↓ Skip to main content

The Value of In Vitro Binding as Predictor of In Vivo Results: A Case for [18F]FDDNP PET

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Imaging & Biology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 400)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet


2 Dimensions

Readers on

5 Mendeley
The Value of In Vitro Binding as Predictor of In Vivo Results: A Case for [18F]FDDNP PET
Published in
Molecular Imaging & Biology, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11307-018-1210-2
Pubmed ID

Graham B. Cole, Nagichettiar Satyamurthy, Jie Liu, Koon-Pong Wong, Gary W. Small, Sung-Cheng Huang, Janez Košmrlj, Jorge R. Barrio, Andrej Petrič


Caution is warranted when in vitro results of biomarkers labeled with tritium were perfunctorily used to criticize in vivo data and conclusions derived with the same tracers labeled with positron emitters and positron emission tomography (PET). This concept is illustrated herein with the PET utilization of [18F]FDDNP, a biomarker used for in vivo visualization of β-amyloid and tau protein neuroaggregates in humans, later contradicted by in vitro data reported with [3H]FDDNP. In this investigation, we analyze the multiple factors involved in the experimental design of the [3H]FDDNP in vitro study that led to the erroneous interpretation of results. The present work describes full details on the synthesis, characterization, purity, and kinetics of radiolytic stability of [3H]FDDNP. The optimal in vitro conditions for detecting tau and β-amyloid protein aggregates using macroscopic and microscopic autoradiography with both [18F]FDDNP and [3H]FDDNP are also presented. Macroscopic autoradiography determinations were performed with [3H]FDDNP of verified purity using established methods described previously in the literature. The autoradiographic results using phosphate buffered saline (PBS) with less than 1 % EtOH and pure, freshly prepared [3H]FDDNP compared with the earlier reported data using [3H]FDDNP of undetermined purity and PBS in 10 % EtOH demonstrate the critical importance of rigorous experimental design for meaningful in vitro determinations. [18F]FDDNP binding to both amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles was confirmed by amyloid and tau immunohistochemical stains of adjacent tissues. This work illustrates the sensitivity of in vitro techniques to various experimental conditions and underscores that conclusions obtained from translational in vitro to in vivo determinations must always be performed with extreme care to avoid wrong interpretations that can be perpetuated and assumed without further analysis.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 20%
Other 1 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 20%
Librarian 1 20%
Unspecified 1 20%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 60%
Chemistry 1 20%
Unspecified 1 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2018.
All research outputs
of 13,090,338 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Imaging & Biology
of 400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 270,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Imaging & Biology
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,090,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 400 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them