Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Nov 7.
Published in final edited form as: Analyst. 2013 Nov 7;138(21):6266–6269. doi: 10.1039/c3an01182h

A Smart T1-weighted MRI Contrast Agent for Uranyl Cation based on a DNAzyme-Gadolinium Conjugate

Weichen Xu , Hang Xing , Yi Lu †,*
PMCID: PMC3813883  NIHMSID: NIHMS520899  PMID: 24005082

Abstract

Rational design of smart MRI contrast agents with high specificity for metal ions remains to be a challenge. Here, we report a general strategy for the design of smart MRI contrast agents for detecting metal ions based on conjugation of a DNAzyme with a gadolinium complex. The 39E DNAzyme, which has high selectivity for UO22+, was conjugated to Gd(III)-DOTA and streptavidin. The binding of UO22+ to its 39E DNAzyme resulted in the dissociation of Gd(III)-DOTA from the massive streptavidin, leading to a decrease in T1 correlation time, and a change in MRI signal.


Metal ions play critical roles in many biological systems. However, the important and vital functions of many metal ions are often offset by toxicity when the metal ions are in excess or when non-physiological metal ions, such as heavy metal ions, are present. In order to achieve a deeper understanding of the mechanisms by which these metal ions exert their beneficial or deleterious effects, tools that can monitor these metal ions in biological systems are required. Toward this goal, tremendous effort has been applied towards developing different types of metal ion sensors, such as fluorescent, colorimetric, and electrochemical sensors.112 Among them, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is unique, as it is the only type that allows non-invasive three-dimensional imaging in vivo. Critical to the success of this method is the development of MRI contrast agents, which are paramagnetic compounds such as Gd(III) chelates or superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles, used to alter the magnetic relaxivity in different tissue types. Accordingly, a smart contrast agent is the combination of an MRI contrast agent with a selective reagent that allows for target detection by alternating the magnetic relaxivity.1317 Meade and coworkers pioneered this area by developing a smart contrast agent for the detection of Ca2+.18 Since that time, T1-weighted smart contrast agents have been developed for the recognition of Ca2+,19 Zn2+,20,21 and Cu2+.22,23 However, the rational design of smart contrast agents with high specificity for a specific metal ion remains a significant challenge. First, it is difficult to design and synthesize molecules that can recognize different metal ions in their different oxidation states with high affinity and selectivity. Additionally, transforming the binding into an MRI signal without affecting the selectivity is not trivial.

In order to design smart MRI contrast agents for a wide range of metal ions, a target recognition domain with high selectivity and specificity must be combined with the imaging domain. However, the rational design of a gadolinium complex that is selective for one metal ion over others can be very challenging and often times is the major roadblock to progress. To meet this challenge, the use of combinatorial selection processes can be an effective tool. Metal ion-responsive DNAzymes are excellent candidates for this purpose.24,25 DNAzymes are catalytic DNA molecules that are obtained through in vitro selection or Systematic Evolution of Ligands by Exponential Enrichment (SELEX) from a large random DNA library consisting of up to 1015 different sequences.2630 The broad range of sequence space allows for a wide variety of secondary and tertiary structure, enabling a large range of possible reactivity including catalyzing RNA hydrolysis,31 the Diels-Alder reaction,32,33 and dephosphorylation.34 A powerful advantage of the use of DNAzymes is that the selection conditions may be controlled to find DNAzymes specific for a particular metal ion of interest, without advance knowledge of what specific sequence or binding motif is necessary. Finally, DNA is relatively simple to synthesize and modify, and thus once a DNAzyme is selected, the modification of that DNAzyme for different signal outputs is straightforward. As a result, a number of DNAzymes have been selected, and developed into fluorescent, colorimetric, and electrochemical sensors.3543 However, to date no smart MRI contrast agents based on DNAzymes have been reported.

In this work, we report a smart T1-weighted MRI contrast agent for uranyl, based on the conjugation of a uranyl-selective DNAzyme with a Gd-DOTA contrast agent. Since DNAzymes can be selected for any metal ion of interest, and the conjugation chemistry and signal transduction can be applied on any DNAzyme system, this method can be used for development of smart MRI contrast agents for a wide variety of metal ions and can thus help expand our understanding of the role of metal ions in biology.

In order to develop smart MRI contrast agent with switchable relaxivity in response to the presence of uranyl, a uranyl-selective 39E DNAzyme is chosen to combine with MRI imaging agent Gd-DOTA. The 39E DNAzyme consists of an enzyme strand called 39E, which is able to catalyze the hydrolysis of a substrate strand called 39S, containing a scissile ribonucleotide adenosine (rA) in the middle (Figure 1).44,45 This DNAzyme was isolated through in vitro selection and has a high binding affinity for UO22+ (Kd = 463 nM). Because of these properties, the 39E DNAzyme has also been developed into fluorescent and colorimetric sensors for UO22+ with detection limit down to 45 pM, and selectivity of more than a million fold.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Schematic view of the 39E DNAzyme-based smart MRI contrast agent for the sensing of UO22+.

The design of the 39E DNAzyme-based smart MRI contrast agent is shown in Figure 1. The enzymatic strand 39E (green) contains a biotin at its 3' end, which is used to couple with streptavidin. The Gd-DOTA is attached to the 5' end of the substrate strand 39S (black) through an amine-carboxylic acid coupling reaction (Figure S1). At ambient temperature, these two strands are hybridized forming a stable structure containing the large streptavidin protein, because the melting temperature of the two DNA strands is above room temperature. In the presence of UO22+, however, the DNAzyme can cleave the 39S strand. The resulting shorter fragments have lower melting temperature, which is below ambient temperature, thus allowing a release of the cleaved 39S strand containing the Gd-DOTA from the enzyme strand and streptavidin. Based on Solomon-Bloembergen-Morgan theory, the relaxivity of the gadolinium compound is regulated by the rotation correlation time.13 Since larger molecules have longer rotation correlation time, changing the size of the gadolinium compound leads to a change of its relaxivity.46 Therefore, after the cleavage and release of the 39S strand, the relaxivity of Gd-DOTA associated with the much smaller cleaved product is changed, indicating the presence of uranyl cations. We have previously used a similar principle in developing a smart MRI contrast agent system for adenosine.47 Compared with previously reported smart MRI contrast agents based on superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles,48,49 the Gd-DOTA-based contrast agent is smaller and, therefore, easier to use for potential intracellular imaging.

To our knowledge, the activity of 39E has not been reported at high concentrations of streptavidin. As streptavidin may bind to UO22+ non-specifically and affect the activity of the DNAzyme, it is important to test the activity of the 39E DNAzyme in the presence of streptavidin. To perform the experiment, 30 µM of the 39E DNAzyme and carboxyfluorescein-labeled 39S were dissolved in 50 mM MES-Na (pH 5.5) buffer. The solution was heated up to 90 °C and cooled to ambient temperature over one hour. Streptavidin was added into the solution at a concentration of 30 µM. The solution was incubated with different concentrations of uranyl cation ranging from 0.2 to 10 µM for 30 min. The reaction was then quenched upon the addition of 8 M urea and 100 mM EDTA and the product was analyzed by denaturing gel electrophoresis. As shown in Figure 2, in the presence of 0.2 µM uranyl, only very small amount of 39S was cleaved. When uranyl concentration increased to 0.5 µM, ~ 20% 39S was cleaved. The percentage of cleavage further increased to ~ 65% with the incubation of 10 µM uranyl. Although the activity of 39E decreases in the presence of high concentration of streptavidin when compared to previously reported results, the 39E DNAzyme remains fully functional and can be used for quantitative detection of UO22+.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Activity assay of 30 µM 39E DNAzyme in the presence of 30 µM streptavidin.

The DOTA was first conjugated to the 5' end of the amine modified DNA strand through an amine-carboxylic acid coupling reaction (Figure 3). In a typical reaction, NHS activated DOTA was dissolved in acetonitrile at a concentration of 0.5 mg/µL. Modified DNA strands were dissolved in 50 mM carbonate buffer (pH 10) at a concentration of 25 µM. Aliquots of the NHS-DOTA solution (4 µL) were added into 1 mL DNA solution once per hour for five hours. During the synthesis process, the mixture was shaken gently at 4 °C. Shaking was continued for another 3 to 5 hours after the final addition. The product was then desalted on a C-18 cartridge (Sep-Pak, Waters) and checked by MALDI-MS. Typical yield for conjugated DNA with less than 20 bases is 85%-95%. It is critical to keep the entire synthesis free from metal contamination as DOTA is a strong chelator for almost all metal cations.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Conjugation of the DOTA ligand to DNA and incorporation of Gd(III) into the DOTA-DNA conjugate.

To incorporate Gd(III) into the above DOTA-DNA conjugate, the DOTA conjugated DNA was dissolved in 50 mM acetate buffer (pH 5.55) at a concentration of 150 µM; GdCl3 solution (10 mM) was added until the concentration reached 180 µM. GdCl3 and DNA-DOTA solutions were mixed slowly and evenly to avoid precipitation. The solution was then kept at 75 °C for 30–45 min, and the final product was purified by size exclusion chromatography (PD10, GE Health Care Life Sciences) and lyophilized.

To investigate whether such synthesized DNAzyme-based smart contrast agents can be used for quantitative MRI sensing of UO22+, the T1 relaxation time of 39E smart contrast agent was measured after incubation with different concentrations of UO22+. As shown in Figure 4a, it was observed that T1 relaxation increased from 1.55 s in the absence of UO22+, to almost 2 s when 2 µM UO22+ was present. Higher concentrations of UO22+ resulted in longer T1 relaxation times. The T1 calibration curve had a logarithmic shape and reached saturation when the concentration of UO22+ was above 2 µM. These results suggest that the 39E DNAzyme-based smart MRI contrast agent can respond to UO22+ quantitatively and that the detection range of this agent is from 0.2 µM to 2 µM.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

(a) T1 response of the 39E DNAzyme-based smart contrast agent to UO22+ at varying concentrations. The inset shows the T1 response at low UO22+ concentration. (b) Selectivity of the 39E DNAzyme-based smart contrast agent towards 10 µM of different divalent metal ions. The T1 increase can only be observed when UO22+ is present.

Furthermore, the selectivity of the smart MRI contrast agent was investigated by measuring the T1 response to 10 µM of different metal ions. As shown in Figure 4b, among all the metal ions tested, including UO22+, Cd2+, Hg2+, Pb2+ and Zn2+, only UO22+ resulted in significant increase of the T1 of 0.35 s. Without UO22+, or with other metal cations, no significant T1 change was observed. The T1 response of different metal ions suggests the great selectivity of the smart MRI contrast agent.

In conclusion, we have designed and demonstrated the smart T1-weighted MRI contrast agent for uranyl detection based on the 39E DNAzyme. It exhibits T1 response to uranyl quantitatively and selectively. As different DNAzymes for a wide range of metal ions are achievable through in vitro selection, the method shown here can be applied to other metal ions based on appropriate choice of DNAzyme.

Supplementary Material

ESI

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (ES16865) and the Department of Energy (DE-FG02-08ER64568). We wish to thank Drs. Thomas Meade, Keith MacRennaris, and Ying Song of Northwestern University for helpful discussions and the use of their relaxometer, Dr. Edward Treadwell of Eastern Illinois University for the use of his 60 MHz NMR spectrometer, and Ms. Nancy Dodge for the acquisition of the MRI signals.

Notes and References

  • 1.Zhang J, Campbell RE, Ting AY, Tsien RY. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2002;3:906–918. doi: 10.1038/nrm976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Que EL, Domaille DW, Chang CJ. Chem. Rev. (Washington, DC, U. S.) 2008;108:1517–1549. doi: 10.1021/cr078203u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.McRae R, Bagchi P, Sumalekshmy S, Fahrni CJ. Chem. Rev. (Washington, DC, U. S.) 2009;109:4780–4827. doi: 10.1021/cr900223a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Liu JW, Cao ZH, Lu Y. Chem. Rev. (Washington, DC, U. S.) 2009;109:1948–1998. doi: 10.1021/cr030183i. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Li T, Dong S, Wang E. Anal. Chem. 2009;81:2144–2149. doi: 10.1021/ac900188y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Li T, Wang E, Dong S. Anal. Chem. 2010;82:1515–1520. doi: 10.1021/ac902638v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Liu J, Karpus J, Wegner SV, Chen PR, He C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013;135:3144–3149. doi: 10.1021/ja3106779. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pluth MD, Tomat E, Lippard SJ. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2011;80:333–355. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-061009-091643. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tomat E, Lippard SJ. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2010;14:225–230. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2009.12.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wegner SV, Arslan H, Sunbul M, Yin J, He C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010;132:2567–2569. doi: 10.1021/ja9097324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wegner SV, Sun F, Hernandez N, He C. Chem. Commun. (Cambridge, U. K.) 2011;47:2571–2573. doi: 10.1039/c0cc04292g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Jiang P, Guo Z. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2004;248:205–229. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Caravan P, Ellison JJ, McMurry TJ, Lauffer RB. Chem. Rev. (Washington, DC, U. S.) 1999;99:2293–2352. doi: 10.1021/cr980440x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Meade TJ, Taylor AK, Bull SR. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2003;13:597–602. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2003.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kikuchi K. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2010;39:2048–2053. doi: 10.1039/b819316a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Caravan P. Acc. Chem. Res. 2009;42:851–862. doi: 10.1021/ar800220p. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.De Leon-Rodriguez LM, Ortiz A, Weiner AL, Zhang SR, Kovacs Z, Kodadek T, Sherry AD. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002;124:3514–3515. doi: 10.1021/ja025511v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Li WH, Fraser SE, Meade TJ. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999;121:1413–1414. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Li WH, Parigi G, Fragai M, Luchinat C, Meade TJ. Inorg. Chem. 2002;41:4018–4024. doi: 10.1021/ic0200390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hanaoka K, Kikuchi K, Urano Y, Nagano T. J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans. 2. 2001:1840–1843. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hanaoka K, Kikuchi K, Urano Y, Narazaki M, Yokawa T, Sakamoto S, Yamaguchi K, Nagano T. Chem. Biol. 2002;9:1027–1032. doi: 10.1016/s1074-5521(02)00216-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Que EL, Chang CJ. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006;128:15942–15943. doi: 10.1021/ja065264l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Que EL, Gianolio E, Baker SL, Wong AP, Aime S, Chang CJ. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009;131:8527–8536. doi: 10.1021/ja900884j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Breaker RR, Joyce GF. Chem. Biol. 1994;1:223–229. doi: 10.1016/1074-5521(94)90014-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Breaker RR. Nat. Biotechnol. 1997;15:427–431. doi: 10.1038/nbt0597-427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ellington AD, Szostak JW. Nature. 1990;346:818–822. doi: 10.1038/346818a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tuerk C, Gold L. Science. 1990;249:505–510. doi: 10.1126/science.2200121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Breaker RR. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 1997;1:26–31. doi: 10.1016/s1367-5931(97)80105-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Santoro SW, Joyce GF. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1997;94:4262–4266. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.9.4262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bock LC, Griffin LC, Latham JA, Vermaas EH, Toole JJ. Nature. 1992;355:564–566. doi: 10.1038/355564a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Li J, Lu Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000;122:10466–10467. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kurz M, Breaker RR. Curr. Top. Microbiol. 1999;243:137–158. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-60142-2_8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chandra M, Silverman SK. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008;130:2936–2937. doi: 10.1021/ja7111965. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chandrasekar J, Silverman SK. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013;110:5315–5320. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1221946110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Liu ZJ, Mei SHJ, Brennan JD, Li YF. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003;125:7539–7545. doi: 10.1021/ja035208+. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Xiao Y, Rowe AA, Plaxco KW. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007;129:262–263. doi: 10.1021/ja067278x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hollenstein M, Hipolito C, Lam C, Dietrich D, Perrin DM. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008;47:4346–4350. doi: 10.1002/anie.200800960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Li T, Dong SJ, Wang E. Anal. Chem. 2009;81:2144–2149. doi: 10.1021/ac900188y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Yin BC, Ye BC, Tan WH, Wang H, Xie CC. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009;131 doi: 10.1021/ja9062426. 14624-+. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lan T, Furuya K, Lu Y. Chem. Commun. (Cambridge, U. K.) 2010;46:3896–3898. doi: 10.1039/b926910j. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Wang ZD, Lu Y. J. Mater. Chem. 2009;19:1788–1798. doi: 10.1039/B813939C. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Xing H, Wong NY, Xiang Y, Lu Y. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2012;16:429–435. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2012.03.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wu P, Hwang K, Lan T, Lu Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013;135:5254–5257. doi: 10.1021/ja400150v. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Liu JW, Brown AK, Meng XL, Cropek DM, Istok JD, Watson DB, Lu Y. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2007;104:2056–2061. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0607875104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Brown AK, Liu JW, He Y, Lu Y. ChemBioChem. 2009;10:486–492. doi: 10.1002/cbic.200800632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Caravan P, Farrar CT, Frullano L, Uppal R. Contrast Media Mol. Imaging. 2009;4:89–100. doi: 10.1002/cmmi.267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Xu WC, Lu Y. Chem. Commun. (Cambridge, U. K.) 2011;47:4998–5000. doi: 10.1039/c1cc10161g. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Yigit MV, Mazumdar D, Kim HK, Lee JH, Dintsov B, Lu Y. ChemBioChem. 2007;8:1675–1678. doi: 10.1002/cbic.200700323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Yigit MV, Mazumdar D, Lu Y. Bioconjugate Chem. 2008;19:412–417. doi: 10.1021/bc7003928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

ESI

RESOURCES