Communication
ChemComm
tobacco products) under contract no. NSC 103-2627-M-009-001,
NSC 101-2923-M-009-002, and MOHW 104-TDU-B-212-124-003.
Notes and references
1
M. T. Tsui, J. C. Finlay, S. J. Balogh and Y. H. Nollet, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 2010, 44, 6998.
2
M. D. Esteban-Vasallo, N. Aragon ´e s, M. Pollan, G. L ´o pez-Abente and
B. Perez-Gomez, Environ. Health Perspect., 2012, 120, 1369.
P. Grandjean and K. T. Herz, Mt. Sinai J. Med., 2011, 78, 107–118.
C. T. Driscoll, R. P. Mason, H. M. Chan, D. J. Jacob and N. Pirrone,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47, 4967.
5 J. H. Tidwell and G. L. Allan, EMBO Rep., 2001, 2, 958.
6 (a) M. Santra, B. Roy and K. H. Ahn, Org. Lett., 2011, 13, 3422;
(b) Y. Yan, Y. Zhang and H. Xu, ChemPlusChem, 2013, 78, 628;
3
4
Fig. 5 Representative T
after injection of o-MeHgGad at a dose of 0.1 mmol kg . Upper and
1
-weighted MR images of C57BL/6JNarl mice
ꢂ1
lower panels show pre-contrast and post-contrast, respectively.
(
2
c) M. H. Lee, S. W. Lee, S. H. Kim, C. Kang and J. S. Kim, Org. Lett.,
009, 11, 2101; (d) M. H. Lee, B.-K. Cho, J. Yoon and J. S. Kim, Org.
Lett., 2007, 9, 4515; (e) M. G. Choi, Y. H. Kim, J. E. Namgoong and
S. K. Chang, Chem. Commun., 2009, 3560.
7 (a) Y. K. Yang, S. K. Ko, I. Shin and J. Tae, Org. Biomol. Chem., 2009,
+
intestine of control and CH
3
Hg treated mice was assessed after
ꢂ1
intravenous injection of o-MeHgGad (0.1 mmol kg ). As can be
viewed in Fig. 5A and B, contrast enhancement in the organs
under investigation was not observed at 30 min post injection
of o-MeHgGad in the mice not treated with CH Hg . On the
7, 4590; (b) M. Santra, D. Ryu, A. Chatterjee, S. K. Ko, I. Shin and
K. H. Ahn, Chem. Commun., 2009, 2115.
8 Z. Zhang, B. Zhang, X. Qian, Z. Li, Z. Xu and Y. Yang, Anal. Chem.,
2014, 86, 11919.
S. Mizukami, R. Takikawa, F. Sugihara, Y. Hori, H. Tochio, M. W ¨a lchli,
M. Shirakawa and K. Kikuchi, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2008, 130, 794.
+
3
9
contrary, at the same detection time and dose of o-MeHgGad,
MRI contrast enhancement can be noticed in the liver (Fig. 5C), 10 B. Weiss, T. W. Clarkson and W. Simon, Environ. Health Perspect.,
2
002, 110, 851.
intestine (Fig. 5C), and kidney (Fig. 5D) of the mice previously
intravenously injected with CH Hg . For quantitative signal
3
enhancement analysis, fourteen regions of interest (ROI) were
drawn manually and contrast enhancement within the ROI was
calculated (Table S2, ESI†). Average contrast enhancements
1
1 M. G. Shapiro, G. G. Westmeyer, P. A. Romero, J. O. Szablowski,
B. K u¨ ster, A. Shah, C. R. Otey, R. Langer, F. H. Arnold and
A. Jasanoff, Nat. Biotechnol., 2010, 28, 264.
2 S. M. Vibhute, J. Engelmann, T. Verbi ´c , M. E. Maier, N. K. Logothetis
and G. Angelovski, Org. Biomol. Chem., 2013, 11, 1294.
3 (a) E. L. Que, E. Gianolio, S. L. Baker, A. P. Wong, S. Aime and
C. J. Chang, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2009, 131, 8527; (b) E. L. Que and
C. J. Chang, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006, 128, 15942.
+
1
1
of 12, 15, and 22% were recorded in the liver, kidney, and
+
intestine of mice exposed to CH
3
Hg , which is higher than the
1
4 (a) J. A. Duimstra, F. J. Femia and T. J. Meade, J. Am. Chem. Soc.,
2
contrast enhancement observed in the control mice (Table S2,
005, 127, 12847; (b) S. H. Chen, Y. T. Kuo, G. Singh, T. L. Cheng,
ESI†). Taken together, the MR imaging results clearly demon-
Y. Z. Su, T. P. Wang, Y. Y. Chiu, J. J. Lai, C. C. Chang, T. S. Jaw,
S. C. Tzou, G. C. Liu and Y. M. Wang, Inorg. Chem., 2012, 51, 12426;
(
strate the potential of using o-MeHgGad as a MRI contrast
c) F. Arena, J. B. Singh, E. Gianolio, R. Stefan `ı a and S. Aime,
Bioconjugate Chem., 2011, 22, 2625.
the liver, kidney, and intestine were collected and Gd(III) and 15 (a) H. Dai, Y. Yan, Y. Guo, L. Fan, Z. Che and H. Xu, Chem. – Eur. J.,
012, 18, 11188; (b) X. Cheng, S. Li, H. Jia, A. Zhong, C. Zhong,
+
agent for the detection of CH
3
Hg . Finally, tissue samples from
2
Hg(II) ion content in these tissues were analysed by ICP-MS
Table S3, ESI†). A relatively higher concentration of Gd(III) was
J. Feng, J. Qin and Z. Li, Chem. – Eur. J., 2012, 18, 1691; (c) X. Cheng,
Q. Li, C. Li, J. Qin and Z. Li, Chem. – Eur. J., 2011, 17, 7276; (d) J. Ros-
Lis, M. D. Marcos, R. Martinez-Manez, K. Rurack and J. Soto, Angew.
Chem., Int. Ed., 2005, 44, 4405.
6 Y. H. Chang, C. Y. Chen, G. Singh, H. Y. Chen, G. C. Liu, Y. G. Goan,
S. Aime and Y. M. Wang, Inorg. Chem., 2011, 50, 1275.
(
found in the kidney suggesting that o-MeHgGad is filtered and
excreted through the kidney.
1
In conclusion, a newly designed MRI contrast agent was success-
fully synthesized and characterized for the selective detection of toxic 17 E. L. Que and C. J. Chang, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2010, 39, 51.
+
18 (a) K. D. Verma, A. Forg ´a cs, H. Uh, M. Beyerlein, M. E. Maier, S. Petoud,
M. Botta and N. K. Logothetis, Chem. – Eur. J., 2013, 19, 18011;
3
CH Hg . The practical usability of o-MeHgGad was demonstrated by
an in vivo MR imaging study on BALB/c nude mice intravenously
exposed to CH Hg . We believe that the results presented in this
report will push the limits of the designed probe towards practical
utility in preclinical research endeavours focusing on various aspects
(
b) L. M. Matosziuk, J. H. Leibowitz, M. C. Heffern, K. W. MacRenaris,
+
M. A. Ratner and T. J. Meade, Inorg. Chem., 2013, 52, 12250.
3
1
2
9 W. D. Horrocks and D. R. Sudnick, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1979,
101, 334.
0 M. Polasek and P. Caravan, Inorg. Chem., 2013, 52, 4084.
+
of CH
3
Hg toxicity.
21 Chapter 12 of the Volunteer Estuary, Monitoring Manual, A. Methods
Manual, 2nd edn, EPA-842-B-06-003.
This work was supported by Ministry of Science and Tech-
nology and Ministry of Health and Welfare of the Republic of
China for financial support (Health and welfare surcharge of
2
2 (a) G. Zareba, E. Cernichiari, L. A. Goldsmith and T. W. Clarkson,
J. Appl. Toxicol., 2008, 28, 535; (b) S. Omata, M. Sato, K. Sakimura
and H. Sugano, Arch. Toxicol., 1980, 44, 231.
Chem. Commun.
This journal is ©The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015