The Binding of BF-227-Like Benzoxazoles to Human α-Synuclein and Amyloid ß Peptide Fibrils.

Development of an α-synuclein (α-Syn) positron emission tomography agent for the diagnosis and evaluation of Parkinson disease therapy is a key goal of neurodegenerative disease research. BF-227 has been described as an α-Syn binder and hence was employed as a lead to generate a library of α-Syn-binding compounds. [3H]BF-227 bound to α-Syn and amyloid ß peptide (Aß) fibrils with affinities (KD) of 46.0 nM and 15.7 nM, respectively. Affinities of BF-227-like compounds (expressed as Ki) for α-Syn and Aß fibrils were determined, along with 5 reference compounds (flutafuranol, flutemetamol, florbetapir, BF-227, and PiB). Selectivity for α-Syn binding, defined as the Ki(Aß)/Ki(α-Syn) ratio, was 0.23 for BF-227. A similar or lower ratio was measured for analogues decorated with alkyl or oxyethylene chains attached to the oxygen at the 6 position of BF-227, suggesting a lack of involvement of the side chain in fibril binding. BF-227-like iodobenzoxazoles had lower affinities and poor α-Syn selectivity. However, BF-227-like fluorobenzoxazoles had improved α-Syn selectively having Ki(Aß)/Ki(α-Syn) ranging from 2.2 to 5.1 with appreciable fibril affinity, although not sufficient to warrant further investigation. Compounds based on fluorobenzoxazoles might offer an approach to obtaining an α-Syn imaging agent with an appropriate affinity and selectivity.

Quantitative kinetic analysis of PET amyloid imaging agents [(11)C]BF227 and [(18)F]FACT in human brain.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare two amyloid imaging agents, [(11)C]BF227 and [(18)F]FACT (derivative from [(11)C]BF227) through quantitative pharmacokinetics analysis in human brain. METHODS: Positron emission tomography studies were performed on six elderly healthy control (HC) subjects and seven probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients with [(11)C]BF227 and 10 HC subjects and 10 probable AD patients with [(18)F]FACT. Data from nine regions of interest were analyzed by several approaches, namely non-linear least-squared fitting methods with arterial input functions (one-tissue compartment model(1TCM), two-tissue compartment model (2TCM)), Logan plot, and linearized methods with reference region (Reference Logan plot (RefLogan), MRTM0, MRTM2). We also evaluated SUV and SUVR for both tracers. The parameters estimated by several approaches were compared between two tracers for detectability of differences between HC and AD patients. RESULTS: For [(11)C]BF227, there were no significant difference of VT (2TCM, 1TCM) and SUV in all regions (Student t-test; p<0.05) and significant differences in the DVRs (Logan, RefLogan, and MRTM2) and SUVRs in six neocortical regions (p<0.05) between the HC and AD groups. For [(18)F]FACT, significant differences in DVRs (RefLogan, MRTM0, and MRTM2) were observed in more than four neocortical regions between the HC and AD groups (p<0.05), and the significant differences were found in SUVRs for two neocortical regions (inferior frontal coretex and lateral temporal coretex). Our results showed that both tracers can clearly distinguish between HC and AD groups although the pharmacokinetics and distribution patterns in brain for two tracers were substantially different. CONCLUSION: This study revealed that although the PET amyloid imaging agents [(11)C]BF227 and [(18)F]FACT have similar chemical and biological properties, they have different pharmacokinetics, and caution must be paid for usage of the tracers.