Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35456579›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutics2022

A Comparison of Evans Blue and 4-(

Ryan A Davis, Sven H Hausner, Rebecca Harris, Julie L Sutcliffe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Preclinical Evaluation Study ofChemical & biomedical imaging · 2026
    Article
  4. A NovelPharmaceutics · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ryan A DavisDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0638-870X
Sven H HausnerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of California, Davis, CA 95817, USA.
Rebecca HarrisDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of California, Davis, CA 95817, USA.
Julie L SutcliffeDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5485-4082
University of California, Davis · US

Funding

Staff InvestigatorsP30CA093373 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI Barbara L. Shacklett · 2002 to 2026
$84.9M
avb6-directed molecular imaging and therapyR01CA199725 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI SUTCLIFFE, JULIE L · 2016 to 2019
$1.9M
Molecular Imaging Probe DevelopmentR50CA211556 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI HAUSNER, SVEN H · 2017 to 2021
$1.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA093373NCI NIH HHS R01 CA199725NCI NIH HHS R50 CA211556NIH HHS R01CA199725NIH HHS R50CA211556-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Serum albumin binding moieties (ABMs) such as the Evans blue (EB) dye fragment and the 4-(p-iodophenyl)butyryl (IP) have been used to improve the pharmacokinetic profile of many radiopharmaceuticals. The goal of this work was to directly compare these two ABMs when conjugated to an integrin αvβ6 binding peptide (αvβ6-BP); a peptide that is currently being used for positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in patients with metastatic cancer. The ABM-modified αvβ6-BP peptides were synthesized with a 1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane-1,4,7,10-tetracetic acid (DOTA) chelator for radiolabeling with copper-64 to yield [64Cu]Cu DOTA-EB-αvβ6-BP ([64Cu]1) and [64Cu]Cu DOTA-IP-αvβ6-BP ([64Cu]2). Both peptides were evaluated in vitro for serum albumin binding, serum stability, and cell binding and internalization in the paired engineered melanoma cells DX3puroβ6 (αvβ6 +) and DX3puro (αvβ6 −), and pancreatic BxPC-3 (αvβ6 +) cells and in vivo in a BxPC-3 xenograft mouse model. Serum albumin binding for [64Cu]1 and [64Cu]2 was 53−63% and 42−44%, respectively, with good human serum stability (24 h: [64Cu]1 76%, [64Cu]2 90%). Selective αvβ6 cell binding was observed for both [64Cu]1 and [64Cu]2 (αvβ6 (+) cells: 30.3−55.8% and 48.5−60.2%, respectively, vs. αvβ6 (−) cells <3.1% for both). In vivo BxPC-3 tumor uptake for both peptides at 4 h was 5.29 ± 0.59 and 7.60 ± 0.43% ID/g ([64Cu]1 and [64Cu]2, respectively), and remained at 3.32 ± 0.46 and 4.91 ± 1.19% ID/g, respectively, at 72 h, representing a >3-fold improvement over the non-ABM parent peptide and thereby providing improved PET images. Comparing [64Cu]1 and [64Cu]2, the IP-ABM-αvβ6-BP [64Cu]2 displayed higher serum stability, higher tumor accumulation, and lower kidney and liver accumulation, resulting in better tumor-to-organ ratios for high contrast visualization of the αvβ6 (+) tumor by PET imaging.

Indexed as

4-(p-iodophenyl)butyric acidalbumin binding moietiesEvans blueimproved pharmacokineticsintegrin αvβ6integrin αvβ6 binding peptidepeptidesPET imaging

Identifiers

PMID35456579
PMCPMC9025560
OpenAlexW4220947740

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.