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 ArticleBasic Science Investigation

Comparative Evaluation of [18F]5-Fluoroaminosuberic Acid and (4S)-4-3-[18F]fluoropropyl)-l-Glutamate as System Formula–Targeting Radiopharmaceuticals

Milena Colovic, Hua Yang, Lily Southcott, Helen Merkens, Nadine Colpo, Francois Bénard and Paul Schaffer
Journal of Nuclear Medicine August 2023, 64 (8) 1314-1321; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.122.265254
Milena Colovic
1Life Sciences Division, TRIUMF, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada;
2Department of Molecular Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hua Yang
1Life Sciences Division, TRIUMF, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lily Southcott
1Life Sciences Division, TRIUMF, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helen Merkens
2Department of Molecular Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nadine Colpo
2Department of Molecular Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Francois Bénard
2Department of Molecular Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada;
3Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Schaffer
1Life Sciences Division, TRIUMF, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada;
3Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; and
4Department of Chemistry, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    (A) [18F]FASu in vitro uptake at 20, 40, and 60 min in absence and presence of xCT inhibitor sulfasalazine (1 mM). (B) [18F]FSPG in vitro uptake at 20, 40, and 60 min in absence and presence of 1 mM sulfasalazine. Radiotracer structures are embedded into graphs. (C) [18F]FASu and [18F]FSPG in vitro uptake in presence of sulfasalazine (1 mM). Cells were incubated with tracer (red bars for [18F]FASu, black bars for [18F]FSPG) for 20, 40, or 60 min. Sulfasalazine was coadded with tracer. All uptake values are normalized to protein concentration and presented as percentage uptake per minute per milligram of protein (A and B) or as counts per minute per microgram of protein (C). SSZ = sulfasalazine. *P < 0.05. **P < 0.01. ***P < 0.001. ****P < 0.0001.

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

    Two-way ANOVA analysis of 1-h uptake of [18F]FASu (A) and [18F]FSPG (B) in A549, U-87, and MDA-MB-231 cells, expressed as percentage of control sample uptake. BCH = 2-aminobicyclo-(2,2,1)-heptane-2-carboxylic acid. *P < 0.05. **P < 0.01. ***P < 0.001. ****P < 0.0001.

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    Dose-dependent competition cell uptake assays were performed in A549 (top) and MDA-MB-231 (bottom) cells using 148 kBq per well of either [18F]FASu (A) or [18F]FSPG (B) and increasing concentration of l-cystine or l-glutamate.

  • FIGURE 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4.

    (A) Uptake of [18F]FSPG and [18F]FASu in A549 tumor–bearing mice at 1 h after injection with and without blocking reagent (100 mg/kg ASu). Arrows indicate location of A549 tumors on fused PET/CT maximum-intensity projection images. (B and C) Two-way ANOVA of tumor-to-muscle and tumor-to-lung ratios (C) and tumor and lung uptake (B) for [18F]FSPG and [18F]FASu in A549 tumor–bearing mice at 1 h after injection. P value varied for each comparison but was always >0.05. T = tumor.

  • FIGURE 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 5.

    Comparative study. (A) Uptake of [18F]FSPG and [18F]FASu in U-87 tumor–bearing mice at 1 h after injection. Arrows indicate location of U-87 tumors on fused PET/CT maximum-intensity projection images. (B and C) Two-way ANOVA of tumor-to-muscle and tumor-to brain ratios (C) and tumor and brain uptake (B) for [18F]FSPG and [18F]FASu in U-87 tumor–bearing mice at 1 h after injection. *P < 0.05. **P < 0.01. ****P < 0.0001.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1.

    Half-Maximal Inhibitory Concentrations (μM) from Tracer Competition Uptake Assays Against l-Cystine and l-Glutamate

    SubstrateCell line[18F]FASu (±SE)[18F]FSPG (±SE)
    l-CystineA5493.92 ± 0.603.23 ± 1.01
    l-GlutamateA54910.93 ± 1.005.20 ± 1.18
    l-CystineMDA-MB-2314.56 ± 0.897.88 ± 1.36
    l-GlutamateMDA-MB-23141.01 ± 6.3229.29 ± 3.60
    • Assays were performed in A549 and MDA-MB-231 cells (n = 3).

    • View popup
    TABLE 2.

    Biodistribution and Tumor-to-Nontarget Ratios of [18F]FASu and [18F]FSPG in A549 Xenograft–Bearing Rag2M Mice

    Organ[18F]FASu[18F]FSPG
    Unblocked (n = 6)100 mg/kg ASu* (n = 4)Unblocked (n = 6)100 mg/kg ASu* (n = 4)
    Blood0.78 ± 0.440.64 ± 0.110.51 ± 0.080.55 ± 0.16
    Fat0.04 ± 0.010.04 ± 0.010.03 ± 0.010.02 ± 0.00
    Ovaries2.91 ± 0.500.91 ± 0.21†9.13 ± 2.771.14 ± 0.20†
    Uterus7.96 ± 2.880.59 ± 0.11†6.29 ± 2.990.91 ± 0.34
    Small intestine2.53 ± 0.210.87 ± 0.61†2.51 ± 0.370.46 ± 0.13†
    Stomach0.66 ± 0.120.61 ± 0.420.85 ± 0.290.33 ± 0.18
    Pancreas24.93 ± 2.923.96 ± 1.18†17.71 ± 3.633.99 ± 0.70†
    Spleen3.89 ± 2.011.04 ± 0.266.14 ± 0.841.02 ± 0.20†
    Adrenal glands0.65 ± 0.150.51 ± 0.240.53 ± 0.050.59 ± 0.16
    Kidneys13.29 ± 1.6022.19 ± 5.8517.49 ± 2.1121.07 ± 10.60
    Liver0.74 ± 0.080.75 ± 0.170.63 ± 0.130.60 ± 0.32
    Heart0.24 ± 0.060.26 ± 0.050.16 ± 0.030.17 ± 0.08
    Lungs1.92 ± 0.462.66 ± 0.281.36 ± 0.071.00 ± 0.37
    Muscle0.15 ± 0.020.16 ± 0.030.17 ± 0.050.10 ± 0.03
    Bone0.56 ± 0.080.33 ± 0.07†0.14 ± 0.040.20 ± 0.07
    Brain0.13 ± 0.020.09 ± 0.010.64 ± 0.210.09 ± 0.04
    Tail1.25 ± 0.200.75 ± 0.290.21 ± 0.010.44 ± 0.20†
    A549 tumor5.00 ± 0.832.04 ± 0.36†6.27 ± 1.323.53 ± 0.69
    Tumor/blood7.61 ± 3.583.22 ± 0.5812.36 ± 2.526.67 ± 1.81†
    Tumor/muscle33.18 ± 4.3913.72 ± 4.40†37.92 ± 9.5539.15 ± 11.34
    Tumor/lungs2.70 ± 0.650.78 ± 0.20†4.59 ± 0.923.77 ± 1.17
    Tumor/brain39.79 ± 6.6723.40 ± 6.53†52.95 ± 10.2945.58 ± 17.86
    • ↵* Blocked with coinjection of cold standard, ASu.

    • ↵† Coinjection significantly reduced uptake of same organ for tracer or tumor-to-organ ratio (P < 0.05).

    • Biodistributions and ratios are at 1 h after injection. Values (%ID/g) are presented as mean ± SD.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3.

    Biodistribution and Tumor-to-Nontarget Ratios of [18F]FASu and [18F]FSPG in U-87 Xenograft–Bearing Rag2M Mice

    Organ[18F]FASu[18F]FSPG
    OrganUnblocked (n ≥ 4)Unblocked (n ≥ 4)
    Blood0.84 ± 0.500.59 ± 0.08
    Fat0.04 ± 0.020.02 ± 0.00
    Ovaries3.07 ± 1.485.62 ± 4.09
    Uterus5.97 ± 3.085.07 ± 0.73
    Small intestine1.83 ± 0.642.18 ± 0.40
    Stomach1.66 ± 1.131.08 ± 0.73
    Pancreas26.42 ± 11.5916.81 ± 1.38
    Spleen4.47 ± 1.656.58 ± 1.58
    Adrenal glands0.46 ± 0.150.55 ± 0.05
    Kidneys17.79 ± 7.2017.92 ± 2.49
    Liver0.95 ± 0.440.59 ± 0.14
    Heart0.36 ± 0.210.17 ± 0.01
    Lungs3.41 ± 2.201.39 ± 0.16
    Muscle0.26 ± 0.110.12 ± 0.02
    Bone0.76 ± 0.460.76 ± 0.17
    Brain0.16 ± 0.090.12 ± 0.01
    Tail1.82 ± 0.901.26 ± 0.24
    U-87 tumor6.05 ± 2.4011.18 ± 4.12
    Tumor/blood7.96 ± 2.8118.67 ± 6.30
    Tumor/muscle24.08 ± 5.2097.86 ± 38.99
    Tumor/lungs1.96 ± 0.518.04 ± 2.60
    Tumor/brain41.30 ± 12.7397.22 ± 33.15
    • Biodistributions and ratios are at 1 h after injection. Values (%ID/g) are presented as mean ± SD.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 64 (8)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 64, Issue 8
August 1, 2023
  • 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.
Comparative Evaluation of [18F]5-Fluoroaminosuberic Acid and (4S)-4-3-[18F]fluoropropyl)-l-Glutamate as System –Targeting Radiopharmaceuticals
(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
Comparative Evaluation of [18F]5-Fluoroaminosuberic Acid and (4S)-4-3-[18F]fluoropropyl)-l-Glutamate as System Formula–Targeting Radiopharmaceuticals
Milena Colovic, Hua Yang, Lily Southcott, Helen Merkens, Nadine Colpo, Francois Bénard, Paul Schaffer
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2023, 64 (8) 1314-1321; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.122.265254

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Comparative Evaluation of [18F]5-Fluoroaminosuberic Acid and (4S)-4-3-[18F]fluoropropyl)-l-Glutamate as System Formula–Targeting Radiopharmaceuticals
Milena Colovic, Hua Yang, Lily Southcott, Helen Merkens, Nadine Colpo, Francois Bénard, Paul Schaffer
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2023, 64 (8) 1314-1321; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.122.265254
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Designed Ankyrin Repeat Protein–Mediated Peptide Nucleic Acid–Based Pretargeting: A Proof-of-Principle Study
  • [11C]ZTP-1: An Effective Short-Lived Radioligand for PET of Rat and Monkey Brain Phosphodiesterase Type 4 Subtype B
  • Reduced Renal Uptake of Various Radiopharmaceuticals with Sodium Paraaminohippurate Coadministration in a Rat Model
Show more Basic Science Investigation

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • system x−C transporter
  • tumor imaging
  • amino acid tracer
  • 18F
  • rose bengal
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire