Top

Published in:

01-11-2008 | Review Article

Has Molecular and Cellular Imaging Enhanced Drug Discovery and Drug Development?

Authors: Dr Gang Niu, Xiaoyuan Chen

Published in: Drugs in R&D | Issue 6/2008

Abstract

A great many efforts have been made to accelerate the drug discovery and development process, which is extremely time and money consuming. Recently developed molecular imaging has many significant advantages over conventional methods for examining molecular pathways and obtaining pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and mechanistic information. This review briefly summarizes various molecular and cellular imaging techniques and discusses several important applications of molecular and cellular imaging in drug discovery and development, which include: (i) measurement of pharmacodynamic endpoints by imaging metabolism and proliferation, imaging angiogenic parameters, and imaging a particular pathway or downstream target; (ii) evaluation of pharmacokinetics; and (iii) imaging therapeutic gene expression with relevance to gene therapy. Molecular imaging is becoming more widely used as a non-invasive tool for drug discovery and drug screening. Further refinements in imaging techniques, optimization of imaging probes and collaborative efforts will be needed to fully realise the vast potential of molecular imaging techniques in discovering and developing new drugs.

Mankoff DA. A definition of molecular imaging. J Nucl Med 2007 Jun; 48 (6): 18N, 21N

Massoud TF, Gambhir SS. Molecular imaging in living subjects: seeing fundamental biological processes in a new light. Genes Dev 2003 Mar 1; 17 (5): 545–80PubMedCrossRef

Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000 Aug; 41 (8): 1369–79

Even-Sapir E, Lerman H, Lievshitz G, et al. Lymphoscintigraphy for sentinel node mapping using a hybrid SPECT/CT system. J Nucl Med 2003 Sep; 44 (9): 1413–20PubMed

Catana C, Wu Y, Judenhofer MS, et al. Simultaneous acquisition of multislice PET and MR images: initial results with a MR-compatible PET scanner. J Nucl Med 2006 Dec; 47 (12): 1968–76PubMed

Loening AM, Gambhir SS. AMIDE: a free software tool for multimodality medical image analysis. Mol Imaging 2003 Jul; 2 (3): 131–7PubMedCrossRef

Bragg DG. Advances in diagnostic radiology: problems and prospects. Cancer 1977 Jul; 40 (1 Suppl.): 500–8PubMedCrossRef

Wang G, Yu H, De Man B. An outlook on x-ray CT research and development. Med Phys 2008 Mar; 35 (3): 1051–64PubMedCrossRef

Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, et al. State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig 2006 Mar; 10 (1): 1–7PubMedCrossRef

10.

Pathak AP, Gimi B, Glunde K, et al. Molecular and functional imaging of cancer: advances in MRI and MRS. Methods Enzymol 2004; 386: 3–60PubMed

11.

Zhang Z, Nair SA, McMurry TJ. Gadolinium meets medicinal chemistry: MRI contrast agent development. Curr Med Chem 2005; 12 (7): 751–78PubMedCrossRef

12.

Pautler RG, Fraser SE. The year(s) of the contrast agent: micro-MRI in the new millennium. Curr Opin Immunol 2003 Aug; 15 (4): 385–92PubMedCrossRef

13.

de Roos A, Doornbos J, Baleriaux D, et al. Clinical applications of gadolinium-DTPA in MRI. Magn Reson Annu 1988; 45

14.

Thorek DL, Chen AK, Czupryna J, et al. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle probes for molecular imaging. Ann Biomed Eng 2006 Jan; 34 (1): 23–38PubMedCrossRef

15.

Bulte JW, Kraitchman DL. Iron oxide MR contrast agents for molecular and cellular imaging. NMR Biomed 2004 Nov; 17 (7): 484–99PubMedCrossRef

16.

Sipkins DA, Cheresh DA, Kazemi MR, et al. Detection of tumor angiogenesis in vivo by avb3-targeted magnetic resonance imaging. Nat Med 1998 May; 4 (5): 623–6PubMedCrossRef

17.

Shapiro EM, Skrtic S, Sharer K, et al. MRI detection of single particles for cellular imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004 Jul 27; 101 (30): 10901–6PubMedCrossRef

18.

Shapiro EM, Sharer K, Skrtic S, et al. In vivo detection of single cells by MRI. Magn Reson Med 2006 Feb; 55 (2): 242–9CrossRef

19.

Heyn C, Ronald JA, Mackenzie LT, et al. In vivo magnetic resonance imaging of single cells in mouse brain with optical validation. Magn Reson Med 2006 Jan; 55 (1): 23–9PubMedCrossRef

20.

Sosnovik DE, Weissleder R. Emerging concepts in molecular MRI. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2007 Feb; 18 (1): 4–10PubMedCrossRef

21.

Jones T. The imaging science of positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 1996 Jul; 23 (7): 807–13PubMedCrossRef

22.

Volkow ND, Mullani NA, Bendriem B. Positron emission tomography instrumentation: an overview. Am J Physiol Imaging 1988; 3 (3): 142–53PubMed

23.

Riemann B, Schafers KP, Schober O, et al. Small animal PET in preclinical studies: opportunities and challenges. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008 Sep; 52 (3): 215–21PubMed

24.

Peremans K, Cornelissen B, Van Den Bossche B, et al. A review of small animal imaging planar and pinhole SPECT gamma camera imaging. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2005 Mar–Apr; 46 (2): 162–70PubMedCrossRef

25.

Chatziioannou AF. Instrumentation for molecular imaging in preclinical research: micro-PET and micro-SPECT. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2005; 2 (6): 533–6PubMedCrossRef

26.

Ntziachristos V, Tung CH, Bremer C, et al. Fluorescence molecular tomography resolves protease activity in vivo. Nat Med 2002 Jul; 8 (7): 757–60PubMedCrossRef

27.

Jain RK, Munn LL, Fukumura D. Dissecting tumour pathophysiology using intravital microscopy. Nat Rev Cancer 2002 Apr; 2 (4): 266–76PubMedCrossRef

28.

Zipfel WR, Williams RM, Webb WW. Nonlinear magic: multiphoton microscopy in the biosciences. Nat Biotechnol 2003 Nov; 21 (11): 1369–77PubMedCrossRef

29.

Brown EB, Campbell RB, Tsuzuki Y, et al. In vivo measurement of gene expression, angiogenesis and physiological function in tumors using multiphoton laser scanning microscopy. Nat Med 2001 Jul; 7 (7): 864–8PubMedCrossRef

30.

Kunneke S, Janshoff A. Visualization of molecular recognition events on microstructured lipid-membrane compartments by in situ scanning force microscopy. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2002 Jan 18; 41 (2): 314–6PubMedCrossRef

31.

Seshadri M, Spernyak JA, Maiery PG, et al. Visualizing the acute effects of vascular-targeted therapy in vivo using intravital microscopy and magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with endothelial apoptosis, cytokine induction, and treatment outcome. Neoplasia 2007 Feb; 9 (2): 128–35PubMedCrossRef

32.

Weissleder R, Mahmood U. Molecular imaging. Radiology 2001 May; 219 (2): 316–33PubMed

33.

Cheong WF, Prahl SA, Welch AJ. A review of the optical properties of biological tissues. IEEE J 1990; 26: 2166–85CrossRef

34.

Wang W, Ke S, Wu Q, et al. Near-infrared optical imaging of integrin avb3 in human tumor xenografts. Mol Imaging 2004 Oct; 3 (4): 343–51PubMedCrossRef

35.

Sunkuk K, Shi K, Houston JP, et al. Imaging dose-dependent pharmacokinetics of an RGD-fluorescent dye conjugate targeted to avb3 receptor expressed in Kaposi’s sarcoma. Mol Imaging 2005 Apr; 4 (2): 75–87

36.

Burnett CA, Xie J, Quijano J, et al. Synthesis, in vitro, and in vivo characterization of an integrin avb3-targeted molecular probe for optical imaging of tumor. Bioorg Med Chem 2005 Jun 1; 13 (11): 3763–71PubMedCrossRef

37.

Hsu AR, Hou LC, Veeravagu A, et al. In vivo near-infrared fluorescence imaging of integrin avb3 in an orthotopic glioblastoma model. Mol Imaging Biol 2006; 8 (6): 315–23PubMedCrossRef

38.

von Wallbrunn A, Holtke C, Zuhlsdorf M, et al. In vivo imaging of integrin avb3 expression using fluorescence-mediated tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007 May; 34 (5): 745–54CrossRef

39.

Ichiya Y, Kuwabara Y, Otsuka M, et al. Assessment of response to cancer therapy using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med 1991 Sep; 32 (9): 1655–60PubMed

40.

Li CY, Shan S, Huang Q, et al. Initial stages of tumor cell-induced angiogenesis: evaluation via skin window chambers in rodent models. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 Jan 19; 92 (2): 143–7PubMedCrossRef

41.

Geng L, Donnelly E, McMahon G, et al. Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor signaling leads to reversal of tumor resistance to radiotherapy. Cancer Res 2001 Mar 15; 61 (6): 2413–9PubMed

42.

Frangioni JV. In vivo near-infrared fluorescence imaging. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2003; 7 (5): 626–34PubMedCrossRef

43.

Shah K, Weissleder R. Molecular optical imaging: applications leading to the development of present day therapeutics. NeuroRx 2005 Apr; 2 (2): 215–25PubMedCrossRef

44.

Montet X, Figueiredo JL, Alencar H, et al. Tomographic fluorescence imaging of tumor vascular volume in mice. Radiology 2007 Mar; 242 (3): 751–8PubMedCrossRef

45.

Contag CH, Ross BD. It’s not just about anatomy: in vivo bioluminescence imaging as an eyepiece into biology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002 Oct; 16 (4): 378–87PubMedCrossRef

46.

Rehemtulla A, Stegman LD, Cardozo SJ, et al. Rapid and quantitative assessment of cancer treatment response using in vivo bioluminescence imaging. Neoplasia 2000 Nov–Dec; 2 (6): 491–5PubMedCrossRef

47.

Paroo Z, Bollinger RA, Braasch DA, et al. Validating bioluminescence imaging as a high-throughput, quantitative modality for assessing tumor burden. Mol Imaging 2004 Apr; 3 (2): 117–24PubMedCrossRef

48.

Kadurugamuwa JL, Modi K, Coquoz O, et al. Reduction of astrogliosis by early treatment of pneumococcal meningitis measured by simultaneous imaging, in vivo, of the pathogen and host response. Infect Immun 2005 Dec; 73 (12): 7836–43PubMedCrossRef

49.

Luker GD, Luker KE. Optical imaging: current applications and future directions. J Nucl Med 2008 Jan; 49 (1): 1–4PubMedCrossRef

50.

Bloch SH, Dayton PA, Ferrara KW. Targeted imaging using ultrasound contrast agents. Progress and opportunities for clinical and research applications. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 2004 Sep–Oct; 23 (5): 18–29PubMedCrossRef

51.

Wink MH, Wijkstra H, De La Rosette JJ, et al. Ultrasound imaging and contrast agents: a safe alternative to MRI? Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2006; 15: 93–100PubMedCrossRef

52.

Wells PN. Ultrasound imaging. Phys Med Biol 2006 Jul 7; 51 (13): R83–98PubMedCrossRef

53.

Drevs J, Hofmann I, Hugenschmidt H, et al. Effects of PTK787/ZK 222584, a specific inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, on primary tumor, metastasis, vessel density, and blood flow in a murine renal cell carcinoma model. Cancer Res 2000 Sep 1; 60 (17): 4819–24PubMed

54.

Kaufmann BA, Lindner JR. Molecular imaging with targeted contrast ultrasound. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2007 Feb; 18 (1): 11–6PubMedCrossRef

55.

Ellegala DB, Leong-Poi H, Carpenter JE, et al. Imaging tumor angiogenesis with contrast ultrasound and microbubbles targeted to avb3. Circulation 2003 Jul 22; 108 (3): 336–41PubMedCrossRef

56.

Kumar CC, Nie H, Rogers CP, et al. Biochemical characterization of the binding of echistatin to integrin avb3 receptor. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1997 Nov; 283 (2): 843–53PubMed

57.

Hughes MS, Marsh JN, Zhang H, et al. Characterization of digital waveforms using thermodynamic analogs: detection of contrast-targeted tissue in vivo. IEEE Trans Ultrason Feroelectr Freq Control 2006 Sep; 53 (9): 1609–16CrossRef

58.

Palmowski M, Huppert J, Ladewig G, et al. Molecular profiling of angiogenesis with targeted ultrasound imaging: early assessment of antiangiogenic therapy effects. Mol Cancer Ther 2008 Jan; 7 (1): 101–9PubMedCrossRef

59.

Shohet RV, Chen S, Zhou YT, et al. Echocardiographic destruction of albumin microbubbles directs gene delivery to the myocardium. Circulation 2000 Jun 6; 101 (22): 2554–6PubMedCrossRef

60.

Massoud TF, Gambhir SS. Integrating noninvasive molecular imaging into molecular medicine: an evolving paradigm. Trends Mol Med 2007 May; 13 (5): 183–91PubMedCrossRef

61.

Seddon BM, Workman P. The role of functional and molecular imaging in cancer drug discovery and development. Br J Radiol 2003; 76 Spec. No. 2: S128–38PubMedCrossRef

62.

Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, et al. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981 Jan 1; 47 (1): 207–14PubMedCrossRef

63.

Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 Feb 2; 92 (3): 205–16PubMedCrossRef

64.

Gelmon KA, Eisenhauer EA, Harris AL, et al. Anticancer agents targeting signaling molecules and cancer cell environment: challenges for drug development? J Natl Cancer Inst 1999 Aug 4; 91 (15): 1281–7PubMedCrossRef

65.

Willmann JK, van Bruggen N, Dinkelborg LM, et al. Molecular imaging in drug development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008 Jul; 7 (7): 591–607PubMedCrossRef

66.

Price P, Jones T. Molecular imaging: what picture does it paint for future oncology? Drug Discov Today 2002 Jul 15; 7 (14): 741–3PubMedCrossRef

67.

Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science 1956 Feb 24; 123 (3191): 309–14PubMedCrossRef

68.

Vallabhajosula S. (18)F-labeled positron emission tomographic radiopharmaceuticals in oncology: an overview of radiochemistry and mechanisms of tumor localization. Semin Nucl Med 2007 Nov; 37 (6): 400–19PubMedCrossRef

69.

Sols A, Crane RK. Substrate specificity of brain hexokinase. J Biol Chem 1954 Oct; 210 (2): 581–95PubMed

70.

Berlangieri SU, Brizel DM, Scher RL, et al. Pilot study of positron emission tomography in patients with advanced head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Head Neck 1994 Jul–Aug; 16 (4): 340–6PubMedCrossRef

71.

Prenen H, Deroose C, Vermaelen P, et al. Establishment of a mouse gastrointestinal stromal tumour model and evaluation of response to imatinib by small animal positron emission tomography. Anticancer Res 2006 Mar–Apr; 26 (2A): 1247–52PubMed

72.

Tian M, Zhang H, Higuchi T, et al. Effect of mitomycin C and vinblastine on FDG uptake of human nonsmall-cell lung cancer xenografts in nude mice. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2004 Oct; 19 (5): 601–5PubMed

73.

Tseng JR, Kang KW, Dandekar M, et al. Preclinical efficacy of the c-Met inhibitor CE-355621 in a U87 MG mouse xenograft model evaluated by 18F-FDG small-animal PET. J Nucl Med 2008 Jan; 49 (1): 129–34PubMedCrossRef

74.

Dandekar M, Tseng JR, Gambhir SS. Reproducibility of 18F-FDG microPET studies in mouse tumor xenografts. J Nucl Med 2007 Apr; 48 (4): 602–7PubMedCrossRef

75.

Sherley JL, Kelly TJ. Regulation of human thymidine kinase during the cell cycle. J Biol Chem 1988 Jun 15; 263 (17): 8350–8PubMed

76.

Shields AF. PET imaging with 18F-FLT and thymidine analogs: promise and pitfalls. J Nucl Med 2003 Sep; 44 (9): 1432–4PubMed

77.

Leyton J, Latigo JR, Perumal M, et al. Early detection of tumor response to chemotherapy by 3′-deoxy-3′-[18F]fluorothymi-dine positron emission tomography: the effect of cisplatin on a fibrosarcoma tumor model in vivo. Cancer Res 2005 May 15; 65 (10): 4202–10PubMedCrossRef

78.

Tseng JR, Dandekar M, Subbarayan M, et al. Reproducibility of 3′-deoxy-3′-(18)F-fluorothymidine microPET studies in tumor xenografts in mice. J Nucl Med 2005 Nov; 46 (11): 1851–7PubMed

79.

Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG. The role of 18F-FLT in cancer imaging: does it really reflect proliferation? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008 Mar; 35 (3): 523–6PubMedCrossRef

80.

Folkman J. Role of angiogenesis in tumor growth and metastasis. Semin Oncol 2002 Dec; 29 (6 Suppl. 16): 15–8PubMed

81.

Lassau N, Lamuraglia M, Chami L, et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors treated with imatinib: monitoring response with contrast-enhanced sonography. Am J Roentgenol 2006 Nov; 187 (5): 1267–73CrossRef

82.

Li PC, Yang MJ. Transfer function analysis of ultrasonic time-intensity measurements. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003 Oct; 29 (10): 1493–500PubMedCrossRef

83.

Lavisse S, Lejeune P, Rouffiac V, et al. Early quantitative evaluation of a tumor vasculature disruptive agent AVE8062 using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Invest Radiol 2008 Feb; 43 (2): 100–11PubMedCrossRef

84.

Miller KD, Soule SE, Calley C, et al. Randomized phase II trial of the anti-angiogenic potential of doxorubicin and docetaxel; primary chemotherapy as biomarker discovery laboratory. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005 Jan; 89 (2): 187–97PubMedCrossRef

85.

Padhani AR. MRI for assessing antivascular cancer treatments. Br J Radiol 2003; 76 Spec. No. 1: S60–80PubMedCrossRef

86.

Kiessling F, Fink C, Hansen M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of nude mice with heterotransplanted high-grade squamous cell carcinomas: use of a low-loaded, covalently bound Gd-Hsa conjugate as contrast agent with high tumor affinity. Invest Radiol 2002 Apr; 37 (4): 193–8PubMedCrossRef

87.

Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999 Sep; 10 (3): 223–32PubMedCrossRef

88.

Padhani AR, Husband JE. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies in oncology with an emphasis on quantification, validation and human studies. Clin Radiol 2001 Aug; 56 (8): 607–20PubMedCrossRef

89.

Barrett T, Brechbiel M, Bernardo M, et al. MRI of tumor angiogenesis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 Aug; 26 (2): 235–49PubMedCrossRef

90.

Thomas AL, Morgan B, Horsfield MA, et al. Phase I study of the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmaco-dynamics of PTK787/ZK 222584 administered twice daily in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005 Jun 20; 23 (18): 4162–71PubMedCrossRef

91.

Liu G, Rugo HS, Wilding G, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a pharmacodynamic measure of response after acute dosing of AG-013736, an oral angiogenesis inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors: results from a phase I study. J Clin Oncol 2005 Aug 20; 23 (24): 5464–73PubMedCrossRef

92.

Medved M, Karczmar G, Yang C, et al. Semiquantitative analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in cancer patients: variability and changes in tumor tissue over time. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004 Jul; 20 (1): 122–8PubMedCrossRef

93.

Marzola P, Degrassi A, Calderan L, et al. In vivo assessment of antiangiogenic activity of SU6668 in an experimental colon carcinoma model. Clin Cancer Res 2004 Jan 15; 10 (2): 739–50PubMedCrossRef

94.

Faccioli N, Marzola P, Boschi F, et al. Pathological animal models in the experimental evaluation of tumour microvasculature with magnetic resonance imaging. Radiol Med (Torino) 2007 Apr; 112 (3): 319–28CrossRef

95.

Nollen EA, Morimoto RI. Chaperoning signaling pathways: molecular chaperones as stress-sensing ‘heat shock’ proteins. J Cell Sci 2002 Jul 15; 115 (Pt 14): 2809–16PubMed

96.

Citri A, Alroy I, Lavi S, et al. Drug-induced ubiquitylation and degradation of ErbB receptor tyrosine kinases: implications for cancer therapy. Embo J 2002 May 15; 21 (10): 2407–17PubMedCrossRef

97.

Smith-Jones PM, Solit DB, Akhurst T, et al. Imaging the pharmacodynamics of HER2 degradation in response to Hsp90 inhibitors. Nat Biotechnol 2004 Jun; 22 (6): 701–6PubMedCrossRef

98.

Smith-Jones PM, Solit D, Afroze F, et al. Early tumor response to Hsp90 therapy using HER2 PET: comparison with 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2006 May; 47 (5): 793–6PubMed

99.

Murakami Y, Mizuno S, Uehara Y. Accelerated degradation of 160 kDa epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor precursor by the tyrosine kinase inhibitor herbimycin A in the endoplasmic reticulum of A431 human epidermoid carcinoma cells. Biochem J 1994; 301 (Pt 1): 63–8PubMed

100.

Sakagami M, Morrison P, Welch WJ. Benzoquinoid ansamycins (herbimycin A and geldanamycin) interfere with the maturation of growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases. Cell Stress Chaperones 1999 Mar; 4 (1): 19–28PubMedCrossRef

101.

Cai W, Chen K, He L, et al. Quantitative PET of EGFR expression in xenograft-bearing mice using 64Cu-labeled cetuximab, a chimeric anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007; 34 (6): 850–8PubMedCrossRef

102.

Niu G, Cai W, Chen K, et al. Non-invasive PET imaging of EGFR degradation induced by a heat shock protein 90 inhibitor. Mol Imaging Biol 2008 Mar–Apr; 10 (2): 99–106PubMedCrossRef

103.

Lemmon MA, Schlessinger J. Regulation of signal transduction and signal diversity by receptor oligomerization. Trends Biochem Sci 1994 Nov; 19 (11): 459–63PubMedCrossRef

104.

Hennessy BT, Smith DL, Ram PT, et al. Exploiting the PI3K/AKT pathway for cancer drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2005 Dec; 4 (12): 988–1004PubMedCrossRef

105.

Kondapaka SB, Singh SS, Dasmahapatra GP, et al. Perifosine, a novel alkylphospholipid, inhibits protein kinase B activation. Mol Cancer Ther 2003 Nov; 2 (11): 1093–103PubMed

106.

Zhang L, Lee KC, Bhojani MS, et al. Molecular imaging of Akt kinase activity. Nat Med 2007 Sep; 13 (9): 1114–9PubMedCrossRef

107.

Miller AD. Progress toward human gene therapy. Blood 1990 Jul 15; 76 (2): 271–8PubMed

108.

Kootstra NA, Verma IM. Gene therapy with viral vectors. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2003; 43: 413–39PubMedCrossRef

109.

Kristian Raty J, Liimatainen T, Unelma Kaikkonen M, et al. Non-invasive imaging in gene therapy. Mol Ther 2007 Sep; 15 (9): 1579–86CrossRef

110.

Massoud TF, Singh A, Gambhir SS. Noninvasive molecular neuroimaging using reporter genes: part I. Principles revisited. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008 Feb; 29 (2): 229–34PubMedCrossRef

111.

Liang Q, Nguyen K, Satyamurthy N, et al. Monitoring adenoviral DNA delivery, using a mutant herpes simplex virus type 1 thymidine kinase gene as a PET reporter gene. Gene Ther 2002 Dec; 9 (24): 1659–66PubMedCrossRef

112.

Niu G, Krager KJ, Graham MM, et al. Noninvasive radiological imaging of pulmonary gene transfer and expression using the human sodium iodide symporter. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005 May; 32 (5): 534–40PubMedCrossRef

113.

Niu G, Anderson RD, Madsen MT, et al. Dual-expressing adenoviral vectors encoding the sodium iodide symporter for use in noninvasive radiological imaging of therapeutic gene transfer. Nucl Med Biol 2006 Apr; 33 (3): 391–8PubMedCrossRef

114.

Wunderbaldinger P, Bogdanov A, Weissleder R. New approaches for imaging in gene therapy. Eur J Radiol 2000 Jun; 34 (3): 156–65PubMedCrossRef

115.

Rome C, Couillaud F, Moonen CT. Spatial and temporal control of expression of therapeutic genes using heat shock protein promoters. Methods 2005 Feb; 35 (2): 188–98PubMedCrossRef

116.

Blackburn RV, Galoforo SS, Corry PM, et al. Adenoviral-mediated transfer of a heat-inducible double suicide gene into prostate carcinoma cells. Cancer Res 1998 Apr 1; 58 (7): 1358–62PubMed

117.

Dong D, Dubeau L, Bading J, et al. Spontaneous and controllable activation of suicide gene expression driven by the stress-inducible grp78 promoter resulting in eradication of sizable human tumors. Hum Gene Ther 2004 Jun; 15 (6): 553–61PubMedCrossRef

118.

Huang Q, Hu JK, Lohr F, et al. Heat-induced gene expression as a novel targeted cancer gene therapy strategy. Cancer Res 2000 Jul 1; 60 (13): 3435–9PubMed

119.

Vekris A, Maurange C, Moonen C, et al. Control of transgene expression using local hyperthermia in combination with a heat-sensitive promoter. J Gene Med 2000 Mar–Apr; 2 (2): 89–96PubMedCrossRef

120.

Borrelli MJ, Schoenherr DM, Wong A, et al. Heat-activated transgene expression from adenovirus vectors infected into human prostate cancer cells. Cancer Res 2001 Feb 1; 61 (3): 1113–21PubMed

121.

Guilhon E, Quesson B, Moraud-Gaudry F, et al. Image-guided control of transgene expression based on local hyperthermia. Mol Imaging 2003 Jan; 2 (1): 11–7PubMedCrossRef

122.

Wang S, Xie W, Rylander MN, et al. HSP70 kinetics study by continuous observation of HSP-GFP fusion protein expression on a perfusion heating stage. Biotechnol Bioeng 2008 Jan 1; 99 (1): 146–54PubMedCrossRef

123.

Niu G, Gaut AW, Ponto LL, et al. Multimodality noninvasive imaging of gene transfer using the human sodium iodide symporter. J Nucl Med 2004 Mar; 45 (3): 445–9PubMed

124.

Che J, Doubrovin M, Serganova I, et al. HSP70-inducible hNIS-IRES-eGFP reporter imaging: response to heat shock. Mol Imaging 2007 Nov–Dec; 6 (6): 404–16PubMed

125.

Genove G, DeMarco U, Xu H, et al. A new transgene reporter for in vivo magnetic resonance imaging. Nat Med 2005 Apr; 11 (4): 450–4PubMedCrossRef

126.

Cohen B, Dafni H, Meir G, et al. Ferritin as an endogenous MRI reporter for noninvasive imaging of gene expression in C6 glioma tumors. Neoplasia 2005 Feb; 7 (2): 109–17PubMedCrossRef

127.

Halldin C, Gulyas B, Farde L. PET studies with carbon-11 radioligands in neuropsychopharmacological drug development. Curr Pharm Des 2001 Dec; 7 (18): 1907–29PubMedCrossRef

128.

Fischman AJ, Alpert NM, Rubin RH. Pharmacokinetic imaging: a noninvasive method for determining drug distribution and action. Clin Pharmacokinet 2002; 41 (8): 581–602PubMedCrossRef

129.

Aboagye EO, Price PM, Jones T. In vivo pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in drug development using positron-emission tomography. Drug Discov Today 2001 Mar 1; 6 (6): 293–302PubMedCrossRef

130.

Machka K, Braveny I. Comparative in vitro activity of RO 23-6240 (fleroxacin), a new 4-quinolone derivative. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1987 Aug; 6 (4): 482–5PubMedCrossRef

131.

Fischman AJ, Livni E, Babich J, et al. Pharmacokinetics of 18F-labeled fleroxacin in rabbits with Escherichia coli infections, studied with positron emission tomography. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Oct; 36 (10): 2286–92PubMedCrossRef

132.

Rubin RH, Livni E, Babich J, et al. Pharmacokinetics of fleroxacin as studied by positron emission tomography and [18F]fleroxacin. Am J Med 1993 Mar 22; 94 (3A): 31S–7SPubMed

133.

Fischman AJ, Livni E, Babich JW, et al. Pharmacokinetics of [18F]fleroxacin in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and complicated urinary tract infection studied by positron emission tomography. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996 Mar; 40 (3): 659–64PubMed

134.

Tyler JL, Yamamoto YL, Diksic M, et al. Pharmacokinetics of superselective intra-arterial and intravenous [11C]BCNU evaluated by PET. J Nucl Med 1986 Jun; 27 (6): 775–80PubMed

135.

Wiseman GA, Kornmehl E, Leigh B, et al. Radiation dosimetry results and safety correlations from 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan radioimmunotherapy for relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: combined data from 4 clinical trials. J Nucl Med 2003 Mar; 44 (3): 465–74PubMed

136.

Garmestani K, Milenic DE, Plascjak PS, et al. A new and convenient method for purification of 86Y using a Sr(II) selective resin and comparison of biodistribution of 86Y and 111In labeled Herceptin. Nucl Med Biol 2002 Jul; 29 (5): 599–606PubMedCrossRef

137.

Lovqvist A, Humm JL, Sheikh A, et al. PET imaging of (86)Y-labeled anti-Lewis Y monoclonal antibodies in a nude mouse model: comparison between (86)Y and (111)In radiolabels. J Nucl Med 2001 Aug; 42 (8): 1281–7PubMed

138.

van Gog FB, Visser GW, Klok R, et al. Monoclonal antibodies labeled with rhenium-186 using the MAG3 chelate: relationship between the number of chelated groups and biodistribution characteristics. J Nucl Med 1996; 37 (2): 352–62PubMed

Title: Has Molecular and Cellular Imaging Enhanced Drug Discovery and Drug Development?
Authors: Dr Gang Niu
Xiaoyuan Chen
Publication date: 01-11-2008
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Drugs in R&D / Issue 6/2008
Print ISSN: 1174-5886
Electronic ISSN: 1179-6901
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/0126839-200809060-00002

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Has Molecular and Cellular Imaging Enhanced Drug Discovery and Drug Development?

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2008

New Approaches to the Treatment of Inflammatory Disease

Irsogladine is Effective for Recurrent Oral Ulcers in Patients with Behçet’s Disease

Histone Deacetylation

Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Interaction between Nebicapone, a Novel Catechol-O-Methyltransferase Inhibitor, and Controlled-Release Levodopa/Carbidopa 200 mg/50 mg

Dosage Form Proportionality and Food Effect of the Final Tablet Formulation of Eslicarbazepine Acetate

Acknowledgement