Abstract
Particle-based MRI contrast agents have been the focus of recent studies, primarily due to the possibility of preparing multimodal particles capable of simultaneously targeting, imaging, and treating specific biological tissues in vivo. In addition, particle-based MRI contrast agents often have greater sensitivity than commercially available, soluble agents due to decreased molecular tumbling rates following surface immobilization, leading to increased relaxivities. Mesoporous silica particles are particularly attractive substrates due to their large internal surface areas. In this study, we immobilized a unique phosphonate-containing ligand onto mesoporous silica particles with a range of pore diameters, pore volumes, and surface areas, and Gd(III) ions were then chelated to the particles. Per-Gd(III) ionic relaxivities ranged from approximate 2 to 10 mM−1s−1 (37 °C, 60 MHz), compared to 3.0 – 3.5 mM−1 s−1 for commercial agents. The large surface areas allowed many Gd(III) ions to be chelated, leading to per-particle relaxivities of 3.3 × 107 mM−1s−1, which is the largest value measured for a biologically-suitable particle.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a non-invasive diagnostic technique that provides high-resolution, three-dimensional images of anatomic soft tissue.1,2 Gd(III) complexes are widely used to increase the sensitivity of the technique, allowing images of early stages of disease to be collected.3–6 The large number of unpaired electrons in the Gd(III) ion leads to increased proton relaxivities, with most commercial Gd(III) complexes producing values of ~ 3.0 mM−1s−1 at 37 °C and 60 MHz. Interest in improved resolution and diagnosis7,8 has motivated research into new ligands and hybrid materials as components in new contrast agents. Gd(III) chelators have been conjugated to a variety of scaffolds9 including nanoparticles,10–12 dendrimers,13,14 proteins,15,16 viral capsids,17 silica particles,18–21 zeolites,35 as well as other hybrid materials.22 Recent reports have shown that grafting Gd(III) chelates onto a solid support can provide a highly efficient imaging agent with a large per-Gd(III) relaxivity, and also delivers large quantities of the contrast agent to a single location through surface modification with tissue-targeting biomolecules.19–21,23 Mesoporous materials have shown much promise in the field, as their large surface areas allow many Gd(III) chelators to be functionalized onto each particle. Mesoporous materials have also been shown to increase the sensitivity of MR probes in vivo.19–21 An important feature of these materials is the ability to control water exchange to the metal center, due to the porous nature of the support. Control of water exchange is important because it is directly related to relaxivity. The relaxivities of commercial complexes are often restricted by slow water exchange.
Lanthanide ions readily complex with carboxylates,24a hydroxypyridinones,24 and alkoxides.25 Many studies have illustrated the use of phosphorus-containing ligands to sequester Ln(III) ions,26–32 and diphosphonate ligands have been shown to be efficient materials for the removal of lanthanide ions over a range of pH values.29–32 The ligand "NDP2" (imidodi(methanediphosphate)) has been shown to be a highly efficient Gd(III) chelator, even compared to the diethylenetriamine pentaacetate (DTPA) ligand used in the commercial agent Magnevist.29 In designing a solid-based contrast agent, an additional benefit of using NDP2 as a Gd(III) ligand is that it can easily be appended onto silica supports.
Our procedure for modifying silica particles was similar to that described by Shkrob et al., who described modifying the surface through reaction of surface silanols with aminopropyl triethoxysilane followed by reaction with methylene bis(phosphonic dichloride) in the presence of triethylamine (Scheme 1).29 We compared three types of mesoporous silica particles, called "APMS" (acid-prepared mesoporous silica), as supports for the NDP2 ligand. APMS has previously been shown to be non-toxic and non-immunogenic.22 The synthesis is straightforward, requires less than 2 hours, and can be scaled up to 800 g in a single batch and 3 kg in multiple batches. Sample 1 was prepared as previously described,19,23,33 leading to a material with an average pore diameter of 36 Å (Table 1 and Figure 1). Sample 2 was prepared by resuspending calcined 1 in water overnight, which increases the number of silanol groups on the surface. Based on water vapor physisorption isotherms, rehydroxylation can cause as much as a four-fold increase in the number of silanol groups.34
Scheme 1.
Synthesis of NDP2-Gd complexes within porous silica particles.
Table 1.
Physical Properties and Relaxivities of Porous Silica Particles.
| as-made | functionalized | per-Gd relaxivity | per-particle relaxivity | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample |
dpore (Å) |
SABET (m2/g) |
Vpore (cm3/g) |
dpore (Å) |
SABET (m2/g) |
Vpore (cm3/g) |
r1 (mM−1s−1) |
r2 (mM−1s−1) |
r1 (mM−1s−1 × 107) |
r2 (mM−1s−1 × 107) |
| 1 | 36 | 790 | 0.87 | 33 | 380 | 0.41 | 4.6 | 15 | 3.3 | 11 |
| 2 | 39 | 780 | 0.65 | 34 | 350 | 0.35 | 6.0 | 17 | 1.7 | 5.0 |
| 3 | 55 | 690 | 0.97 | 45 | 380 | 0.56 | 10 | 23 | 2.4 | 5.4 |
| Gd-DOTA2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3.0 | 3.3 | - | - |
| Gd-DTPA2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3.5 | 3.9 | - | - |
Figure 1.
N2 physisorption isotherm and pore size distribution (inset) for unmodified and modified versions of 1.
Although the physical properties of 1 and 2 were similar, the larger number of silanols should increase the number of NDP2 ligands on the surface and ultimately also increase the per-particle Gd relaxivity. To prepare sample 3, the synthesis of the silica particles was altered by heating the reaction mixture for a slightly longer time than for sample 1 and by letting the reaction mixture cool slowly to room temperature rather than quenching it in an ice bath. These changes led to a material with a smaller surface area than sample 1 (690 vs. 790 m2/g) but a significantly larger average pore diameter (55 vs. 36 Å) (Table 1).
After modifying the three samples, ion exchange with GdCl3 led to the immobilization of Gd(III). Upon functionalization, the surface area, pore volume, and average pore diameter of all three samples decreased, indicating that the ligand had been successfully attached to the pore surfaces. Although the synthesis method makes characterization of the Gd(III) coordination environment difficult, Scheme 1 shows a proposed structure consistent with similar literature syntheses. In this structure, 1–2 water molecules are able to interact with the paramagnetic Gd(III) ion. As shown in Table 1, the per-Gd relaxivities of all three samples were higher than the commercially available complexes Gd-DOTA and Gd-DTPA, which are currently used as MRI contrast agents. This lends support to the influence of the phosphonate ligand on relaxivity, as well as the idea that an increased number of water molecules may be coordinated to the metal ion. However, the relaxivity values for 3 were especially notable, with r1 ≈ 3 times higher and r2 ≈ 5 – 7 times higher than the corresponding values for commercial agents.
As reports have demonstrated,18c,d relaxivity values for mesoporous silica materials are dependent on pore diameter. Water molecules are able to move more freely within larger pore materials, increasing both inner and outer sphere relaxivity. Thus, for porous solids with comparable levels of ligand and Gd modification, the material with a larger average pore diameter should show higher relaxivity values. The difference in per-Gd and per-particle relaxivities between 1 and 2 is less obvious, because they have similar measured pore diameters after functionalization and should have approximately the same water diffusion values. In sample 2, rehydroxylation did lead to increased surface functionalization with the NDP2 ligand; however, the amount of Gd(III) captured in this sample was less than in 1. Thus the per-particle relaxivities of 2 are slightly less than 1 (1.7 vs. 3.3 × 107 mM−1s−1), while the decreased local motion of the Gd complexes resulting from molecular crowding led to a slightly increased per-Gd relaxivity (6.0 vs. 4.6 mM−1s−1). Finally, a comparison of the per-particle relaxivities measured in this study to a variety of types of materials and complexes found in the literature (Figure 2) shows that while the per-Gd relaxivities are similar, the larger particle diameter and surface area of APMS allows more Gd to be immobilized, producing higher per-particle relaxivities.
Figure 2.
Comparison of relaxivities values obtained in this study to literature values. Note the linear axis for per-Gd values and the logarithmic axis for per-particle values. All data are taken at 1.41T except (a) 3T, (b) 0.73T.
In conclusion, we have developed a new class of biologically suitable MRI contrast agents that capitalize on the strong binding affinity of the NDP2 ligand and the large internal surface area (exceeding 600 m2/g) of mesoporous silica. The per-Gd relaxivities were significantly higher than those of commercially available contrast agents, and the per-particle relaxivities were among the highest values measured in the literature. Because APMS is non-toxic, non-immunogenic, and excreted over time, these are exciting new materials for future in vivo studies.
Supplementary Material
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health under grant numbers T32ES0071, 1R41-CA126155–01A1, and HL069832. The authors would like to thank Professor Christopher J. Chang (University of California, Berkeley) for use of a 60 MHz relaxometer and Professor Jeremy L. Steinbacher (Canisius College) for helpful discussions.
Footnotes
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
Supporting Information. Experimental details, additional characterization including scanning electron micrographs, and relaxometric data. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
REFERENCES
- 1.Ananta JS, Godin B, Sehti R, Moriggi L, Liu X, Serda RE, Krishnamurthy R, Bolskar RD, Helm L, Ferrari M, Wilson LJ, Decuzzi P. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2010;5:815–821. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2010.203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Wong W, Chan KW. Gadolinium complexes as MRI contrast agents for diagnosis. In: Huang C, editor. Rare Earth Coordination Chemistry: Fundamentals and Applications. 1st Ed. Asia: Wiley; 2010. pp. 407–433. John Wiley & Sons (Asia) 2010, p. 407–410. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Caravan P, Ellison JJ, McMurry TJ, Lauffer RB. Chem. Rev. 1999;99:2293–2352. doi: 10.1021/cr980440x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Major JL, Meade TJ. Acc. Chem. Res. 2009;42:893–903. doi: 10.1021/ar800245h. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Port M, Idee JM, Medina C, Robic C, Sabatou M, Corot C. Biometals. 2008;21:469–490. doi: 10.1007/s10534-008-9135-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Raymond KN, Pierre VC. Bioconj. Chem. 2005;16:3–8. doi: 10.1021/bc049817y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Caravan P. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2006;35:512–523. doi: 10.1039/b510982p. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Werner EJ, Datta A, Jocher CJ, Raymond KN. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008;45:8568–8580. doi: 10.1002/anie.200800212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mastarone DJ, Harrison VSR, Eckermann AL, Parigi G, Luchinat C, Meade TJ. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011;133:5329–5337. doi: 10.1021/ja1099616. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Song Y, Xu X, MacRenaris KW, Zhang X-Q, Mirkin CA, Meade TJ. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009;48:9143–9147. doi: 10.1002/anie.200904666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.(a) Manus LM, Mastarone DJ, Waters EA, Zhang X-Q, Schultz-Sikma EA, MacRenaris KW, Ho D, Meade TJ. Nano Lett. 2010;10:484–489. doi: 10.1021/nl903264h. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Alric C, Taleb J, Le Duc G, Mandon C, Billotey C, Meur-Herland AL, Brochard T, Vocanson F, Janier M, Perriat P, Roux S, Tillement O. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008;130:5908–5915. doi: 10.1021/ja078176p. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Reynolds CH, Annan N, Beshah K, Huber JH, Shaber SH, Lenkinski RE, Wortman JA. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000;122:8940–8945. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Howes P, Green M, Bowers A, Parker D, Varma G, Kallumadil M, Hughes M, Warley A, Brain A, Botnar R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010;132:9833–9842. doi: 10.1021/ja1031634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.(a) Floyd WC, III, Klemm PJ, Smiles DE, Kohlgruber AC, Pierre VC, Mynar JL, Fréchet JMJ, Raymond KN. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011;133:2390–2393. doi: 10.1021/ja110582e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Klemm PJ, Floyd WC, III, Smiles DE, Fréchet JMJ, Raymond KN. Contrast Media & Mol. Imaging. 2012;7:95–99. doi: 10.1002/cmmi.483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Klemm PJ, Floyd WC, III, Andolina CM, Fréchet JMJ, Raymond KN. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2012 doi: 10.1002/ejic.201101167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.(a) Nwe K, Diane M, Henry BL, Regino CAS, Brechbiel MW. J. Inorg. Biochem. 2011;105:722–727. doi: 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2011.01.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Nwe K, Bryant LH, Jr, Brechbiel MW. Bioconjugate Chem. 2010;21:1014–1017. doi: 10.1021/bc1000802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Liepold LO, Abedin MJ, Buckhouse ED, Frank JA, Young MJ, Doublas T. Nano Lett. 2009;9:4520–4526. doi: 10.1021/nl902884p. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.(a) Shapiro MG, Szablowski JO, Langer R, Jasanoff J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009;131:2484–2486. doi: 10.1021/ja8086938. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Yang JJ, Yang J, Wei L, Zurkiya O, Yang W, Li S, Zou J, Zhou Y, Wilkins Maniccia AL, Mao H, Zhao F, Malchow R, Zhao S, Johnson J, Hu Z, Krogstad E, Liu Z-R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008;130:9260–9267. doi: 10.1021/ja800736h. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Lee S-M, Song Y, Hong BJ, MacRenaris KW, Mastarone DJ, OHalloran TV, Meade TJ, Nguyen ST. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010;49:1–6. doi: 10.1002/anie.201004867. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.(a) Datta A, Raymond KN. Acc. Chem. Res. 2009;42:938–9474. doi: 10.1021/ar800250h. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Garimella P, Datta A, Romanini DW, Raymond KN, Francis MB. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011;133:14704–14709. doi: 10.1021/ja204516p. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.(a) Liu G, Tse NMK, Hill MR, Kennedy DF, Drummond CJ. Aust. J. Chem. 2011;64:617–624. [Google Scholar]; (b) Lee JE, Lee N, Kim H, Kim J, Choi SH, Kim JH, Kim T, Song IC, Park SP, Moon WK, Hyeon T. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010;132:552–557. doi: 10.1021/ja905793q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Carniato F, Tei L, Cossi M, Marchese L, Botta M. Chem.- Eur. J. 2010;16:10727–10734. doi: 10.1002/chem.201000499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (d) Carniato F, Tei L, Dastru W, Marchese L, Botta M. Chem. Commun. 2009;10:1246–1248. doi: 10.1039/b820591d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Steinbacher JL, Lathrop SA, Cheng K, Hillegass JM, Kauppinen RA, Mossman BT, Landry CC. Small. 2010;6:2678–2682. doi: 10.1002/smll.201001447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Taylor KML, Kim JS, Rieter WJ, An H, Lin W, Lin W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008;130:2154–2155. doi: 10.1021/ja710193c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Vivero-Escoto JL, Taylor-Pashow KML, Huxford RC, Della Rocca J, Okoruwa C, An H, Lin W, Lin W. Small. 2011;7:3519–3528. doi: 10.1002/smll.201100521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.(a) Tu C, Ma X, Pantazis P, Kauzlarich SM, Louie AY. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010;132:2016–2023. doi: 10.1021/ja909303g. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Bridot J-L, Faure A-C, Laurent S, Riviere C, Billotey C, Hiba B, Janier M, Josserand V, Coll JL, Vander Elst L, Muller R, Roux S, Perriat P, Tillement O. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007;129:5076–5984. doi: 10.1021/ja068356j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Shao Y-Z, Liu L-Z, Song S-Q, Cao R-H, Liu H, Cui CY, Li X, Bie MJ, Li L. Contrast Media Mol. Imaging. 2011;6:110–118. doi: 10.1002/cmmi.412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (d) Morimoto H, Minato M, Nakagawa T, Sato M, Kobayashi Y, Gonda K, Takeda M, Ohuchi N, Suzuki N. J. Sol-Gel Sci. Technol. 2011;59:650–657. [Google Scholar]; (e) Zhang X, Brynda M, Britt RD, Carroll EC, Larsen DS, Louie AY, Kauzlarich SM. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007;129:10668–10669. doi: 10.1021/ja074144q. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Hillegass JM, Blumen SR, Cheng K, MacPherson MB, Alexeeva V, Lathrop SA, Beuschel SL, Steinbacher JL, Butnor KJ, Ramos-Niño ME, Shukla A, James TA, Weiss DJ, Taatjes DJ, Pass HI, Carbone M, Landry CC, Mossman BT. Int. J. Cancer. 2011;129:233–244. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.(a) Franklin SJ, Raymond KN. Inorg. Chem. 1994;33:5794. [Google Scholar]; (b) Werner EJ, Avedano S, Botta M, Hay BP, Moore EG, Aime S, Raymond KN. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007;129:1870–1871. doi: 10.1021/ja068026z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Xu J, Franklin SJ, Wisenhunt DW, Jr, Raymond KN. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995;117:7245–7246. [Google Scholar]; (d) Pierre VC, Botta M, Aime S, Raymond KN. Inorg. Chem. 2006;45:8355–8364. doi: 10.1021/ic061262q. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (e) Cohen SM, Petoud S, Raymond KN. Chem. Eur. J. 2000;7:272–279. doi: 10.1002/1521-3765(20010105)7:1<272::aid-chem272>3.0.co;2-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Bunzli J-CG, Piguet C. Chem. Rev. 2002;102:1897–1928. doi: 10.1021/cr010299j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Stryganyuk G, Shalapska T, Voloshinovskii A, Gektin A, Krasnikov A, Zazubovich S. J. Lumin. 2011;131:2027–2035. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Robic C, Catoen S, Goltstein DM-C, Idee J-M, Port M. Biometals. 2011;24:759–768. doi: 10.1007/s10534-011-9422-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Herlinger AW, Ferrar JR, Chiarizia R, Horwitz EP. Polyhedron. 1997;16:1843–1854. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Shkrob IA, Tisch AR, Marin TW, Muntean JV, Kaminski MD, Kropf JA. Indust. & Chem. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011;50:4686–4696. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Yantasee W, Fryxell GE, Addleman RS, Wiacek RJ, Koonsiripaiboon V, Pattamakomsan K, Sukwarotwat V, Xu J, Raymond KN. J. Hazad. Mater. 2009;168:1233–1238. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.03.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Yantasee W, Fryxell GE, Porter GA, Pattamakomsan K, Sukwarotwat V, Chouyyok W, Koonsiripaiboon V, Xu J, Raymond KN. Nanomed. 2010;6:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.nano.2009.05.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Griffith CS, Reyes MDL, Scales N, Hanna JV, Luca V. ACS Appl. Mater. Interf. 2010;2:3436–3446. doi: 10.1021/am100891u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Gallis KW, Landry CC. U.S. Patent. 2002:6334988.; (b) Landry CC, Nassivera TW. 20090220791 U.S. Patent Appl.
- 34.Naono H, Hakuman M, Tanaka T, Tamura N, Nakai K. J. Coll. Interf. Sci. 2000;225:411–420. doi: 10.1006/jcis.2000.6777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.(a) Balkus KJ, Jr, Sherry AD, Young SW. 5,122,363 U.S. Patent. 1992; (b) Young SW, Qing F, Rubin D, Balkus KJ, Engel JS, Lang J, Dow WC, Mutch JD, Miller RA. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 1995;5:499–508. doi: 10.1002/jmri.1880050504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Bresinska I, Balkus KJ., Jr J. Phys. Chem. 1994;98:12989–12994. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.



