Synopsis
We
demonstrate a new platform technology in which macromolecular constituents,
such as proteins and drug delivery systems, are observed directly and
quantitatively in vivo using 1H
MRI of 13C-labeled polyethylene glycol (13C-PEG) tags.
The 28 kDa 13C-PEG tags are non-immunogenic, and each bears
approximately 2500 spectroscopically equivalent 1H nuclei appearing
at a single resonance position. By filtering the 1H PEG signal
through the directly coupled 13C nuclei, background water and fat
signals are largely eliminated. We demonstrate the approach by monitoring in
real-time the distribution of 13C-PEG and 13C-pegylated
albumin injected into the hind leg of a mouse.Purpose
Direct
in vivo detection and quantitation of specific molecules,
metabolites or macromolecules by MRI methods at concentrations below the
millimolar range is difficult.
1 One option is to tag the
species of interest with a relaxation reagent which acts to modify the
1H
signal of water in its vicinity.
2–5 While sensitivity is enhanced in the presence
of such contrast agents, detection is indirect and quantitation of the
biomolecule of interest is complicated by the range of factors and conditions
which influence the degree of contrast produced in the local water signal.
6 In
this study, we demonstrate the use of uniformly-labelled
13C-poly(ethylene
glycol) (
13C-PEG) tags to directly and quantitatively detect
biomolecule biodistribution by
1H MRI at concentrations in the low
micromolar range.
Methods
13C PEG synthesis. 13C-labelled
PEG (27.6 kDa) was
synthesized by anionic ring opening polymerization of 13C-labelled ethylene
oxide7 (Sigma Aldrich) using inert techniques.8
The labelled protein, 13C-PEG-BSA,
was synthesized by converting the PEG alcohol end groups to aldehydes which
were then conjugated to BSA
amino terminal groups and lysine residues using reductive amination.9
Imaging. Experiments involving animals were performed in
accordance with institutional animal care protocols. Imaging experiments were carried out
using a Bruker BioSpec 70/30 USR 7 Tesla small animal system with a dual-tuned 1H/13C
volume mouse coil (RAPID MR International).
Sensitivity limits were determined in 30% poly(acrylamide gel) phantoms with
the 13C PEG concentrations varied between 0 – 500 µM. 13C-Filtered
images were acquired using a spoiled gradient echo (FLASH) sequence10 modified with a slice-selective 13C filter
(HFLASH sequence). Axial images were
acquired with the following parameters: 8 × 8 cm FOV, 4 mm slice thickness, 64
× 64 acquisition matrix, 100 ms TR, 6.9 ms TE, 1 ms sinc 1H 44° pulse, 1.37 ms Gaussian 13C
90° pulses, 1 dummy scans, and 10 – 200 transients, depending on 13C-PEG
concentration. In vivo experiments were conducted by injecting 13C-PEG (4.1
mM; 50 µL; saline) and 13C-PEG-BSA
(2.4 mM; 50 µL; saline) solutions into the hind legs of separate adult male BALB/cJ
mice. 13C-filtered images
were acquired similar to the phantom experiments above except with a 32 × 32
acquisition matrix, 50
averaged transients, and 10 dummy scans.
Results
Figure 1 illustrates the general
approach developed to demonstrate the feasibility of direct
1H MRI
of
13C-pegylated macromolecules.
The
13C-filtering step is based on the heteronuclear multiple-quantum
coherence (HMQC) technique, as illustrated schematically in Figure 2, while the
scheme for implementing the HMQC filter within a
1H MRI sequence is
illustrated in Figure 3. To demonstrate
the potential of
in vivo 13C-filtered
direct
1H MRI of
13C-PEG, images were obtained from mice
after intravenous injections of either free
13C-PEG (Figure 4 a-c) or
13C-PEG-BSA (Figure 4d). Figure
4a-c compares anatomical (water), filtered (
13C-PEG), and
co-registered (superimposed filtered and anatomical images) obtained following
administration of 27.6 kDa
13C-PEG into the right leg. Unlabelled PEG of similar size and
concentration was injected simultaneously into the left leg. Detection limits were established using known
concentrations of 27.6 kDa
13C-PEG in poly(acrylamide) gel phantoms
as shown in Figure 5. High concentrations
of
13C-PEG (500 µM, 3 nmol in a 6.25 mm
3 imaging volume)
yielded images with visual quality similar to standard water gradient echo
images. Concentrations as low as 25 µM
(160 pmol in a 6.25 mm
3 imaging volume) were detectable with a
contrast/noise ratio (CNR) of 6.0 in ~
21 minutes.
Discussion
We have demonstrated here a new
1H
MRI approach to detect and quantify biomacromolecular constituents
in vivo based on using
13C-PEG
tags. Pegylation is now the norm in antibody-drug conjugates,
therapeutic proteins, antibodies, aptamers, and many drug delivery systems,
because it is non-immunogenic, tends to prolong retention of the macromolecule
of interest in the desired tissue, confers stability, and helps avoid renal
filtration, opsonisation and consequent phagocytic clearance.
11–13
PEG itself also represents an ideal candidate for detection via
1H
MRI. With four spectroscopically
equivalent protons per ethylene oxide monomer unit, a single PEG tag has the
potential to yield a signal amplification of 4N where N is the degree of
polymerization: for a 28 kDa PEG tag, N≈640.
Furthermore, virtually all the signal from the PEG tags appears under a
single, narrow
1H resonance line, and its resonance appears at a
1H
chemical shift distinct from that of water or fat.
Conclusion
The current study demonstrates that
in vivo pegylated protein
concentrations may be quantitatively studied by
1H MRI and that
biodistribution can be monitored in real time over the course of many hours.
Acknowledgements
R. S. Prosser and P. M. Macdonald acknowledge NSERC Canada
for Discovery Awards.References
1. Cassidy, P. J. & Radda, G. K. J.
R. Soc. Interface 2, 133–144 (2005).
2. Louie, A. Y. et al.Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 321–325 (2000).
3. Weissleder, R. et
al. Nat. Med. 6, 351–354 (2000).
4. Genove, G., DeMarco, U., Xu, H., Goins, W. F. & Ahrens, E. T. Nat Med. 11, 450-454 (2005).
5. Zhao, M., Beauregard,
D. A., Loizou, L., Davletov, B. & Brindle, K. M. Nat. Med. 7,
1241–1244 (2001).
6. Caravan, P. Chem.
Soc. Rev. 35, 512–523 (2006).
7. Price, C. C. &
Carmelite, D. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 88, 4039–4044 (1966).
8. Ndoni, S., Papadakis,
C. M., Bates, F. S. & Almdal, K. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 66, 1090
(1995).
9. Borch, R. F.,
Bernstein, M. D. & Durst, H. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 93,
2897–2904 (1971).
10. Haase, A., Frahm, J.,
Matthaei, D., Hanicke, W. & Merboldt, K.-D. J. Magn. Reson. 67,
258–266 (1986).
11. Chan, A. C. &
Carter, P. J. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 10, 301–316 (2010).
12. Ginn, C., Khalili, H.,
Lever, R. & Brocchini, S. Future Med. Chem. 6, 1829–1846
(2014).
13. Veronese, P. F. M.
& Mero, A. BioDrugs 22, 315–329 (2008).