Head-to-head comparison of [18F]-Flortaucipir, [18F]-MK-6240 and [18F]-PI-2620 postmortem binding across the spectrum of neurodegenerative diseases

Abstract

We and others have shown that [18F]-Flortaucipir, the most validated tau PET tracer thus far, binds with strong affinity to tau aggregates in Alzheimer's (AD) but has relatively low affinity for tau aggregates in non-AD tauopathies and exhibits off-target binding to neuromelanin- and melanin-containing cells, and to hemorrhages. Several second-generation tau tracers have been subsequently developed. [18F]-MK-6240 and [18F]-PI-2620 are the two that have garnered most attention. Our recent data indicated that the binding pattern of [18F]-MK-6240 closely parallels that of [18F]-Flortaucipir. The present study aimed at the direct comparison of the autoradiographic binding properties and off-target profile of [18F]-Flortaucipir, [18F]-MK-6240 and [18F]-PI-2620 in human tissue specimens, and their potential binding to monoamine oxidases (MAO). Phosphor-screen and high resolution autoradiographic patterns of the three tracers were studied in the same postmortem tissue material from AD and non-AD tauopathies, cerebral amyloid angiopathy, synucleopathies, transactive response DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43)-frontotemporal lobe degeneration and controls. Our results show that the three tracers show nearly identical autoradiographic binding profiles. They all strongly bind to neurofibrillary tangles in AD but do not seem to bind to a significant extent to tau aggregates in non-AD tauopathies pointing to their limited utility for the in vivo detection of non-AD tau lesions. None of them binds to lesions containing β-amyloid, α-synuclein or TDP-43 but they all show strong off-target binding to neuromelanin and melanin-containing cells, as well as weaker binding to areas of hemorrhage. The autoradiographic binding signals of the three tracers are only weakly displaced by competing concentrations of selective MAO-B inhibitor deprenyl but not by MAO-A inhibitor clorgyline suggesting that MAO enzymes do not appear to be a significant binding target of any of them. These findings provide relevant insights for the correct interpretation of the in vivo behavior of these three tau PET tracers.