021, 19, 720–727. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ray Banerjee S, Chen Z, Pullambhatla M, Lisok A, Chen J, Mease RC and Pomper MG, Bioconjugate Chem., 2016, 27, 1447–1455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wei Y, Zheng J, Ma L, Liu X, Xu S, Wang S, Pei J, Cheng K, Yuan S and Yu J, Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging, 2022, 49, 2761–2773. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Collins J, Waldmann CM, Drake C, Slavik R, Ha NS, Sergeev M, Lazari M, Shen B, Chin FT, Moore M, Sadeghi S, Phelps ME, Murphy JM and van Dam RM, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 2017, 114, 11309–11314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Tavaré R, McCracken MN, Zettlitz KA, Salazar FB, Olafsen T, Witte ON and Wu AM, J. Nucl. Med, 2015, 56, 1258–1264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tavaré R, Escuin-Ordinas H, Mok S, McCracken MN, Zettlitz KA, Salazar FB, Witte ON, Ribas A and Wu AM, Cancer Res., 2016, 76, 73–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nagle VL, Henry KE, Hertz CA, Graham MS, Campos C, Parada LF, Pandit-Taskar N, Schietinger A, Mellinghoff IK and Lewis JS, Clin. Cancer Res, 2021, 27, 1958–1966. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supp Info

RESOURCES