Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleFocus on Molecular Imaging
Open Access

Latest Advances in Imaging Oxidative Stress in Cancer

Hannah E. Greenwood and Timothy H. Witney
Journal of Nuclear Medicine November 2021, 62 (11) 1506-1510; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.256974
Hannah E. Greenwood
School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Timothy H. Witney
School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Oxidative stress is the imbalance of harmful reactive oxygen species (ROS) and the action of neutralizing antioxidant mechanisms. If left unchecked, the deleterious effects of oxidative stress result in damage to DNA, proteins, and membranes, ultimately leading to cell death. Tumors are highly proliferative and consequently generate high levels of mitochondrial ROS. To compensate for this and maintain redox homeostasis, cancer cells upregulate protective antioxidant pathways, which are further amplified in drug-resistant tumors. This review provides an overview of the latest molecular imaging techniques designed to image oxidative stress in cancer. New probes can now assess heterogeneous ROS and antioxidant production within tumors and across lesions. Together, the noninvasive imaging of these dynamic processes holds great promise for monitoring response to treatment and predicting drug resistance and may provide insight into the metastatic potential of tumors.

  • ROS
  • oxidative stress
  • antioxidant
  • molecular imaging
  • MRI
  • PET
  • fluorescence

During their transformation, cancer cells acquire metabolic adaptations that sustain their rapid proliferation, progression, and protection from cell death (1). This metabolic reprogramming provides the basis for the clinical imaging and staging of tumors with 18F-FDG PET. The ability to take up glucose and secrete lactate even when oxygen is present (termed aerobic glycolysis) is a key feature of malignancy (2). However, whereas defective mitochondrial respiration was historically thought to accompany aerobic glycolysis, tumors metabolize glucose concurrently through both glycolysis and the tricarboxylic acid cycle at rates far higher than those in healthy tissue (3).

Oxidative stress, the imbalance between harmful reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and the cell’s ability to neutralize these reactive intermediates (Fig. 1A), is a common consequence of elevated mitochondrial respiration. Leakage of electrons from complex I and III of the electron transport chain results in the partial reduction of oxygen and the subsequent generation of ROS. These reactive species include hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), singlet oxygen (1O2), the hydroxyl radical (·OH), peroxides (O22−), and superoxides (O2·−). Other subcellular regions of ROS generation include peroxisomes (β-oxidation of fatty acids) and the endoplasmic reticulum (protein oxidation), or as by-products of enzymatic reactions by cyclooxygenases, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate oxidases, xanthine oxidases, and lipoxygenases (4). Furthermore, multiple components of the tumor-immune microenvironment, such cancer-associated fibroblasts and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, macrophages, and activated T cells, provide an exogenous source of ROS (5).

FIGURE 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.

Mediators and protective mechanisms that regulate oxidative stress. (A) Oxidative stress is imbalance between harmful ROS and neutralizing antioxidants. ROS can be formed by either intrinsic or extrinsic factors, with a network of intracellular free radical scavenger systems designed to maintain redox homeostasis and protect against cellular damage. (B) Metabolism is key regulator of intracellular antioxidants NADPH, glutathione, and the thioredoxin pathway. For clarity, tricarboxylic acid cycle and glycolysis have been abbreviated. ASC = alanine/serine/cysteine transporter subfamily; αKG = α-ketoglutarate; Cit = citrate; Cys = cysteine; Cys2 = cystine; EAA = essential amino acids; Glu = glutamate; Gln = glutamine; Gluc = glucose; Gluc-6P = glucose 6-phosphate; GLUT1 = glucose transporter 1; Gly = glycine; GSH = glutathione; GSSG = oxidized glutathione; L = system L amino acid transporter; Lact = lactate; Mal = malate; MCT4 = monocarboxylate transporter 4; NADPH = reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate; NADP+ = nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate; OAA = oxaloacetate; Pyr = pyruvate; TCA = tricarboxylic acid cycle; TrxRox = oxidized thioredoxin reductase; TrxRRed = reduced thioredoxin reductase; Trx-(S2) = thioredoxin-disulfide reductase; Trx-(SH2) = thioredoxin-dithiol reductase; xC− = system xC−.

In conjunction with DNA damage, chemotherapy and radiotherapy produce high levels of oxidative stress in tumors (6). If left unchecked, oxidative stress causes damage to DNA, proteins, and lipids and, ultimately, the initiation of cell death. To maintain redox homeostasis and prevent the harmful consequences of oxidative stress, cancer cells upregulate a network of ROS scavenging enzymes and antioxidant pathways (7). As well as generating mitochondrial ROS, cancer metabolism fuels antioxidant production through oxidative pentose phosphate pathway (PPP) generation of reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) and amino acid metabolism (Fig. 1B). NADPH maintains the antioxidant capacity of thioredoxin reductase and glutathione peroxidase, whereas import of cysteine via system xC− is required for glutathione biosynthesis, the body’s most abundant antioxidant (8). In this review, we describe the exciting recent advances in the field of oxidative stress imaging and their potential applications.

FLUORESCENT PROBES

Fluorescence-based imaging systems and probes are widely used for the measurement of a broad spectrum of ROS (9). Elevation of ROS above baseline levels (e.g., after therapeutic intervention) is often assumed to be synonymous with oxidative stress, although in reality oxidative stress can only be inferred from their measurement. A common method to detect multiple forms of ROS is the use of a reduced nonfluorescent dye that, once oxidized, produces a fluorescent product (switch-on sensors). Hydrocyanines are a class of fluorescent probes that are produced by reducing the iminium cation of commercially available cyanine dyes with NaBH4. On their oxidation by superoxide and hydroxyl radicals, the original cyanine dye is formed. These dyes fluoresce from 560 to 830 nm and are ionic impermeable moieties, resulting in their intracellular trapping and the generation of contrast (10). Thiophene-bridged hydrocyanine probes overcome some of the limitations of the first-generation probes, which suffer from high autoxidation, low Stokes shifts, and poor stability. Another widely used switch-on sensor for generalized ROS detection is the CellROX (ThermoFisher Scientific) family of compounds (11).

Mitochondria and the plasma membrane are particularly vulnerable to oxidative damage. If left unchecked, oxidative stress results in lipid peroxidation, which can be measured by BODIPY 581/591 C11 (ThermoFisher Scientific). Multiple ROS species can oxidize the polyunsaturated butadienyl substituent, resulting in a shift in fluorescent emission from 590 to 510 nm. Changes in lipid ROS can subsequently be quantified by measuring the ratio of red to green fluorescence (11).

Probes for the Selective Imaging of Individual Reactive Species

In addition to assaying oxidative activity in cells, fluorescent probes have been developed for species-specific ROS detection, including superoxide (dihydroethidium), hydrogen peroxide (2′,7′-dichlorofluorescein), and singlet oxygen (trans-1-(2′-methoxyvinyl)pyrene). Most probes are not truly specific for individual reactive species; rather, they exhibit enhanced selectivity for different ROS. These fluorescent probes rely on varied mechanisms of action to generate contrast. For example, Amplex Red (Thermo Fisher Scientific) is selectively oxidized by hydrogen peroxide in a reaction mediated by horseradish peroxidase. 2′,7′-dichlorofluorescein (H2DCF) is an alternative dye used for the quantitation of intracellular hydrogen peroxide. In the diacetate form of 2′,7′-dichlorofluorescein, the nonfluorescent probe passively diffuses through the cell membrane, where it is cleaved by esterases to 2′,7′-dichlorofluorescein, resulting in intracellular trapping. 2′,7′-dichlorofluorescein is then oxidized by hydrogen peroxide to produce 2′,7′-dichlorodihydrofluorescein, which is highly fluorescent. Mitochondrion-specific superoxides can also be visualized by MitoSOX Red (ThermoFisher Scientific), a cationic derivative of dihydroethidium that is electrophoretically taken up into actively respiring mitochondria and fluoresces after its oxidation and subsequent binding to DNA.

Imaging of Glutathione

As the most abundant thiol-containing antioxidant, glutathione is a surrogate marker of cellular antioxidant capacity. The fluorescent dyes monobromobimane and monochlorobimane readily react with low-molecular-weight thiols, including glutathione, and in doing so form fluorescent adducts. An additional thiol-tracking dye is ThiolTracker Violet (Thermo Fisher Scientific), which is also retained intracellularly through adduct formation and whose fluorescent signal is 10 times greater than that of bimane compounds (11).

An important consideration is that optical imaging is constrained by overlying tissue both absorbing and scattering the exciting or emitted light. Fluorescence is therefore better suited for cell-based imaging and superficial or intraoperative small-animal preclinical work than for translational applications.

PET IMAGING

Systemic oxidative stress has been assessed in the clinic by measuring oxidized proteins, oxidized lipids, and serum antioxidants (12). Although relatively easy to collect and measure, these biomarkers provide no tissue-specific information to better inform any subsequent intervention. Molecular imaging using PET can reveal subtle biologic changes that occur both within tumors and across multiple heterogeneous lesions.

PET Imaging of ROS

The successful application of fluorescent probes to ROS and antioxidant imaging has resulted in the adaptation of these small molecules to PET, often through the incorporation of 18F. Turn-on mechanisms after radiotracer oxidation, however, cannot be used for the generation of contrast by PET, and alternative methods of intracellular trapping are required. Chu et al. demonstrated the advantages of radiolabeling the fluorescent dye dihydroethidium with 18F and showed its ability to measure superoxide production after treatment with doxorubicin in cells grown in culture. After its oxidation, 18F-labeled dihydroethidium becomes charged and can intercalate DNA, intracellularly trapping the tracer (13). Other fluorescent scaffolds, such as hydrocyanines (14), have also been labeled with 18F as a method to image oxidative stress in vivo. In addition to ROS-sensing fluorophores, chemiluminescent probes based on luminol have been used for ROS detection. Recently, a gallium-labeled luminol derivative (galuminox) was shown to selectively accumulate in the mitochondria of tumor cells after ROS induction, with 68Ga-galuminox selectively retained in a model of lung inflammation (15). A radiolabeled ascorbate derivative, 18F-KS1, is also in the early stages of development for ROS imaging (16).

Imaging the Tumor Antioxidant Response

Given the short-lived nature of ROS, imaging of the durable downstream consequences of this toxic insult may provide a larger detection window with PET. The transmembrane protein system xC− is a heterodimeric transporter that is placed centrally within the cell’s antioxidant system. The role of system xC− is to exchange the intracellular amino acid glutamate for the extracellular amino acid cystine. After cystine’s uptake, it is rapidly reduced to cysteine, the rate-limiting precursor for glutathione biosynthesis, placing system xC− as a central regulator of antioxidant homeostasis (17). Elevated system xC− activity has been exploited by PET imaging tracers such as (4S)-4-(3-18F-fluoropropyl)-l-glutamate (18F-FSPG) (18), 18F-5-fluoro-aminosuberic acid (19), and 18F-hGTS13 (20). Tumor retention of 18F-FSPG is redox-sensitive, mediated by the concentration gradient of cystine across the plasma membrane. In an animal modal of ovarian cancer, 18F-FSPG tumor retention decreased in proportion to the degree of oxidative stress induced by chemotherapy (Fig. 2A) (21).

FIGURE 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2.

Imaging tumor redox status. (A) Changes in 18F-FSPG A2780 ovarian tumor retention after oxidizing doxorubicin HCl liposome (Doxil; ALZA Corp.) therapy. (Reprinted from (21).) (B and C) Sequential coronal T2-weighted images and corresponding 13C 3-dimensional MR spectroscopic images demonstrating distribution of hyperpolarized [1-13C]DHA and vitamin C in TRAMP (transgenic adenocarcinoma mouse prostate) mouse. Regions of liver, kidney, and prostate tumor are segmented and superimposed on spectral grid (color-coded dashed lines). (D) Representative 13C spectra from liver, kidney, and prostate tumor in TRAMP mouse. D0 = untreated; D1 = 24-h Doxil treatment; D6 = 6 d after initiation of Doxil treatment. VitC = vitamin C. (Reprinted from (32).)

A consequence of ROS-induced membrane peroxidation is the intracellular production of reactive aldehydes that if left unchecked result in catastrophic DNA damage. Many cancer cells upregulate aldehyde dehydrogenases in response to this oxidative stress, which mediates aldehyde detoxification (22). The enzymatic activity of aldehyde dehydrogenase 1A1 has recently been quantified with a novel substrate-based radiotracer (23). Using a complementary strategy, Kirby et al. developed 18F-NA3BF3 for the imaging of total aldehydic load through radiotracer–aldehyde complex formation (24). Together, these tracers may provide insight into oxidative stress–mediated lipid peroxidation during anticancer therapy.

MRI

Several paramagnetic MRI contrast agents have been developed to probe the redox balance of cells and tissues. Stable nitroxide free radicals are cell-permeable reporters of intracellular antioxidant availability, undergoing 1-electron transfer reactions to produce hydroxylamines. The single unpaired electron of nitroxides provides T1 contrast, which disappears on their reduction, the rate of which is dependent on ROS-scavenging systems (25). Nitroxide relaxivity, however, is 20 times less than Gd3+, and contrast is quickly lost after administration. Alternative MRI contrast agents based around activatable paramagnetic complexes have subsequently been developed to overcome these limitations. The oxidation state of both Mn3+/2+ (26) and Fe3+/2+ complexes (27) alters the intrinsic relaxation properties of MRI probes, enabling a noninvasive measure of cellular redox status.

Hyperpolarized Spectroscopic MRI

Dynamic nuclear polarization is an emerging technique that increases the sensitivity of MR experiments by more than 10,000 times, allowing dynamic imaging of administered 13C-labeled substrates and their metabolic products in vivo (28). Flux through the PPP has been estimated using this technique through the conversion of U-2H,U-13C-glucose to the PPP intermediate 6-phosphogluconate (29). PPP metabolic activity is upregulated in cancer, which generates NADPH to maintain the antioxidant capacity of cells. However, the short polarization lifetime of uniformly labeled glucose at relatively low levels (∼15%), along with overlapping 13C resonances of 6-phosphogluconate and 3‐phosphoglycerate (a glycolytic intermediate), is a challenge that currently restricts the widespread use of U-2H,U-13C-glucose. Alternatively, hyperpolarized [1-13C]dehydroascorbic acid ([1-13C]DHA), the oxidized form of ascorbic acid (vitamin C), has been used to probe tumor redox potential (30). After its uptake by the facilitative glucose transporters, hyperpolarized [1-13C]DHA was rapidly converted to [1-13C]vitamin C in lymphoma (30) and prostate tumors (Figs. 2B–2D) (32), the rate of which was determined by the levels of both glutathione and NADPH (31). Despite the promise of [1-13C]DHA to assess total tumor antioxidant capacity, administration of a 10 mg/kg dose of DHA to tumor-bearing mice resulted in transient respiratory arrest and cardiac depression (31). Optimization of dosing regimens and a greater understanding of DHA toxicity are therefore a prerequisite for clinical imaging with [1-13C]DHA.

An important consideration for all MRI-based redox probes is the requirement of high mass doses of contrast agent. Given that these agents are frequently either stable radicals or potent radical scavengers, redox-active MRI probes may also perturb the system that they are measuring, possibly accounting for DHA-induced toxicity.

APPLICATIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

As we have illustrated, several well-characterized imaging agents have shown promise for the noninvasive imaging of oxidative stress in animal models of cancer. Given that ROS are typically short-lived (half-life of 10−9 s for ·OH to 10−3 s for H2O2 (33)) and encompass a variety of different reactive molecules, frequently at low concentrations, imaging ROS dynamics is a challenging proposition. The cellular antioxidant response to these insults persists, however, on a time scale and magnitude that permit its measurement by medical imaging techniques. If clinically adopted, several applications exist for oxidative stress imaging that could impact disease outcomes.

Response Monitoring

In conjunction with DNA damage, chemotherapies and ionizing radiation produce high levels of oxidative stress in tumors, with cell death induced in those sensitive to treatment (6). Consequently, redox imaging agents have the potential to assess the efficacy of a wide range of therapies that converge with the induction of oxidative stress. In a recent proof-of-principle study, the tumor antioxidant response to doxorubicin was shown to be an earlier maker than both 18F-FDG and tumor volume (21). Furthermore, the imaging window for the measurement of tumor antioxidant response is not limited by a temporally unstable marker (e.g., cell death) (34). Additionally, several therapies have been developed whose primary mechanism of action is the induction of lipid ROS and concurrent membrane peroxidation (35). Redox imaging probes may therefore play an important role in monitoring the response to these novel agents.

Prediction of Drug Resistance

Elevated antioxidant capacity and the ability to buffer oxidative stress are a hallmark of drug-resistant cancer (36). A noninvasive measure of drug resistance will facilitate early intervention, allowing the clinician to adapt the treatment regimen, with the potential to improve patient outcomes. For widespread utility, the imaging biomarker ideally should be causal to drug resistance, be tumor-specific, result in a positive imaging signal, be generalizable to multiple drugs with different mechanisms of action, have expression that is independent of other factors or conditions, and require a single imaging scan. To date, 18F-FSPG imaging of system xC− activity has proven to be a good surrogate marker of drug resistance in animal models of ovarian cancer, reporting on the elevated glutathione found in these tumors (37). Further work, however, is needed to determine whether 18F-FSPG is a robust marker of drug resistance for multiple cancer types with discrete driver mutations.

Metastases

Tumor cells experience substantial oxidative stress when they detach from the extracellular matrix and enter the circulation. Anoikis, a form of programmed cell death after loss of anchorage, frequently follows intravasation and restricts the metastatic capabilities of tumor cells (38). The oxidative environment of the bloodstream further limits metastatic efficiency. In anoikis-resistant cells, PPP-generated NADPH mitigates the ROS that accompanies loss of attachment to permit cell survival (39). Suppressing oxidative stress by increasing endogenous and exogenous antioxidant availability in vivo further promotes metastasis in multiple models of cancer (1). Consequently, by imaging tumor antioxidant capacity before membrane detachment, it may be possible to determine the metastatic potential of primary tumors.

CONCLUSION

The spatiotemporal assessment of the tumor redox microenvironment in vivo has the potential to inform cancer progression, therapeutic response, and metastatic potential. The preclinical development of noninvasive MRI and PET imaging agents is set to revolutionize our understanding of these dynamic processes, complementing the existing arsenal of ROS-sensing fluorophores. Clinical validation of the existing imaging agents, however, is still to be performed, along with the assessment of their prognostic utility. Additional redox-active probes are also required whose tumor retention is sensitive to the balance between ROS and the antioxidant response, rather than simple turn-on signal. With 18F-FSPG already trialed in patients, there is a reasonable expectation that the first mechanistic clinical studies with this radiotracer will soon be performed.

DISCLOSURE

This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust (senior research fellowship 220221/Z/20/Z to Timothy Witney and Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Medical Engineering grant WT203148/Z/16/Z to Hannah Greenwood). No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We gratefully acknowledge Jim Strommer for creating Figure 1A.

Footnotes

  • Published online August 5, 2021.

  • © 2021 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Immediate Open Access: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY) allows users to share and adapt with attribution, excluding materials credited to previous publications. License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Details: http://jnm.snmjournals.org/site/misc/permission.xhtml.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Faubert B,
    2. Solmonson A,
    3. DeBerardinis RJ.
    Metabolic reprogramming and cancer progression. Science. 2020;368:eaaw5473.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Potter M,
    2. Newport E,
    3. Morten KJ.
    The Warburg effect: 80 years on. Biochem Soc Trans. 2016;44:1499–1505.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. DeBerardinis RJ,
    2. Chandel NS.
    We need to talk about the Warburg effect. Nat Metab. 2020;2:127–129.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Perillo B,
    2. Di Donato M,
    3. Pezone A,
    4. et al
    . ROS in cancer therapy: the bright side of the moon. Exp Mol Med. 2020;52:192–203.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Weinberg F,
    2. Ramnath N,
    3. Nagrath D.
    Reactive oxygen species in the tumor microenvironment: an overview. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11:1191.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Ladner C,
    2. Ehninger G,
    3. Gey KF,
    4. Clemens MR.
    Effect of etoposide (VP16-213) on lipid peroxidation and antioxidant status in a high-dose radiochemotherapy regimen. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1989;25:210–212.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Gorrini C,
    2. Harris IS,
    3. Mak TW.
    Modulation of oxidative stress as an anticancer strategy. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12:931–947.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Meister A.
    Glutathione metabolism. Methods Enzymol. 1995;251:3–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Espinoza EM,
    2. Røise JJ,
    3. Li I-C,
    4. Das R,
    5. Murthy N.
    Advances in imaging reactive oxygen species. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:457–461.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Kundu K,
    2. Knight SF,
    3. Willett N,
    4. Lee S,
    5. Taylor WR,
    6. Murthy N.
    Hydrocyanines: a class of fluorescent sensors that can image reactive oxygen species in cell culture, tissue, and in vivo. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2009;48:299–303.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Johnson ID, Spence MTZ. The Molecular Probes Handbook: A Guide to Fluorescent Probes and Labeling Technologies. 11th ed. Molecular Probes; 2010.
  12. 12.↵
    1. Battisti V,
    2. Maders LD,
    3. Bagatini MD,
    4. et al
    . Measurement of oxidative stress and antioxidant status in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients. Clin Biochem. 2008;41:511–518.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Chu W,
    2. Chepetan A,
    3. Zhou D,
    4. et al
    . Development of a PET radiotracer for non-invasive imaging of the reactive oxygen species, superoxide, in vivo. Org Biomol Chem. 2014;12:4421–4431.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Al-Karmi S,
    2. Albu SA,
    3. Vito A,
    4. et al
    . Preparation of an 18F-labeled hydrocyanine dye as a multimodal probe for reactive oxygen species. Chemistry. 2017;23:254–258.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Sivapackiam J,
    2. Liao F,
    3. Zhou D,
    4. et al
    . Galuminox: preclinical validation of a novel PET tracer for non-invasive imaging of oxidative stress in vivo. Redox Biol. 2020;37:101690.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Solingapuram Sai KK,
    2. Bashetti N,
    3. Chen X,
    4. et al
    . Initial biological evaluations of 18F-KS1, a novel ascorbate derivative to image oxidative stress in cancer. EJNMMI Res. 2019;9:43.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Lewerenz J,
    2. Hewett SJ,
    3. Huang Y,
    4. et al
    . The cystine/glutamate antiporter system xc − in health and disease: from molecular mechanisms to novel therapeutic opportunities. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2013;18:522–555.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Koglin N,
    2. Mueller A,
    3. Berndt M,
    4. et al
    . Specific PET imaging of xC − transporter activity using a 18F-labeled glutamate derivative reveals a dominant pathway in tumor metabolism. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:6000–6011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Webster JM,
    2. Morton CA,
    3. Johnson BF,
    4. et al
    . Functional imaging of oxidative stress with a novel PET imaging agent, 18F-5-fluoro-l-aminosuberic acid. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:657–664.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Beinat C,
    2. Gowrishankar G,
    3. Shen B,
    4. et al
    . The characterization of 18F-hGTS13 for molecular imaging of xc − transporter activity with PET. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:1812–1817.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. McCormick PN,
    2. Greenwood HE,
    3. Glaser M,
    4. et al
    . Assessment of tumor redox status through (S)-4-(3-[18F]fluoropropyl)-L-glutamic acid PET imaging of system xc − activity. Cancer Res. 2019;79:853–863.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Marcato P,
    2. Dean CA,
    3. Giacomantonio CA,
    4. Lee PW.
    Aldehyde dehydrogenase: its role as a cancer stem cell marker comes down to the specific isoform. Cell Cycle. 2011;10:1378–1384.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Pereira R,
    2. Sanghera C,
    3. Greenwood HE,
    4. et al
    . Mapping aldehyde dehydrogenase 1A1 activity using an [18F]substrate‐based approach. Chemistry. 2019;25:2345–2351.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. Kirby A,
    2. Suchý M,
    3. Brouwer A,
    4. Shuhendler A.
    Mapping aldehydic load in vivo by positron emission tomography with [18F]NA3BF3. Chem Commun (Camb). 2019;55:5371–5374.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Hyodo F,
    2. Soule BP,
    3. Matsumoto K,
    4. et al
    . Assessment of tissue redox status using metabolic responsive contrast agents and magnetic resonance imaging. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2008;60:1049–1060.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Gale EM,
    2. Mukherjee S,
    3. Liu C,
    4. Loving GS,
    5. Caravan P.
    Structure–redox–relaxivity relationships for redox responsive manganese-based magnetic resonance imaging probes. Inorg Chem. 2014;53:10748–10761.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Wang H,
    2. Jordan VC,
    3. Ramsay IA,
    4. et al
    . Molecular magnetic resonance imaging using a redox-active iron complex. J Am Chem Soc. 2019;141:5916–5925.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Ardenkjær-Larsen JH,
    2. Fridlund B,
    3. Gram A,
    4. et al
    . Increase in signal-to-noise ratio of > 10,000 times in liquid-state NMR. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:10158–10163.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Rodrigues TB,
    2. Serrao EM,
    3. Kennedy BWC,
    4. Hu D-E,
    5. Kettunen MI,
    6. Brindle KM.
    Magnetic resonance imaging of tumor glycolysis using hyperpolarized 13C-labeled glucose. Nat Med. 2014;20:93–97.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Bohndiek SE,
    2. Kettunen MI,
    3. Hu D-e,
    4. et al
    . Hyperpolarized [1-13C]-ascorbic and dehydroascorbic acid: vitamin C as a probe for imaging redox status in vivo. J Am Chem Soc. 2011;133:11795–11801.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Timm KN,
    2. Hu DE,
    3. Williams M,
    4. et al
    . Assessing oxidative stress in tumors by measuring the rate of hyperpolarized [1-13C]dehydroascorbic acid reduction using 13C magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Biol Chem. 2017;292:1737–1748.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Keshari KR,
    2. Kurhanewicz J,
    3. Bok R,
    4. Larson PEZ,
    5. Vigneron DB,
    6. Wilson DM.
    Hyperpolarized 13C dehydroascorbate as an endogenous redox sensor for in vivo metabolic imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:18606–18611.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. D’Autréaux B,
    2. Toledano MB.
    ROS as signalling molecules: mechanisms that generate specificity in ROS homeostasis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007;8:813–824.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Gammon ST,
    2. Engel BJ,
    3. Gores GJ,
    4. Cressman E,
    5. Piwnica-Worms D,
    6. Millward SW.
    Mistiming death: modeling the time-domain variability of tumor apoptosis and implications for molecular imaging of cell death. Mol Imaging Biol. 2020;22:1310–1323.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Stockwell BR,
    2. Jiang X.
    The chemistry and biology of ferroptosis. Cell Chem Biol. 2020;27:365–375.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    1. Balendiran GK,
    2. Dabur R,
    3. Fraser D.
    The role of glutathione in cancer. Cell Biochem Funct. 2004;22:343–352.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Greenwood HE,
    2. McCormick P,
    3. Gendron T,
    4. et al
    . Measurement of tumor antioxidant capacity and prediction of chemotherapy resistance in preclinical models of ovarian cancer by positron emission tomography. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:2471–2482.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Paoli P,
    2. Giannoni E,
    3. Chiarugi P.
    Anoikis molecular pathways and its role in cancer progression. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013;1833:3481–3498.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Schafer ZT,
    2. Grassian AR,
    3. Song L,
    4. et al
    . Antioxidant and oncogene rescue of metabolic defects caused by loss of matrix attachment. Nature. 2009;461:109–113.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  • Received for publication May 13, 2021.
  • Accepted for publication July 15, 2021.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 62 (11)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 62, Issue 11
November 1, 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Latest Advances in Imaging Oxidative Stress in Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Latest Advances in Imaging Oxidative Stress in Cancer
Hannah E. Greenwood, Timothy H. Witney
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Nov 2021, 62 (11) 1506-1510; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.256974

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Latest Advances in Imaging Oxidative Stress in Cancer
Hannah E. Greenwood, Timothy H. Witney
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Nov 2021, 62 (11) 1506-1510; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.256974
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • FLUORESCENT PROBES
    • PET IMAGING
    • MRI
    • APPLICATIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • From Genome to Phenome: Opportunities and Challenges of Molecular Imaging
  • Imaging the Activity of Efflux Transporters at the Blood–Brain Barrier in Neurologic Diseases: Radiotracer Selection Criteria
  • Molecular Imaging of Pulmonary Fibrosis
Show more Focus on Molecular Imaging

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • ROS
  • oxidative stress
  • antioxidant
  • Molecular imaging
  • MRI
  • PET
  • fluorescence
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire