Cargando…

Comparative Assessment of Substrates and Activity Based Probes as Tools for Non-Invasive Optical Imaging of Cysteine Protease Activity

Recent advances in the field of non-invasive optical imaging have included the development of contrast agents that report on the activity of enzymatic targets associated with disease pathology. In particular, proteases have proven to be ideal targets for development of optical sensors for cancer. Re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blum, Galia, Weimer, Robby M., Edgington, Laura E., Adams, Walter, Bogyo, Matthew
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2712068/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19636372
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006374
_version_ 1782169473640300544
author Blum, Galia
Weimer, Robby M.
Edgington, Laura E.
Adams, Walter
Bogyo, Matthew
author_facet Blum, Galia
Weimer, Robby M.
Edgington, Laura E.
Adams, Walter
Bogyo, Matthew
author_sort Blum, Galia
collection PubMed
description Recent advances in the field of non-invasive optical imaging have included the development of contrast agents that report on the activity of enzymatic targets associated with disease pathology. In particular, proteases have proven to be ideal targets for development of optical sensors for cancer. Recently developed contrast agents for protease activity include both small peptides and large polymer-based quenched fluorescent substrates as well as fluorescently labeled activity based probes (ABPs). While substrates produce a fluorescent signal as a result of processing by a protease, ABPs are retained at the site of proteolysis due to formation of a permanent covalent bond with the active site catalytic residue. Both methods have potential advantages and disadvantages yet a careful comparison of substrates and ABPs has not been performed. Here we present the results of a direct comparison of commercially available protease substrates with several recently described fluorescent ABPs in a mouse model of cancer. The results demonstrate that fluorescent ABPs show more rapid and selective uptake into tumors as well as overall brighter signals compared to substrate probes. These data suggest that the lack of signal amplification for an ABP is offset by the increased kinetics of tissue uptake and prolonged retention of the probes once bound to a protease target. Furthermore, fluorescent ABPs can be used as imaging reagents with similar or better results as the commercially available protease substrates.
format Text
id pubmed-2712068
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27120682009-07-28 Comparative Assessment of Substrates and Activity Based Probes as Tools for Non-Invasive Optical Imaging of Cysteine Protease Activity Blum, Galia Weimer, Robby M. Edgington, Laura E. Adams, Walter Bogyo, Matthew PLoS One Research Article Recent advances in the field of non-invasive optical imaging have included the development of contrast agents that report on the activity of enzymatic targets associated with disease pathology. In particular, proteases have proven to be ideal targets for development of optical sensors for cancer. Recently developed contrast agents for protease activity include both small peptides and large polymer-based quenched fluorescent substrates as well as fluorescently labeled activity based probes (ABPs). While substrates produce a fluorescent signal as a result of processing by a protease, ABPs are retained at the site of proteolysis due to formation of a permanent covalent bond with the active site catalytic residue. Both methods have potential advantages and disadvantages yet a careful comparison of substrates and ABPs has not been performed. Here we present the results of a direct comparison of commercially available protease substrates with several recently described fluorescent ABPs in a mouse model of cancer. The results demonstrate that fluorescent ABPs show more rapid and selective uptake into tumors as well as overall brighter signals compared to substrate probes. These data suggest that the lack of signal amplification for an ABP is offset by the increased kinetics of tissue uptake and prolonged retention of the probes once bound to a protease target. Furthermore, fluorescent ABPs can be used as imaging reagents with similar or better results as the commercially available protease substrates. Public Library of Science 2009-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC2712068/ /pubmed/19636372 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006374 Text en Blum et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Blum, Galia
Weimer, Robby M.
Edgington, Laura E.
Adams, Walter
Bogyo, Matthew
Comparative Assessment of Substrates and Activity Based Probes as Tools for Non-Invasive Optical Imaging of Cysteine Protease Activity
title Comparative Assessment of Substrates and Activity Based Probes as Tools for Non-Invasive Optical Imaging of Cysteine Protease Activity
title_full Comparative Assessment of Substrates and Activity Based Probes as Tools for Non-Invasive Optical Imaging of Cysteine Protease Activity
title_fullStr Comparative Assessment of Substrates and Activity Based Probes as Tools for Non-Invasive Optical Imaging of Cysteine Protease Activity
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Assessment of Substrates and Activity Based Probes as Tools for Non-Invasive Optical Imaging of Cysteine Protease Activity
title_short Comparative Assessment of Substrates and Activity Based Probes as Tools for Non-Invasive Optical Imaging of Cysteine Protease Activity
title_sort comparative assessment of substrates and activity based probes as tools for non-invasive optical imaging of cysteine protease activity
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2712068/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19636372
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006374
work_keys_str_mv AT blumgalia comparativeassessmentofsubstratesandactivitybasedprobesastoolsfornoninvasiveopticalimagingofcysteineproteaseactivity
AT weimerrobbym comparativeassessmentofsubstratesandactivitybasedprobesastoolsfornoninvasiveopticalimagingofcysteineproteaseactivity
AT edgingtonlaurae comparativeassessmentofsubstratesandactivitybasedprobesastoolsfornoninvasiveopticalimagingofcysteineproteaseactivity
AT adamswalter comparativeassessmentofsubstratesandactivitybasedprobesastoolsfornoninvasiveopticalimagingofcysteineproteaseactivity
AT bogyomatthew comparativeassessmentofsubstratesandactivitybasedprobesastoolsfornoninvasiveopticalimagingofcysteineproteaseactivity