H<sub>2</sub><i>CHX</i>dedpa and H<sub>4</sub><i>CHX</i>octapa—Chiral Acyclic Chelating Ligands for <sup>67/68</sup>Ga and <sup>111</sup>In Radiopharmaceuticals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chiral acyclic ligands H2CHXdedpa (N4O2), H2CHXdedpa-bb (N4O2), and H4CHXoctapa (N4O4) (CHX = cyclohexyl/cyclohexane, H2dedpa = 1,2-[[6-carboxy-pyridin-2-yl]-methylamino]ethane, bb = N,N'-dibenzylated, H4octapa = N,N'-bis(6-carboxy-2-pyridylmethyl)-ethylenediamine-N,N'-diacetic acid) were synthesized, complexed with Ga(III) and/or In(III), and evaluated for their potential as chelating agents in radiopharmaceutical applications. The ligands were compared to the previously studied hexadentate H2dedpa and octadentate H4octapa ligands to determine the effect adding a chiral 1R,2R-trans-cyclohexane to replace the ethylenediamine backbone would have on metal complex stability and radiolabeling kinetics. It was found that [Ga(CHXdedpa)](+) showed very similar properties to those of [Ga(dedpa)](+), with only one isomer in solution observed by NMR spectroscopy, and minimal structural changes in the solid-state X-ray structure. Like [Ga(dedpa)](+), [Ga(CHXdedpa)](+) exhibited exceptionally high thermodynamic stability constants (log KML = 28.11(8)), and the chelate retained the ability to label (67)Ga quantitatively in 10 min at room temperature at ligand concentrations of 1 × 10(-5) M. In vitro kinetic inertness assays demonstrated the [(67)Ga(CHXdedpa)](+) complex to be more stable than [(67)Ga(dedpa)](+) in a human serum competition, with 90.5% and 77.8% of (67)Ga remaining chelate-bound after 2 h, respectively. Preliminary coordination studies of H4CHXoctapa with In(III) demonstrated [In(CHXoctapa)](-) to have an equivalently high thermodynamically stable constant as [In(octapa)](-), with log KML values of 27.16(9) and 26.76(14), respectively. The [(111)In(CHXoctapa)](-) complex showed exceptionally high in vitro kinetic inertness over 120 h in human serum, comparing well with previously reported [(111)In(octapa)](-) values, and an improved stability compared to the current industry "gold standards" 1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane-1,4,7,10-tetraacetic acid (DOTA) and diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA). Initial investigations reveal that the chiral acyclic hexadentate H2CHXdedpa and octadentate H4CHXoctapa ligands are ideal candidates for radiopharmaceutical elaboration of gallium or indium isotopes, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".