Compares two PET radioligands for brain cholesterol metabolism, suggesting optimal choice for future studies.
Purpose Cholesterol 24-hydroxylase (C24H) is central to brain cholesterol metabolism and is thought to be altered in many neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Only two fluorinated C24H-targeting PET radioligands, [¹⁸F]CHL-2205 and [¹⁸F]T008, have recently entered clinical use. Direct comparison is needed to guide radiotracer selection for future translational studies. Methods Dynamic PET imaging was performed using either [¹⁸F]CHL-2205 or [¹⁸F]T008 in parallel conditions in cynomolgus macaques, healthy rats, the TgF344-AD rat model, and C24H-overexpressing mice. Arterial blood sampling enabled full kinetic modeling in healthy rats and nonhuman primates. An image-derived input function was validated in rats, and the specific binding was evaluated under C24H saturation using soticlestat. Results [¹⁸F]CHL-2205 and [¹⁸F]T008 showed similar metabolism profiles in either macaques or rats. In macaques, brain uptake values ( V T , Logan plot analysis) were 1.6-fold higher for [¹⁸F]CHL-2205 relative to [¹⁸F]T008. Healthy rats showed a similar pattern, with [¹⁸F]CHL-2205 exhibiting 1.5-fold higher brain V T . In rats, soticlestat blockade revealed C24H-specific binding for both ligands, with an estimated binding potential (BPND) 1.3-fold higher for [¹⁸F]CHL-2205 compared to [¹⁸F]T008. In TgF344-AD rats, brain uptake increased by 1.9-fold with [¹⁸F]CHL-2205 versus 1.6-fold with [¹⁸F]T008 compared to wild-type controls. In C24H-overexpressing mice, [¹⁸F]CHL-2205 detected measurable increases in brain signal in several brain regions (up to 1.5-fold), while [¹⁸F]T008 did not in the same animals. Conclusion Across species and models, both radioligands demonstrated appropriate characteristics for imaging C24H in vivo. However, [¹⁸F]CHL-2205 generally displayed higher specific binding and appeared more sensitive to detect moderate increases in C24H expression.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goutal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: