Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Dual tracer tau PET imaging reveals different molecular targets for 11C-THK5351 and 11C-PBB3 in the Alzheimer brain
Chiotis K, Stenkrona P, Almkvist O, Stepanov V, Ferreira D, Arakawa R, Takano A, Westman E et al.. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2018-05-12
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Purpose Several tau PET tracers have been developed, but it remains unclear whether they bind to the same molecular target on the heterogeneous tau pathology. In this study we evaluated the binding of two chemically different tau-specific PET tracers ( 11 C-THK5351 and 11 C-PBB3) in a head-to-head, in vivo, multimodal design. Methods Nine patients with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or probable Alzheimer's disease and cerebrospinal fluid biomarker evidence supportive of the presence of Alzheimer's disease brain pathology were recruited after thorough clinical assessment. All patients underwent imaging with the tau-specific PET tracers 11 C-THK5351 and 11 C-PBB3 on the same day, as well as imaging with the amyloid-beta-specific tracer 11 C-AZD2184, a T1-MRI sequence, and neuropsychological assessment. Results The load and regional distribution of binding differed between 11 C-THK5351 and 11 C-PBB3 with no statistically significant regional correlations observed between the tracers. The binding pattern of 11 C-PBB3, but not that of 11 C-THK5351, in the temporal lobe resembled that of 11 C-AZD2184, with strong correlations detected between 11 C-PBB3 and 11 C-AZD2184 in the temporal and occipital lobes. Global cognition correlated more closely with 11 C-THK5351 than with 11 C-PBB3 binding. Similarly, cerebrospinal fluid tau measures and entorhinal cortex thickness were more closely correlated with 11 C-THK5351 than with 11 C-PBB3 binding. Conclusion This research suggests different molecular targets for these tracers; while 11 C-PBB3 appeared to preferentially bind to tau deposits with a close spatial relationship to amyloid-beta, the binding pattern of 11 C-THK5351 fitted the expected distribution of tau pathology in Alzheimer's disease better and was more closely related to downstream disease markers.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Chiotis, K., Stenkrona, P., Almkvist, O., Stepanov, V., Ferreira, D., Arakawa, R., et al. (2018). Dual tracer tau PET imaging reveals different molecular targets for 11C-THK5351 and 11C-PBB3 in the Alzheimer brain. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4012-5
Vancouver
Chiotis K, Stenkrona P, Almkvist O, Stepanov V, Ferreira D, Arakawa R, et al. Dual tracer tau PET imaging reveals different molecular targets for 11C-THK5351 and 11C-PBB3 in the Alzheimer brain. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2018. doi:10.1007/s00259-018-4012-5. PMID: 29752516.
BibTeX
@article{chiotis2018-29752516,
author = {Chiotis, K. and Stenkrona, P. and Almkvist, O. and Stepanov, V. and Ferreira, D. and Arakawa, R. and Takano, A. and Westman, E. and others},
title = {{Dual tracer tau PET imaging reveals different molecular targets for 11C-THK5351 and 11C-PBB3 in the Alzheimer brain}},
journal = {European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1007/s00259-018-4012-5},
pmid = {29752516},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4012-5}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results The load and regional distribution of binding differed between 11 C-THK5351 and 11 C-PBB3 with no statistically significant regional correlations observed between the tracers.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29752516) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “tracer”
5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “tracer”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.