Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS AuthorChoice logoLink to ACS AuthorChoice
. 2020 Jun 1;11(13):2009–2018. doi: 10.1021/acschemneuro.0c00313

Ruthenium-Mediated 18F-Fluorination and Preclinical Evaluation of a New CB1 Receptor Imaging Agent [18F]FPATPP

Salla Lahdenpohja †, Noora A Rajala †, Jatta S Helin ‡,§, Merja Haaparanta-Solin ‡,§, Olof Solin †,∥,⊥, Francisco R López-Picón ‡,§, Anna K Kirjavainen †,*
PMCID: PMC7497626  PMID: 32479723

Abstract

graphic file with name cn0c00313_0008.jpg

Cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1R) controls various physiological and pathological conditions, including memory, motivation, and inflammation, and is thus an interesting target for positron emission tomography (PET). Herein, we report a ruthenium-mediated radiolabeling synthesis and preclinical evaluation of a new CB1R specific radiotracer, [18F]FPATPP. [18F]FPATPP was produced with 16.7 ± 5.7% decay-corrected radiochemical yield and >95 GBq/μmol molar activity. The tracer showed high stability, low defluorination, and high specific binding to CB1Rs in mouse brain.

Keywords: Positron emission tomography, radiofluorination, fluorine-18, cannabinoid receptor, CB1R, FPATPP

Introduction

Cannabinoid receptors, part of the endocannabinoid system, are expressed throughout the nervous system. Cannabinoid receptors are divided into two classes, cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1R) and cannabinoid receptor 2 (CB2R). CB1R is a seven transmembrane domain G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) and is one of the most abundant GPCRs in the brain.1,2 In the brain, CB1Rs are localized, e.g., in cerebral cortex, especially the allocortex, basal ganglia and globus pallidus, substantia nigra, cerebellum, and medulla. Among vertebrate species, CB1Rs are highly conserved.3,4 Until recently, unlike CB1Rs, the expression of CB2R in the CNS was thought to be very low.1,2 However, recent studies have demonstrated the expression of the CB2A isoform in the brain. These receptors can be upregulated under pathological conditions.5,6 In the periphery and the brain, CB1Rs are mainly found in presynaptic neurons where they inhibit release of neurotransmitters, e.g., γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and glutamate.1,2 Activation of CB1Rs leads to activation of various signal transduction pathways, such as adenylyl cyclase regulation and ion channel regulation.1 CB1Rs control various physiological and pathological conditions such as brain development, memory and learning, appetite, motivation, sensation of pain, and inflammation. This result is in agreement with the high CB1R concentration found in the sensory, cognition, and motor regions in the brain.2 Alterations in the endocannabinoid system and CB1R expression can be caused by various neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative conditions,7 e.g., Alzheimer’s disease (AD) impairs the CB1R activity.8

Positron emission tomography (PET) has been utilized to monitor CB1R expression in humans. Until this point, a few CB1R specific 11C- or 18F-labeled radioligands have been developed, such as (3R,5R)-5-(3-[11C]methoxyphenyl)-3-[(R)-1-phenylethylamino]-1-(4-trifluoromethylphenyl) ([11C]MePPEP, [11C]1),9 (3R,5R)-5-(3-([18F]fluoromethoxy)phenyl)-3-(((R)-1-phenylethyl)amino)-1-(4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)pyrrolidin-2-one ([18F]FMPEP-d2, [18F]2),10 and N-{(1S,2S)-2-(3-cyanophenyl)-3-[4-(2-[18F]fluoroethoxy)phenyl]-1-methylpropyl}-2-methyl-2-[(5-methylpyridin-2-yl)oxy]propanamide ([18F]MK-9470, [18F]3, Figure 1).11,12

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Chemical structures of [11C]1, [18F]2, [18F]3, and [18F]4.

Fluorine-18 is an attractive radionuclide for PET applications due to its physical properties. Its relatively long half-life (109.8 min) enables even demanding synthesis and imaging protocols. The low positron energy (maximum ß+ energy 635 keV) allows for high resolution imaging. In addition, aqueous [18F]fluoride can be easily accessed with a cyclotron. However, the use of [18F]fluoride in traditional nucleophilic labeling reactions, especially in the labeling of electron-rich structures, can be challenging. Late-stage 18F-fluorination of arenes and heteroarenes with [18F]fluoride has been widely studied, and various synthesis methods with various labeling precursors have been developed.13−17 Metal-free approaches to 18F-fluorination utilize aryliodonium salts,18 arylsulfonium salts,19 and iodonium ylides20 as precursors. Metal-mediated 18F-fluorination utilizes complex Pd and Ni compounds as labeling precursors in the Pd-21 and Ni-mediated22 labeling processes, respectively. In Cu-mediated 18F-fluorination, arylboronic esters,23 arylboronic acids,24 and arylstannanes25 have been used as labeling precursors. Cu-mediated 18F-labeling has gained wide popularity due to the straightforward synthesis, relatively easy access to precursor materials, and wide substrate scope. However, Cu-mediated labeling of compounds containing unprotected alcohols or amines can lead to undesired side reactions. Recently, a Ru-mediated 18F-deoxyfluorination reaction via an in situ prepared η6-coordinated ruthenium–phenol complex was introduced.26 Ruthenium has been successfully applied in the 18F-fluorination of small molecules containing electron-rich structures, including unprotected amines and heterocyclic scaffolds,26 and in the site-specific 18F-labeling of small peptides.2718F-Deoxyfluorination is an appealing method due to the use of easily accessible phenols as starting materials.

Recently, [18F]FMPEP-d2 has been widely used in CB1R PET studies, e.g., for imaging in schizophrenia and changes in CB1Rs in first-episode psychosis,28 to study differences in brain CB1Rs between the sexes,29 in brown adipose tissue,30 and in AD.31 An advantage of [18F]FMPEP-d2 is its high selectivity toward CB1Rs over CB2Rs, especially in regard to the ongoing discussion5 of CB2R expression in the brain. A shortcoming of this tracer is its tendency toward radiolytic decomposition.10,32 In this study, our objective was to utilize the ruthenium-mediated radiofluorination pathway to produce a stable CB1R specific tracer (3R,5R)-5-(3-[18F]fluorophenyl)-3-(((R)-1-phenylethyl)amino)-1-(4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)pyrrolidin-2-one ([18F]FPATPP, [18F]4, Figure 1), an analogue of [18F]FMPEP-d2, and to evaluate its usefulness for imaging in vivo and ex vivo with wild-type mice.

Results and Discussion

Chemistry

We developed a simple route to produce a nonradioactive reference standard 4 for [18F]4, following the original precursor synthesis,10 as presented in Scheme 1. Briefly, compound 5 was produced from ethyl pyruvate, 4-aminobenzotrifluoride, and 3-methoxybenzaldehyde in acetic acid with 45% yield. Acid-catalyzed hydrolysis of 5 with hydrochloric acid and glacial acetic acid yielded compound 6. Compound 7 was separated from the mixture of isomers formed in the reaction with (R)-(+)-1-phenylethylamine and was further reduced with sodium cyanoborohydride to yield the reference standard 4. The ruthenium complex, CpRu(COD)Cl was synthesized as previously reported26 with a total synthesis yield of 20 ± 4% (n = 3)

Scheme 1. Synthesis of the Reference Standard 4.

Scheme 1

Open in a new tab

Reagents and conditions: (a) acetic acid, (b) concentrated HCl and acetic acid, (c) (R)-(+)-1-phenylethylamine and CH2Cl2, and (d) NaBH3CN and acetic acid.

Radiochemistry

We adapted a ruthenium-mediated labeling method26 to produce [18F]4 starting from the phenol precursor 8, CpRu(COD)Cl complex, and no-carrier added [18F]fluoride (Figure 2A). In situ prepared ruthenium–phenol complex was used for the 18F-radiolabeling reactions without purification. We performed an optimization study for the 18F-radiofluorination reaction. The effect of the activation method for aqueous [18F]fluoride on radiochemical yield (RCY) was studied by using solid-phase extraction (SPE) (bars 1–2, Figure 2B) and traditional azeotropic distillation (bar 4, Figure 2B). With the SPE method, the reaction temperature was varied from 100 to 130 °C (bar 1, Figure 2B) and further to 160 °C (bar 2, Figure 2B) with 10, 20, and 30 min reaction times. With the azeotropic distillation method, the reaction was conducted at 160 °C for 10–30 min (bar 4, Figure 2B). To study the effect of the base (potassium carbonate), we activated [18F]fluoride with the SPE method, added potassium carbonate to the reaction mixture, and followed the reaction for 30 min at 160 °C (bar 3, Figure 2B).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

(A) Synthesis of [18F]4. (B) Results from the process optimization. SPE + temperature denotes the solid-phase extraction with subsequent reaction temperature. Azeotropic + temperature denotes the traditional drying procedure of [18F]fluoride with subsequent reaction temperature. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD, n = 3).

In the SPE method, the ruthenium–phenol complex was used for the [18F]fluoride elution from the anion exchange cartridge with 93 ± 5% elution efficiency (n = 12). Using 100 °C reaction temperature, no reaction occurred even after 30 min. Elevation of the temperature from 100 to 130 °C afforded a RCY (based on HPLC analysis of the crude product) of 20.9 ± 0.3% (n = 3) after 30 min reaction (bar 1, Figure 2B). Further elevation of the temperature to 160 °C provided 47.4 ± 3.5% (n = 3) RCY (based on HPLC analysis of the crude product) after 30 min reaction (bar 2, Figure 2B).

The reaction occurred faster when [18F]fluoride was activated via azeotropic distillation compared to the activation with the SPE method. With azeotropic distillation activation (bar 4, Figure 2B), the RCY was already 36.3 ± 5.6% after a 10 min reaction and 47.9 ± 8.5% after a 30 min reaction (values based on HPLC analysis of the crude product) at 160 °C. Even though some of the initial [18F]fluoride was lost during the azeotropic drying process via adherence to the glass vial, the RCY was considerably higher (36 vs 16%) after a 10 min reaction at elevated temperature compared to the SPE method.

The reaction mixture is more basic when using the azeotropic distillation method due to the addition of potassium carbonate. The effect of the additional base was further studied with the SPE method (bar 3, Figure 2B); the RCY was 17.9 ± 5.5% (n = 3) after a 10 min reaction time and 61.8 ± 4.9% (n = 3) after a 30 min reaction time. Thus, the addition of a base improved the RCY by ∼30% with a 30 min reaction.

For tracer production for preclinical evaluation, larger amounts of initial [18F]fluoride were used and full purification and formulation processes were performed. For the radiofluorination, the SPE method with a 30 min reaction at 160 °C was utilized (conditions as in bar 2, Figure 2B). Elution efficiency was 93 ± 2% (n = 5). Total RCY was 16.7 ± 5.7% (decay-corrected to end of bombardment, d.c. to EOB, n = 5), molar activity (Am) > 95 GBq/μmol (d.c. to end of synthesis, EOS, n = 1) and radiochemical purity (RCP) 99.9 ± 0.1% at EOS (n = 5). Activity yield was 1.0 ± 0.4 GBq (n = 5) at EOS. Synthesis time was 87 ± 5 min (n = 5). The amount of ruthenium in the formulated product was 7.8 ± 1.8 μg/mL. Stability of [18F]4 was studied up to 5 h after the EOS, and no significant decomposition was observed (n = 2).

For PET applications, late-stage fluorination approaches are highly desirable to minimize the radiosynthesis time and to avoid the multiple purification processes often needed in multistep radiosyntheses. Ruthenium-mediated 18F-fluorination starting from a phenol precursor is a facile labeling method with reasonable synthesis time and good RCY. The present optimized reaction conditions, 30 min at 160 °C, were even harsher than typical reaction conditions of traditional nucleophilic 18F-fluorination. However, the good RCY and robustness of the present conditions (bar 3, Figure 2B), demonstrated by the low SD, are advantageous. For potential clinical applications, the ruthenium content in the formulated preparation must be considered. The maximum parenteral daily exposure of ruthenium according to ICH Q3D(R1) is limited to 10 μg/day.33 In this material, the ruthenium content is rather high, limiting the administrable volume of [18F]4. Thus, the purification process needs to be refined in order to reduce the ruthenium content before clinical tracer production can be conducted via ruthenium-mediated 18F-labeling.

For PET tracers for clinical use, a generally acknowledged limit for RCP is 95%. A significant difference was found in the RCP at EOS and stability of [18F]4 compared to [18F]FMPEP-d2. Lahdenpohja et al. reported that the RCP of [18F]FMPEP-d2 at EOS varied between 95.5–100% and was a function of radioactivity concentration, which was 20–200 MBq/mL (n > 150) in a 10% ethanolic solution, and the RCP was declined as a function of time due to radiolytic decomposition.32 The shelf life of the [18F]FMPEP-d2 was determined to be 120 min.32 For [18F]4 formulated in a similar ethanolic solution, the RCP at EOS was 99.9% when the RAC was 200–450 MBq/mL and the shelf life was determined to be at least 300 min, with no significant development of radioactive impurities. This difference in stability toward radiolysis is an advantage of [18F]4 as compared to [18F]FMPEP-d2.

Animal Studies

The animal studies were divided into five sections; in vivo 120 min dynamic PET/computed tomography (CT) studies, ex vivo digital autoradiography of brain at 120 min, ex vivo biodistribution at 30, 60, and 120 min, and radiometabolite analysis at 30, 60, and 120 min. The fifth separate section was an ex vivo biodistribution study with [18F]FMPEP-d2. The potency and receptor selectivity of [18F]4 was not determined separately. However, blocking studies using the selective CB1R antagonist rimonabant (SR141716) were conducted for both in vivo PET and ex vivo autoradiography and biodistribution. Rimonabant is highly specific for CB1Rs in the CNS (Ki 1.98 nM), and its selectivity for CB1Rs over CB2Rs is more than 1000 fold.34 Rimonabant is thus suitable to demonstrate the specificity of the tracer to CB1Rs.

In Vivo PET Imaging

In vivo evaluation was performed for [18F]4 with wild-type mice with (n = 3, 1 female) and without blocking (n = 3, 1 female). The [18F]4 tracer uptake reached its maximum 30 min after the injection. This observation is comparable to a mice study by Takkinen et al. with [18F]FMPEP-d2, which similarly reached its tracer uptake maximum at 30 min.31 In a rat study by Casteels et al. with [18F]MK-9470, the tracer uptake was considerably slower, reaching its maximum at 300 min post injection (p.i.).11 The peak standardized uptake values (SUVs) of [18F]4 were 1.92 for the whole brain, 1.80 for the neocortex, and 2.14 for the hippocampus (Figure 3A–D). This outcome is somewhat higher than with [18F]FMPEP-d2, where the whole brain SUV was 1.5,31 and noticeably higher than with [18F]MK-9470, where the whole brain SUVs were 0.6–1.6 in rats.11 For [18F]4, the washout phase began immediately after the peak uptake, declining to a SUV of 1.3 at 120 min p.i. For [18F]FMPEP-d2, essentially no washout was observed up to 90 min p.i. in the study by Takkinen et al.31 For [18F]MK-9470, no washout was observed even after 600 min in the study with rats by Casteels et al.11 Human studies using [18F]FMPEP-d2 demonstrated slow washout,35 and with [18F]MK-9470, no washout was observed even after 6 h.36 Overall, the uptake behavior and the kinetics suggest that [18F]4 might show superior characteristics in clinical imaging compared to [18F]FMPEP-d2 and [18F]MK-9470.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

(A) Representative coronal and transaxial [18F]4 PET/CT images summed for 90–120 min in an adult mouse brain with vehicle (left) and 2 mg/kg rimonabant pretreatment (right). (B–D) Time–activity curves for the whole brain, neocortex, and hippocampus at baseline (n = 3, 1 female) and with rimonabant pretreatment (n = 3, 1 female) and their percentage difference at 120 min. Bl., Blocking; SUV, standardized uptake value. Data are expressed as mean ± SD.

The pretreatment with 2 mg/kg rimonabant reduced the binding of [18F]4 120 min after injection by 58, 59, and 62% for the whole brain, neocortex, and hippocampus, respectively (Figure 3A–D), when the injected amount of [18F]4 was 1.7 ± 0.7 μg/kg (n = 6). The moderate dose of rimonabant blocked a large percentage of the binding of [18F]4 in specific murine CB1R-rich areas, such as the neocortex and hippocampus, and avoided CB1R poor areas, such as the thalamus.

Ex Vivo Autoradiography

In addition to the in vivo PET studies, we performed ex vivo brain autoradiographic studies 120 min after [18F]4 injection to examine smaller brain areas in more detail. Figure 4A shows specific [18F]4 binding in CB1R-rich areas, like striatum, globus pallidus, hippocampus, cortex, and cerebellar gray matter. The binding of [18F]4 even allowed us to distinguish different hippocampal and cortical layers and the cerebellar gray matter with similar resolution to the in vitro studies in mice using the CB1R agonist [3H]CP55,94037,38 or showing similar hippocampal distribution to that observed in CB1R immunohistochemical studies.39 Previous autoradiography studies in mice with the PET radioligand [18F]FMPEP-d2 did not discriminate the cortical and hippocampal layering with as high a resolution.31

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

(A) Representative ex vivo brain autoradiography images of [18F]4 binding 120 min post injection in a nontreated mouse and a mouse pretreated with rimonabant to block the [18F]4 binding. (B) Ratios of the parietotemporal cortex (Ptc), striatum (Str), frontal cortex (Fc), hippocampus (Hippo), cortex, cerebellar gray matter (CB), and globus pallidus (Gp, n = 3, 1 female) to the thalamus (Tha) without blocking (n = 8, 1 female) and with blocking (Bl. n = 3, 1 female). ***P < 0.001, statistical analyses were performed with the Mann–Whitney U test.

The blocking of [18F]4 with rimonabant was also evident in the autoradiographic images (Figure 4A). In addition, we quantified the binding of [18F]4 in the different CB1R-rich regions using the thalamus as a reference region given the very low level of CB1Rs in that brain region in mice (Figure 4B). The ratios with respect to the thalamus were 2.3 for the parietotemporal cortex, 2.8 for the striatum, 2.5 for the frontal cortex, 2.6 for the whole hippocampus, 3.7 for the cortex and cerebellar gray matter, and 4.9 for the globus pallidus. The region-to-thalamus ratios in the mice pretreated with rimonabant were close to 1, indicating complete displacement of specific tracer binding. The P values were less than 0.001 for all analyzed regions.

Biodistribution

We evaluated [18F]4 biodistribution at 30, 60, and 120 min p.i. (Figure 5A). We observed high 18F-radioactivity binding in the whole brain, cortex, and liver. The whole brain uptake was 9.8 ± 3.2% of the injected dose per gram of tissue (%ID/g), the cortex uptake was 11.5 ± 3.7%ID/g, and the liver uptake was 12.1 ± 0.7%ID/g at 30 min p.i. Radioactivity washout was moderate; hence, the measured whole brain uptake was 4.9 ± 0.9%ID/g, the cortex uptake was 5.1 ± 1.17% ID/g, and the liver uptake was 8.2 ± 1.6%ID/g at 120 min p.i. Bone uptake at 120 min p.i. was insignificant (0.4 ± 0.1%ID/g), indicating a low defluorination and subsequent bone accumulation. In the rimonabant treated mice, the cortex uptake at 120 min p.i. was 1.8 ± 0.2%ID/g.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Ex vivo biodistribution of (A) [18F]4 (30 min n = 4, 60 min n = 2, 120 min n = 8, 1 female) and (B) [18F]FMPEP-d2 (30 min n = 3, 60 min n = 4, 120 min n = 12, 5 females). Data are presented as injected dose per gram of tissue (%ID/g) and expressed as mean ± SD. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.005, statistical analyses were performed with the Mann–Whitney U test.

In a separate study, we investigated the ex vivo biodistribution of [18F]FMPEP-d2 in healthy mice (Figure 5B). It is worth noting that [18F]FMPEP-d2 had lower 18F-radioactivity uptake, 5.6 ± 1.3%ID/g, in the whole brain at 30 min p.i. than with [18F]4. In addition, skull bone (parietal bone) radioactivity uptake showed a great difference; with [18F]FMPEP-d2, uptake was as high as 2.7 ± 0.5%ID/g at 120 min p.i. as compared to 0.4 ± 0.1%ID/g with [18F]4. Defluorination of [18F]FMPEP-d2 at 120 min was over 6-fold compared to [18F]4. In human studies, [18F]FMPEP-d2 defluorination has been low.35 However, defluorination can lead to a high skull bone uptake and thus may obscure the imaging of close by structures due to the spillover effect. This result indicates that the 18F-label located on the aromatic ring in [18F]4 is more stable against defluorination than the 18F-label located in the [18F]fluoromethoxy tail in [18F]FMPEP-d2.

Metabolite Analysis

[18F]4 was metabolized slowly. In the plasma and cortex samples collected at 120 min p.i. (n = 5), two polar radioactive metabolites in plasma and one in cortex were observed. The amount of residual [18F]4 in plasma was approximately 21.3 ± 3.5% of the total 18F-radioactivity at 120 min p.i. The amount of residual [18F]4 in the cortex at 120 min p.i. was 75.0 ± 4.3% (Figure 6). The amount of residual [18F]FMPEP-d2 has been shown to be 86% at 180 min p.i., which is somewhat higher than the value obtained with [18F]4.31 However, the higher brain uptake of [18F]4 and much lower formation of [18F]fluoride as compared to [18F]FMPEP-d2 will presumably be an advantage for imaging.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Amount of the [18F]4 of the total 18F-radioactivity in plasma and cortex. The radiometabolites were analyzed at 30 min (n = 4), 60 min (n = 2), and 120 min (n = 5) post injection. A double exponential decay equation has been used for the fitting of the curves.

Summary of [18F]4 Specificity and Selectivity

In vivo PET, ex vivo autoradiography, and ex vivo biodistribution blocking study results with the CB1R selective and specific rimonabant demonstrated specific receptor occupancy of [18F]4. In addition, [18F]4 is a very close structural analogue to the well-known CB1R tracer [18F]FMPEP-d2, which has an in vitro potency (Kb) of 0.187 nM for CB1R and CB1R vs CB2R selectivity of 3580.8 These observations support our conclusion that [18F]4 binds specifically to CB1Rs.

Conclusions

We successfully implemented a ruthenium-mediated late-stage radiofluorination method to produce a new CB1R imaging tracer, [18F]FPATPP, [18F]4. 18F-labeling of the aromatic ring was effective with good RCY and reasonable synthesis time. There is room for improvement as the reaction conditions are harsh. Nonetheless, this proof-of-concept study shows that ruthenium-mediated 18F-labeling is a suitable and robust method for radiotracer production. [18F]4 was shown to be more stable against radiolysis than its analogue [18F]FMPEP-d2 with an over 300 min shelf life compared to a 120 min shelf life. In the preclinical evaluation, [18F]4 showed significantly lower defluorination and faster washout compared to [18F]FMPEP-d2. The in vivo and ex vivo results suggest that [18F]4 is a potent and selective tracer for CB1R. The properties of [18F]4 make the tracer suitable for clinical evaluation.

Methods

Chemistry

General Chemistry Methods

FPATPP precursor, (3R,5R)-5-(3-hydroxyphenyl)-3-(((R)-1-phenylethyl)amino)-1-(4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)pyrrolidin-2-one, was obtained from PharmaSynth (PharmaSynth AS, Tartu, Estonia). The ruthenium complex was synthesized as previously published.26 Reference standard 4 was synthesized, and the stereochemistry was assigned following the original precursor synthesis developed by Donohue et al.10 All other reagents and solvents were purchased from commercial suppliers and were used as received.

Chromatographic Methods

NMR analyses were performed with a 500 MHz Bruker AVANCE-III NMR-system. The multiplicities are abbreviated as follows: s = singlet, d = doublet, t = triplet, m = multiplet, br = broad signal, dd = doublet of doublets, etc. MS analyses were performed with a linear ion trap quadrupole mass spectrometer (QTRAP, Applied Biosystems SCIEX) equipped with a Turbo Ion Spray source. Purity of the reference standard 4 was determined with HPLC. Ruthenium content in the final preparation was analyzed with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS; PerkinElmer, Elan DRC Plus). Commercial standards were used for instrument calibration.

5-(3-Fluorophenyl)-1-(4-trifluoromethylphenyl)-3-(4-trifluoromethylphenylamino)-1,5-dihydropyr-rol-2-one (5)

4-Aminobenzotrifluoride (39.0 mL, 310.4 mmol) in glacial acetic acid (92 mL) was added to a solution of 3-methoxybenzaldehyde (11.0 mL, 103.5 mmol). Then, ethyl pyruvate (11.5 mL, 103 mmol) was added. The mixture was stirred at room temperature for 18 h. The precipitate was filtered and washed with a mixture of 20% MTBE in heptane (300 mL) and was dried under a vacuum to afford 5 (27.3 g, 45%) as an off-white powder. 1H NMR (CDCl3): δ 7.74 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H), 7.68 (d, J = 8.9 Hz, 1H), 7.58 (d, J = 8.5 Hz, 2H), 7.57 (d, J = 8.5 Hz, 2H), 7.28 (CDCl3), 7.30–7.36 (m, 1H), 7.15 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H), 6.99 (dt, J = 8.5 Hz, 2.2 Hz, 1H), 6.92 (td, J = 9.3 Hz, 1.9 Hz, 1H), 6.20 (d, J = 2.7, 1H), 5.76 (d, J = 2.6 Hz, 1H), 2.82 (br) ppm. 13C NMR (CDCl3): δ 143.8, 131.1, 126.8 (d), 126.3 (d), 122.2 (d), 120.5, 122.4, 120.5, 120.4, 119.3, 116.2, 113.5, 113.3, 112.9, 109.8, 90.7, 63.4 (d), 40.1, 39.9, 39.8 ppm. m/z: [M – H]−. Calcd for C24H16F7N2O: 479.10. Found: 479.0.

5-(3-Fluorophenyl)-1-(4-trifluoromethylphenyl)-pyrrolidine-2,3-dione (6)

A mixture of 5 (27.3 g, 273.5 mmol), glacial acetic acid (122 mL), and concentrated HCl (152 mL) was stirred at room temperature for 22 h. The heterogeneous solution was heated at 60 °C for 1 h. The mixture was poured onto ice (1 L), stirred, and let to stand for 1 h. The precipitate was filtered, washed with water, and dried under a vacuum overnight to afford a solid 6. 1H NMR (DMSO-d6): δ 10.33 (br), 8.75 (s, 1H), 7.89 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H), 7.82 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H), 7.72 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H), 7.67 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 2H), 7.58 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 2H), 7.47 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H), 7.05–7.08 (m, 2H), 6.63 (d, J = 2.7 Hz, 1H), 6.24 (d, J = 2.7 Hz, 1H), 6.02 (d, J = 2.6 Hz, 1H), 6.01 (d, J = 2.6 Hz, 1H), 5.81 (dd, J = 7.5, 4.1 Hz, 1H), 3.37 (m, 1H), 2.62 (dd, J = 19.4, 4.1 Hz, 1H) ppm. m/z: [M + CHOO]−. Calcd for C18H12F4NO4: 382.07. Found: 382.0.

(R)-5-(3-Fluorophenyl)-3-[(R)-1-phenylethylamino]-1-(4-trifluoromethylphenyl)-1,5-dihydropyrrol-2-one (7)

(R)-(+)-1-Phenylethylamine (5.28 mL, 46 mmol) was added to a solution of 6 (8 g, 23 mmol) in CH2Cl2 (58 mL). The solution was stirred at room temperature for 18 h. A silica gel column was prepared in hexane. The solution was evaporated to dryness and dissolved with a small volume of EtOAc and was then poured onto a silica gel column. The material was purified by silica gel chromatography (5–15% EtOAc/hexane) to afford 7, the second eluting isomer, as a yellow foam (2.8 g, 28%). 1H NMR (DMSO-d6): δ 7.89 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 1H), 7.80 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H), 7.72 (d, J = 8.8 Hz, 1H), 7.65 (d, J = 8.8 Hz, 2H), 7.58 (d, J = 8.8 Hz, 1H), 7.48 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 1H), 7.34 to 7.38 (m, 2H), 7.26 (t, J = 7.6 Hz, 2H), 6.94 (dt, J = 8.6 Hz, 2.4 Hz, 1H), 6.86 (d, J = 7.8 Hz, 1H), 5.89–5.94 (m, 2H), 5.20 d, J = 2.6 Hz, 1H), 5.19 (quint, J = 2.6 Hz, 1H), 1.46 (d, J = 6.8 Hz, 3H) ppm. m/z: [M + H]. Calcd for C25H21F4N2O: 441.16. Found: 441.2.

(3R,5R)-5-(3-Fluorophenyl)-3-[(R)-1-phenylethylamino]-1-(4-trifluoromethylphenyl)-pyrrolidin-2-one (4)

Compound 7 (2.8 g, 64 mmol) was dissolved in glacial acetic acid (31 mL), and sodium cyanoborohydride was added (800 mg, 12.4 mmol). The reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 1 h and concentrated in vacuo. The residue was dissolved in EtOAc and washed with a saturated NaHCO3 solution, water, and brine. The organic layer was dried with Na2SO4 and concentrated in vacuo. Approximately a fourth of the product was dissolved in a small amount of EtOAc and purified by silica gel chromatography (10–30% EtOAc/hexane) to afford 4, (the first eluting isomer) as a white solid (0.294 g, 10.4%). 1H NMR (DMSO-d6): δ 7.66 (d, J = 8.8 Hz, 2 H), 7.62 (d, J = 8.8 Hz, 2H), 7.42 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 2H), 7.33–7.39 (m, 2H), 7.19–7.25 (m, 2H), 7.04 (dt, J = 8.4 Hz, 2.4 Hz, 1H), 6.86 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 2 H), 5.5 (dd, J = 9.2 Hz, 6.7 Hz, 1H), 4.75 (td, J = 10.7 Hz, 8.4 Hz, 2.3 Hz, 1H), 3.41–3.48 (m, 1H), 3.05–3.14 (m, 1H), 1.77–1.87 (m, 1H), 1.31 (d, 3H) ppm. m/z: [M + H]. Calcd for C25H23F4N2O: 443.17. Found: 443.1. Purity (HPLC): 98.0%.

Radiochemistry

General Radiochemistry Methods

RCYs are decay-corrected to the start of the synthesis, which in this case corresponds to EOB. The RCYs (based on HPLC analysis) are based on the overall radioactivity eluted from the HPLC column, whereas the product fraction was collected in a separate vial. We determined that there was no leftover radioactivity in the injector or in the HPLC column after the analytical HPLC run. Am calculation is decay-corrected to EOS. The concentration of the 4 in the formulated solution was low, below the detection limit of the UV-detector. Thus, the Am value is based on the radioactivity collected at the analytical HPLC column outlet and the detection limit for the reference compound 4 (1 μg/mL).

Radio-Chromatographic Methods

Semipreparative HPLC purification of [18F]FPATPP was conducted with a Jasco PU-2089 HPLC-pump (Jasco Inc., Easton, Maryland). A Luna C18 column (10 μm, 10.0 mm × 250 mm; Phenomenex, Milford, Massachusetts) and an isocratic method was used as follows: 57/43 1% TFA in H2O/CH3CN + ascorbic acid (500 mg/L). The flow rate was 8.0 mL/min, and detector λ = 254 nm. Analytical radio-HPLC was carried out with a VWR Hitachi L-2130 HPLC pump (VWR Hitachi, VWR International GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany) equipped with a VWR Hitachi L-2400 UV absorption detector and a 2 × 2 in.2 NaI radioactivity detector. A Luna C5 column (5 μm, 4.6 mm × 150 mm; Phenomenex) was used with following isocratic elution method: 55/45 0.1% TFA in H2O/CH3CN. The flow rate was 0.95 mL/min, and detector λ = 254 nm.

[18F]Fluoride Production

[18F]F– (aq) was produced by irradiating enriched Oxygen-18 water (GMP-grade, 98%, Rotem Industries Ltd., Medical Imaging, Dimona, Israel) with 17 MeV protons and a 40 μA beam current. The initial amount of [18F]F– used was 10.7 ± 3.3 GBq for preclinical studies and 1.15 ± 0.95 GBq for radiochemistry optimization studies.

Preparation of FPATPP Precursor for Radiosynthesis

FPATPP precursor (6.9 ± 0.7 μmol) and ruthenium complex (24.5 ± 2.5 μmol) were dissolved in ethanol (50 μL) and heated at 80 °C for 30 min. 1,3-Bis(2,6-diisopropylphenyl)imidazolium chloride was dissolved in MeCN (150 μL) and added to the reaction mixture to produce mixture A. The reaction mixture was used without purification.

Radiochemistry Optimization Study

Prior to the production of [18F]FPATPP for preclinical studies, the Ru-mediated radiofluorination method was tested with temperatures from 100 to 160 °C and reaction times from 10 to 30 min. In addition, for drying of [18F]fluoride, a SPE method and an azeotropic distillation method were tested.

In the SPE method, a PS-HCO3– anion exchange cartridge (Synthra GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) was used. Aqueous [18F]F– was trapped in a cartridge preconditioned with potassium oxalate (3 mL, 10 mg/mL) and water (2 mL). The cartridge was washed with CH3CN (1 mL), and [18F]F– was eluted to a conical vial with mixture A. The cartridge was rinsed with DMSO (150 μL) and 1:1 DMSO/MeCN solution (50 μL). The reaction mixture was heated at 100, 130, or 160 °C for 30 min, and the reaction was followed with radio-HPLC. In the base-added SPE method, K2CO3 (40 μL, 14.8 ± 4.2 μmol, 45 mg/mL) was added to DMSO (150 μL) used for cartridge rinsing after [18F]fluoride elution. The reaction mixture was heated at 160 °C for 30 min, and the reaction was followed with radio-HPLC.

In the azeotropic distillation method, aqueous [18F]F– solution was dried using azeotropic distillation with MeCN, K2CO3 (14.8 ± 4.2 μmol), and Kryptofix K222 (16.6 ± 0.6 μmol) at 120 °C with helium flow to form the dry [18F]KF/K222-complex. Mixture A was added to the reaction vessel, and the reaction was heated at 160 °C for 30 min. The reaction was followed with radio-HPLC.

Synthesis of [18F]4 for Preclinical Studies

Aqueous [18F]F– was trapped in a PS-HCO3– anion exchange cartridge (Synthra GmbH) preconditioned with potassium oxalate (3 mL, 10 mg/mL) and water (2 mL). The cartridge was washed with 1 mL CH3CN, and [18F]F– was eluted to a conical vial with the mixture A as described above. The cartridge was rinsed with DMSO (150 μL) and 1:1 DMSO/MeCN solution (50 μL). This mixture was heated at 160 °C for 30 min. After heating, the mixture was diluted with HPLC eluent (1 mL) and purified by semipreparative HPLC. The product fraction was collected, diluted with water (20 mL), and loaded on a C18 Plus Light Sep-Pak cartridge (Waters corp, Milford, Massachusetts) preconditioned with ethanol (7 mL) and water (10 mL). The cartridge was washed with water (20 mL), and the product was eluted with ethanol (300 μL) followed by 9 mg/mL NaCl (aq) (2.7 mL).

For quality control, pH was measured with pH strips and radiochemical purity was determined with analytical radio-HPLC. The identity was confirmed with FPATPP reference standard 4.

Synthesis of [18F]FMPEP-d2

[18F]FMPEP-d2 was synthesized as previously reported.32

Animals

Experimental Animals

Experiments with animals ([18F]4, n = 17; [18F]FMPEP-d2, n = 19) were conducted under the guidelines of the International Council of Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS). This study was approved by the Finnish National Animal Experiment Board (ESAVI/16273/2019 and ESAVI/4660/04.10.07/2016). Experimental animals were housed at the Central Animal Laboratory of the University of Turku under standardized conditions (temperature 21 °C, humidity 55% ± 5%, lights on from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), with free access to certified standard laboratory soy-free chow (RM3 soya-free, 801710, Special Diets Service) and tap water. Studies with [18F]4 were conducted with healthy wild-type 2 (n = 11, males, weight 25.5 ± 1.3 g) and 4 to 5 month old (n = 6, 2 females, weight 32.1 ± 4.2 g) C57BL/6NRj mice (Charles River Laboratories, Research Models and Services, Germany). The ex vivo biodistribution study with [18F]FMPEP-d2 was conducted with healthy wild-type 3–4 month old (n = 7, males, weight 32.8 ± 4.6 g) and 1.5–6 month old (n = 12, 5 females, weight 26.5 ± 6.6 g) C57BL/6N mice. The injected volume of the tracer was 155 ± 42 μL.

In Vivo PET Imaging with [18F]4

Dynamic PET scans were performed for 5 month old mice with an Inveon Multimodality PET/CT scanner (Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Knoxville, Tennessee). Mice were anesthetized with 2.5% isoflurane/oxygen gas, and body temperature was maintained with a heating pad and a bubble-wrap cover. CT transmission scans were performed to correct for attenuation. PET scans were initiated in parallel with an intravenous (iv) bolus injection of [18F]4 to the mouse tail vein (4–5 month old, n = 6, 2 females; injected radioactivity 4.0 ± 0.4 MBq; injected mass 56 ± 25 ng, 1.7 ± 0.7 μg/kg).

Dynamic emission scans were acquired for 120 min in 3D list mode, with an energy window of 350–650 keV. Scanning times were 120 min (54 frames 30 × 10 s, 15 × 60 s, 4 × 300 s, 2 × 600 s, 3 × 1200 s). The list mode data were stored in 3D sinograms. Data were reconstructed with OSEM3D/MAP software (2 OSEM3D iterations and 18 MAP iterations). The PET/CT images were preprocessed in Matlab R2017a (The MathWorks, Natick, Massachusetts) with an in-house semiautomated pipeline for preclinical images that uses SPM12 (Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, London, UK) preprocessing functionalities and analysis routines. Images were first cropped to a bounding box containing the heads, and individual PET images were coregistered through a rigid-body transformation to their corresponding CT scan. Subjects were spatially normalized through a two-step registration (a rigid followed by an affine transformation) of each subject’s CT to a template CT that was previously constructed as an average of several subjects and was aligned with an atlas T2-weighted MRI template. The combination of transformations was then applied to the PET images, which were also resampled to a voxel size of 0.2 × 0.2 × 0.2 mm3 (trilinear interpolation), matching the anatomical atlas dimensions.

Volume of interest (VOI) analysis of the whole brain, neocortex, and hippocampus was performed on each subject by averaging the signal inside a slightly modified version of the Ma et al.40 atlas delineated VOIs, and data were obtained as standardized uptake values (SUVs). SUVs were calculated as follows: SUV = tissue activity concentration (Bq/mL)/(injected dose (Bq)/body weight (g)); it was assumed that 1 mL of tissue equals 1 g. Tissue activity and dose were decay corrected to the same time point.

Ex Vivo Biodistribution and Brain Autoradiography with [18F]4

All in vivo animals (n = 6, 2 females) and additional 2 month old mice (n = 11, males, injected radioactivity 7.0 ± 3.0 MBq; injected mass 160 ± 60 ng, 6.2 ± 2.6 μg/kg) were used for ex vivo studies to examine the biodistribution and metabolism of [18F]4. Thus, the injected dose and injected mass to all the animals used (n = 17) were 5.9 ± 2.8 MBq and 120 ± 70 ng, 4.6 ± 3.0 μg/kg, respectively. After iv injection of [18F]4, mice were sacrificed in deep anesthesia of 4.0% isoflurane with cardiac puncture at 30 (n = 4), 60 (n = 2), and 120 min (in vivo animals, n = 6 and 2 month old mice n = 5). Organs were immediately dissected, weighed, and measured for 18F-radioactivity in a 2480 Wizard Gamma Counter (Wallac PerkinElmer, Turku, Finland).

For autoradiography, brains were further frozen and cut into 20 μm coronal cryosections for digital autoradiography, and the slices were exposed on an imaging plate (BAS-TR2025, Fuji Photo Film Co.) for approximately 2 half-lives and scanned with a Fuji BAS5000 phosphorimager (FUJIFILM Life Science, Stamford, Connecticut). Digital autoradiographic images were analyzed for count densities with the Aida 4 program (Raytest Isotopenmessgeräte GmbH, Straubenhardt, Germany). For brain slices, regions of interest (ROIs) were drawn over the parietotemporal cortex, striatum, frontal cortex, hippocampus, cerebellar gray matter, and thalamus. The autoradiography was quantified as ratios of the different ROIs relative to the thalamus, which was used as the reference region.

Ex Vivo Biodistribution with [18F]FMPEP-d2

After iv injection of [18F]FMPEP-d2 to the mouse tail vein, the mice were sacrificed at the following time points: 30 min (3–4 month old, n = 3, males; injected radioactivity 1.3 ± 0.3 MBq; injected mass 1.5 ± 0.5 ng), 60 min (3–4 months old, n = 4, males; injected radioactivity 1.2 ± 0.8 MBq; injected mass 1.3 ± 1.0 ng), and 120 min (1.5–6 month old, n = 12, 5 females; injected radioactivity 2.6 ± 0.8 MBq; injected mass 3.1 ± 1.1 ng). Mice were sacrificed in deep anesthesia of 4.0% isoflurane with cardiac puncture. Organs were operated in the similar manner as in the biodistribution study with [18F]4.

Pretreatment Studies with [18F]4

The specificity of [18F]4 on mouse cerebral CB1Rs was examined in a 120 min in vivo study, and then, the same mice were used for ex vivo biodistribution and brain autoradiography studies. An inverse CB1R agonist rimonabant (90 μL, 2 mg/kg in 10% EtOH in Kleptose β-cyclodextrin; rimonabant, Merck; Kleptose β-cyclodextrin, APL pharma specials, Stockholm, Sweden) was administered iv into the mouse tail vein (n = 3, 1 female) 10 min prior to injection of [18F]4. Control mice (n = 3, 1 female) were the given vehicle (90 μL, 10% EtOH in Kleptose β-cyclodextrin). The binding specificity of [18F]4 was estimated by comparing the binding of [18F]4 in the presence and absence of rimonabant. Mice were sacrificed 120 min after iv injection of [18F]4, and the 18F-radioactivity distribution differences between pretreated and control mice were examined with in vivo PET imaging, ex vivo autoradiography, and 2480 Wizard Gamma Counter, and the data were analyzed as described in the previous sections.

Metabolite Analyses with [18F]4

The 2 month old animals (n = 11, used only for ex vivo studies) were used for metabolite analysis. Plasma and brain samples were collected at 30 (n = 4), 60 (n = 2), and 120 min (n = 5) p.i. Plasma samples were treated with MeCN and centrifuged to remove the proteins from the solution. Brain tissue samples were treated with the 40/60 (v/v) 1% TFA (aq)/MeCN solution and then centrifuged. The supernatants were applied to HPTLC silica gel 60 RP-18 plates (Art. 1.05914.0001, Merck, Darmstadt, Germany), and the plates were developed in 40/60 (v/v) 1% TFA (aq)/ MeCN. After drying, the TLC plates were exposed to an imaging plate for approximately 4 h and the imaging plate was scanned with a Fuji Analyzer BAS5000. The amount of [18F]4 and its radioactive metabolites were analyzed with the Aida 4 program, and the curves were fitted with GraphPad Prism 6.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, California) using a double exponential decay equation.

Statistical Analyses

Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). For ex vivo brain autoradiography and biodistribution, statistical analyses were performed with the Mann–Whitney U test (GraphPad Prism 6.0).

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the cyclotron staff at Åbo Akademi University and preclinical imaging staff at University of Turku for their technical help. The Central Animal Laboratory of University of Turku is acknowledged for the animal care.

Glossary

Abbreviations

Am

molar activity

Bl.

blocked

CB1 receptor

CB1R, cannabinoid receptor 1

CB2R

cannabinoid receptor 2

CB

cortex and cerebellar gray matter

CT

computed tomography

Fc

frontal cortex

Gp

globus pallidus

GPCR

G protein-coupled receptor

Hippo

hippocampus

HPLC

high performance liquid chromatography

%ID/g

injected dose per gram of tissue

iv

intravenous

PET

positron emission tomography

p.i.

post injection

Ptc

parietotemporal cortex

ROI

region of interest

SD

standard deviation

SPE

solid-phase extraction

SUV

standardized uptake value

Str

striatum

Tha

thalamus

TLC

thin-layer chromatography

VOI

volume of interest

Author Contributions

▲ S.L. and N.A.R. contributed equally. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland (grants no. 266891 and 307924) and State Funding for University Level Health Research (project no. 11017).

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

References

  1. Howlett A. C.; Barth F.; Bonner T. I.; Cabral G.; Casellas P.; Devane W. A.; Felder C. C.; Herkenham M.; Mackie K.; Martin B. R.; Mechoulam R.; Pertwee R. G. (2002) International Union of Pharmacology. XXVII. Classification of Cannabinoid Receptors. Pharmacol Rev. 54 (2), 161–202. 10.1124/pr.54.2.161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Mechoulam R.; Parker L. A. (2013) The Endocannabinoid System and the Brain. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 21–47. 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Herkenham M.; Lynn A. B.; Little M. D.; Johnson M. R.; Melvin L. S.; de Costa B. R.; Rice K. C. (1990) Cannabinoid Receptor Localization in Brain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 87 (5), 1932–1936. 10.1073/pnas.87.5.1932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Glass M.; Dragunow M.; Faull R. L. (1997) Cannabinoid Receptors in the Human Brain: A Detailed Anatomical and Quantitative Autoradiographic Study in the Fetal, Neonatal and Adult Human Brain. Neuroscience 77 (2), 299–318. 10.1016/S0306-4522(96)00428-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Jordan C. J.; Xi Z.-X. (2019) Progress in Brain Cannabinoid CB2 Receptor Research: From Genes to Behavior. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 98, 208–220. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.12.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Yu S.-J.; Reiner D.; Shen H.; Wu K.-J.; Liu Q.-R.; Wang Y. (2015) Time-Dependent Protection of CB2 Receptor Agonist in Stroke. PLoS One 10 (7), e0132487. 10.1371/journal.pone.0132487. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fattore L. (2015) Cannabinoids in Neurologic and Mental Disease, Elsevier Inc., San Diego, CA. 10.1016/C2013-0-00592-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fagan S. G., and Campbell V. A. (2015) Endocannabinoids and Alzheimer’s Disease. In Cannabinoids in Neurologic and Mental Disease (Fattore L., Ed.) pp 15–33, Elsevier Inc, San Diego, CA: 10.1016/B978-0-12-417041-4.00002-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Yasuno F.; Brown A. K.; Zoghbi S. S.; Krushinski J. H.; Chernet E.; Tauscher J.; Schaus J. M.; Phebus L. A.; Chesterfield A. K.; Felder C. C.; Gladding R. L.; Hong J.; Halldin C.; Pike V. W.; Innis R. B. (2008) The PET Radioligand [11C]MePPEP Binds Reversibly and with High Specific Signal to Cannabinoid CB1 Receptors in Nonhuman Primate Brain. Neuropsychopharmacology 33 (2), 259–269. 10.1038/sj.npp.1301402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Donohue S. R.; Krushinski J. H.; Pike V. W.; Chernet E.; Phebus L.; Chesterfield A. K.; Felder C. C.; Halldin C.; Schaus J. M. (2008) Synthesis, Ex Vivo Evaluation, and Radiolabeling of Potent 1,5-Diphenylpyrrolidin-2-One Cannabinoid Subtype-1 Receptor Ligands as Candidates for in Vivo Imaging. J. Med. Chem. 51 (18), 5833–5842. 10.1021/jm800416m. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Casteels C.; Koole M.; Celen S.; Bormans G.; Van Laere K. (2012) Preclinical Evaluation and Quantification of [18F]MK-9470 as a Radioligand for PET Imaging of the Type 1 Cannabinoid Receptor in Rat Brain. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 39 (9), 1467–1477. 10.1007/s00259-012-2163-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Burns H. D.; Van Laere K.; Sanabria-Bohorquez S.; Hamill T. G.; Bormans G.; Eng W.-s.; Gibson R.; Ryan C.; Connolly B.; Patel S.; Krause S.; Vanko A.; Van Hecken A.; Dupont P.; De Lepeleire I.; Rothenberg P.; Stoch S. A.; Cote J.; Hagmann W. K.; Jewell J. P.; Lin L. S.; Liu P.; Goulet M. T.; Gottesdiener K.; Wagner J. A.; de Hoon J.; Mortelmans L.; Fong T. M.; Hargreaves R. J. (2007) [18F]MK-9470, a Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Tracer for in Vivo Human PET Brain Imaging of the Cannabinoid-1 Receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104 (23), 9800–9805. 10.1073/pnas.0703472104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Preshlock S.; Tredwell M.; Gouverneur V. (2016) 18F-Labeling of Arenes and Heteroarenes for Applications in Positron Emission Tomography. Chem. Rev. 116 (2), 719–766. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Brooks A. F.; Topczewski J. J.; Ichiishi N.; Sanford M. S.; Scott P. J. H. (2014) Late-Stage [18F]Fluorination: New Solutions to Old Problems. Chem. Sci. 5 (12), 4545–4553. 10.1039/C4SC02099E. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Deng X.; Rong J.; Wang L.; Vasdev N.; Zhang L.; Josephson L.; Liang S. H. (2019) Chemistry for Positron Emission Tomography: Recent Advances in 11C-, 18F-, 13N-, and 15O-Labeling Reactions. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 58 (9), 2580–2605. 10.1002/anie.201805501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Edem P. E., Steen E. J. L., Kjær A., and Herth M. M. (2019) Fluorine-18 Radiolabeling Strategies—Advantages and Disadvantages of Currently Applied Labeling Methods. In Late-Stage Fluorination of Bioactive Molecules and Biologically-Relevant Substrates (Postigo A., Ed.) pp 29–103, Elsevier, United States: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812958-6.00002-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Reddy V. P. (2020) Synthesis and Applications of 18F-Labeled Compounds. In Organofluorine Chemistry (Reddy V. P., Ed.) pp 215–278, Elsevier, United States: 10.1016/B978-0-12-813286-9.00006-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Pike V. W.; Aigbirhio F. I. (1995) Reactions of Cyclotron-Produced [18F]Fluoride with Diaryliodonium Salts—a Novel Single-Step Route to No-Carrier-Added [18F]Fluoroarenes. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1995 (21), 2215–2216. 10.1039/C39950002215. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Mu L.; Fischer C. R.; Holland J. P.; Becaud J.; Schubiger P. A.; Schibli R.; Ametamey S. M.; Graham K.; Stellfeld T.; Dinkelborg L. M.; Lehmann L. (2012) 18F-Radiolabeling of Aromatic Compounds Using Triarylsulfonium Salts. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2012 (5), 889–892. 10.1002/ejoc.201101730. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cardinale J.; Ermert J.; Humpert S.; Coenen H. H. (2014) Iodonium Ylides for One-Step, No-Carrier-Added Radiofluorination of Electron Rich Arenes, Exemplified with 4-(([18F]Fluorophenoxy)-Phenylmethyl)Piperidine NET and SERT Ligands. RSC Adv. 4, 17293–17299. 10.1039/C4RA00674G. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee E.; Kamlet A. S.; Powers D. C.; Neumann C. N.; Boursalian G. B.; Furuya T.; Choi D. C.; Hooker J. M.; Ritter T. (2011) A Fluoride-Derived Electrophilic Late-Stage Fluorination Reagent for PET Imaging. Science (Washington, DC, U. S.) 334 (6056), 639–642. 10.1126/science.1212625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee E.; Hooker J. M.; Ritter T. (2012) Nickel-Mediated Oxidative Fluorination for PET with Aqueous [18F]Fluoride. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134 (42), 17456–17458. 10.1021/ja3084797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Tredwell M.; Preshlock S. M.; Taylor N. J.; Gruber S.; Huiban M.; Passchier J.; Mercier J.; Génicot C.; Gouverneur V. (2014) A General Copper-mediated Nucleophilic 18F-Fluorination of Arenes. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 53 (30), 7751–7755. 10.1002/anie.201404436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Mossine A. V.; Brooks A. F.; Makaravage K. J.; Miller J. M.; Ichiishi N.; Sanford M. S.; Scott P. J. H. (2015) Synthesis of [18F]Arenes via the Copper-Mediated [18F]Fluorination of Boronic Acids. Org. Lett. 17 (23), 5780–5783. 10.1021/acs.orglett.5b02875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Makaravage K. J.; Brooks A. F.; Mossine A. V.; Sanford M. S.; Scott P. J. H. (2016) Copper-Mediated Radiofluorination of Arylstannanes with [18F]KF. Org. Lett. 18 (20), 5440–5443. 10.1021/acs.orglett.6b02911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Beyzavi M. H.; Mandal D.; Strebl M. G.; Neumann C. N.; D’Amato E. M.; Chen J.; Hooker J. M.; Ritter T. (2017) 18F-Deoxyfluorination of Phenols via Ru π-Complexes. ACS Cent. Sci. 3 (9), 944–948. 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rickmeier J.; Ritter T. (2018) Site-Specific Deoxyfluorination of Small Peptides with [18F]Fluoride. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 57 (43), 14207–14211. 10.1002/anie.201807983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Borgan F.; Laurikainen H.; Veronese M.; Marques T. R.; Haaparanta-Solin M.; Solin O.; Dahoun T.; Rogdaki M.; Salokangas R. K.; Karukivi M.; Di Forti M.; Turkheimer F.; Hietala J.; Howes O. (2019) In Vivo Availability of Cannabinoid 1 Receptor Levels in Patients with First-Episode Psychosis. JAMA Psychiatry 76 (10), 1074–1084. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Laurikainen H.; Tuominen L.; Tikka M.; Merisaari H.; Armio R.-L.; Sormunen E.; Borgan F.; Veronese M.; Howes O.; Haaparanta-Solin M.; Solin O.; Hietala J. (2019) Sex Difference in Brain CB1 Receptor Availability in Man. NeuroImage 184, 834–842. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lahesmaa M.; Eriksson O.; Gnad T.; Oikonen V.; Bucci M.; Hirvonen J.; Koskensalo K.; Teuho J.; Niemi T.; Taittonen M.; Lahdenpohja S.; Din M. U.; Haaparanta-Solin M.; Pfeifer A.; Virtanen K. A.; Nuutila P. (2018) Cannabinoid Type 1 Receptors Are Upregulated during Acute Activation of Brown Adipose Tissue. Diabetes 67 (7), 1226–1236. 10.2337/db17-1366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Takkinen J. S.; López-Picón F. R.; Kirjavainen A. K.; Pihlaja R.; Snellman A.; Ishizu T.; Löyttyniemi E.; Solin O.; Rinne J. O.; Haaparanta-Solin M. (2018) [18F]FMPEP-d2 PET Imaging Shows Age- and Genotype-Dependent Impairments in the Availability of Cannabinoid Receptor 1 in a Mouse Model of Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurobiol. Aging 69, 199–208. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.05.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lahdenpohja S.; Keller T.; Forsback S.; Viljanen T.; Kokkomäki E.; Kivelä R. V.; Bergman J.; Solin O.; Kirjavainen A. K. (2020) Automated GMP Production and Long-Term Experience in Radiosynthesis of CB1 Tracer [18F]FMPEP-d2. J. Labelled Compd. Radiopharm. 1. 10.1002/jlcr.3845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH): Guideline for Elemental Impurities Q3D(R1), 2019.
  34. Rinaldi-Carmona M.; Barth F.; Heaulme M.; Shire D.; Calandra B.; Congy C.; Martinez S.; Maruani J.; Neliat G.; Caput D.; Ferrara P.; Soubrie P.; Breliere J. C.; Le Fur G. (1994) SR141716A, a Potent and Selective Antagonist of the Brain Cannabinoid Receptor. FEBS Lett. 350 (2–3), 240–244. 10.1016/0014-5793(94)00773-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Terry G. E.; Hirvonen J.; Liow J.-S.; Zoghbi S. S.; Gladding R.; Tauscher J. T.; Schaus J. M.; Phebus L.; Felder C. C.; Morse C. L.; Donohue S. R.; Pike V. W.; Halldin C.; Innis R. B. (2010) Imaging and Quantitation of Cannabinoid CB1 Receptors in Human and Monkey Brains Using 18F-Labeled Inverse Agonist Radioligands. J. Nucl. Med. 51 (1), 112–120. 10.2967/jnumed.109.067074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Van Laere K.; Goffin K.; Casteels C.; Dupont P.; Mortelmans L.; de Hoon J.; Bormans G. (2008) Gender-Dependent Increases with Healthy Aging of the Human Cerebral Cannabinoid-Type 1 Receptor Binding Using [18F]MK-9470 PET. NeuroImage 39 (4), 1533–1541. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.10.053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Ruehle S.; Remmers F.; Romo-Parra H.; Massa F.; Wickert M.; Wörtge S.; Häring M.; Kaiser N.; Marsicano G.; Pape H.-C.; Lutz B. (2013) Cannabinoid CB1 Receptor in Dorsal Telencephalic Glutamatergic Neurons: Distinctive Sufficiency for Hippocampus-Dependent and Amygdala-Dependent Synaptic and Behavioral Functions. J. Neurosci. 33 (25), 10264–10277. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4171-12.2013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Remmers F.; Lange M. D.; Hamann M.; Ruehle S.; Pape H.-C.; Lutz B. (2017) Addressing Sufficiency of the CB1 Receptor for Endocannabinoid-Mediated Functions through Conditional Genetic Rescue in Forebrain GABAergic Neurons. Brain Struct. Funct. 222 (8), 3431–3452. 10.1007/s00429-017-1411-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Laurén H. B.; Lopez-Picon F.; Brandt A. M.; Rios-Rojas C.; Holopainen I. E. (2010) Transcriptome Analysis of the Hippocampal CA1 Pyramidal Cell Region after Kainic Acid-Induced Status Epilepticus in Juvenile Rats. PLoS One 5 (5), e10733 10.1371/journal.pone.0010733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Ma Y.; Smith D.; Hof P.; Foerster B.; Hamilton S.; Blackband S.; Yu M.; Benveniste H. (2008) In Vivo 3D Digital Atlas Database of the Adult C57BL/6J Mouse Brain by Magnetic Resonance Microscopy. Front. Neuroanat. 2, 1. 10.3389/neuro.05.001.2008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from ACS Chemical Neuroscience are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES