Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 174

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of a Monomeric and Dimeric Radiolabeled RGD-Peptide for Tumor Targeting

Janssen, Marcel, Oyen, Wim J.G., Massuger, Leon F.A.G., Frielink, Cathelijne, Dijkgraaf, Ingrid, Edwards, D. Scott, Radjopadhye, Milind, Corstens, Frans H.M., Boerman, Otto C.·2002·Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals

Abstract

The alpha v beta 3 integrin, a transmembrane heterodimeric protein expressed on sprouting endothelial cells, binds to the arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) amino acid sequence of extracellular matrix proteins such as vitronectin. Growing malignant tumors continuously require angiogenesis. As a result, alpha v beta 3 is preferentially expressed in growing tumors and is a potential target for radiolabeled RGD-peptides. In this study we compared the tumor targeting characteristics of a monomeric radiolabeled RGD-peptide with those of a dimeric analogue. Both peptides were radiolabeled with 99mTc via the hydrazinoni-cotinamid (= HYNIC) moiety to form 99mTc-HYNIC-c(RGDfK) and 99mTc-HYNIC-E-[c(RGDfK)]2. In vitro, the IC50 showed a 10-fold higher affinity of the dimer for the alpha v beta 3 integrin as compared to the monomer (0.1 vs. 1.0 nM). In athymic female BALB/c mice with subcutaneously growing OVCAR-3 ovarian carcinoma xenografts, tumor uptake peaked at 5.8 +/- 0.7% ID/g and 5.2 +/- 0.6% ID/g for the dimer and the monomer, respectively. At 1, 2, and 4 h postinjection (p.i.) uptake of the dimer in the tumor was significantly higher than that of the monomeric analogue. Tumor-to-blood ratios were highest at 24 h p.i. at a value of 63 for both compounds. At all timepoints kidney retention of the dimer was significantly higher as compared to kidney retention of the monomer. In conclusion, in this mouse model the dimeric RGD-peptide showed better retention in the tumor than the monomeric analogue, most likely due to the bivalent interaction with the target cell. Furthermore, kidney retention of the dimeric peptide was higher than that of the monomeric peptide.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/108497802320970244

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 174

Metadata

Authors
Janssen, M., Oyen, W. J. G., Massuger, L. F. A. G., Frielink, C., Dijkgraaf, I., Edwards, D. S., Radjopadhye, M., Corstens, F. H. M., & Boerman, O. C.
Venue
Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals
Published
2002-12
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
641-646
ISSN
  • 1084-9785 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8852
OpenAlex
W1996489028
Cited by
174
References
0
FWCI
5.54
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: Comparison of a Monomeric and Dimeric Radiolabeled RGD-Peptide for Tumor Targeting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/108497802320970244
The paper
Janssen, M., Oyen, W. J. G., Massuger, L. F. A. G., Frielink, C., Dijkgraaf, I., Edwards, D. S., Radjopadhye, M., Corstens, F. H. M., & Boerman, O. C. (2002). Comparison of a Monomeric and Dimeric Radiolabeled RGD-Peptide for Tumor Targeting. Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals. https://doi.org/10.1089/108497802320970244

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.