The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A quantitative model for the in vivo assessment of drug binding sites with positron emission tomography
Abstract
We propose an in vivo method for use with positron emission tomography (PET) that results in a quantitative characterization of neuroleptic binding sites using radiolabeled spiperone. The data are analyzed using a mathematical model that describes transport, nonspecific binding, in the brain. The model demonstrates that the receptor quantities Bmax (i.e., the number of binding sites) and K D−1 (i.e., the binding affinity) are not separably ascertainable with tracer methodology in human subjects. We have, therefore, introduced a new term, the binding potential, equivalent to the product Bmax K D−1, which reflects the capacity of a given tissue, or region of a tissue, for ligand‐binding site interaction. The procedure for obtaining these measurements is illustrated with data from sequential PET scans of baboons after intravenous injection of carrier‐added [18 F]spiperone. From these data we estimate the brain tissue nonspecific binding of spiperone to be in the range of 94.2 to 95.3%, and the regional brain spiperone permeability (measured as the permeability–surface area product) to be in the range of 0.025 to 0.036 cm 3/(s·ml). The binding potential of the striatum ranged from 17.4 to 21.6; these in vivo estimates compare favourably to in vitro values in the literature. To our knowledge this represents the first direct evidence that PET can be used to characterize quantitatively, locally and in vivo, drug binding sites in brain. The ability to make such measurements with PET should permit the detailed investigation of diseases thought to result from disorders of receptor function.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Consensus Nomenclature for in vivo Imaging of Reversibly Binding Radioligands
Innis, R. B., Cunningham, V. J., Delforge, J., Fujita, M., Gjedde, A., Gunn, R. N., Holden, J., Houle, S., Huang, S.-C., Ichise, M., et al. (2007) · Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism · doi:10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600493 · Cited by 1,955
Self-citationPatlak, C. S., & Blasberg, R. G. (1985) · Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism · doi:10.1038/jcbfm.1985.87 · Cited by 1,673
Parametric Imaging of Ligand-Receptor Binding in PET Using a Simplified Reference Region Model
Gunn, R. N., Lammertsma, A. A., Hume, S. P., & Cunningham, V. J. (1997) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1997.0303 · Cited by 1,084
[ 11 C]PIB in a nondemented population: Potential antecedent marker of Alzheimer disease
Mintun, M. A., LaRossa, G. N., Sheline, Y. I., Dence, C. S., Lee, S. Y., Mach, R. H., Klunk, W. E., Mathis, C. A., DeKosky, S. T., & Morris, J. C. (2006) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000228230.26044.a4 · Cited by 1,036
Self-citationPost-mortem correlates of in vivo PiB-PET amyloid imaging in a typical case of Alzheimer's disease
Ikonomovic, M. D., Klunk, W. E., Abrahamson, E. E., Mathis, C. A., Price, J. C., Tsopelas, N. D., Lopresti, B. J., Ziolko, S., Bi, W., Paljug, W. R., et al. (2008) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awn016 · Cited by 933
Metadata
- Authors
- Mintun, M. A., Raichle, M. E., Kilbourn, M. R., Wooten, G. F., & Welch, M. J.
- Venue
- Annals of Neurology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1984-03
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 217-227
- ISSN
- 0364-5134 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-8249
- OpenAlex
- W2121887890
- Cited by
- 955
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A quantitative model for the in vivo assessment of drug binding sites with positron emission tomography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ana.410150302
- The paper
- Mintun, M. A., Raichle, M. E., Kilbourn, M. R., Wooten, G. F., & Welch, M. J. (1984). A quantitative model for the in vivo assessment of drug binding sites with positron emission tomography. Annals of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.410150302
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.