4.7 Article

Predicting idiopathic toxicity of cisplatin by a pharmacometabonomic approach

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 79, 期 5, 页码 529-537

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2010.440

关键词

anticancer; cisplatin; pharmacometabonomics; prediction; toxicity

资金

  1. Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs, Republic of Korea [A084338, A092006]
  2. Korea Health Promotion Institute [A084338] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cisplatin has been one of the most widely used anticancer agents, but its nephrotoxicity remains a dose-limiting complication. Here, we evaluated the idiopathic nature and the predose prediction of cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity using a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based pharmacometabonomic approach. Cisplatin produced serious toxic responses in some animals (toxic group), but had little effect in others (nontoxic group), as judged by hematological and histological results. The individual metabolic profiles, assessed by urine NMR spectra, showed large differences between the post-administration profiles of the two groups, indicating the relevance of the NMR approach. Importantly, multivariate analysis of the NMR data showed that the toxic and nontoxic groups can be differentiated based on the pretreatment metabolite profiles. Leave-one-out analysis, performed to evaluate the practical performance of our approach, gave a 66% accuracy rate in predicting toxic responses based on the pretreatment metabolite profiles. Hence, we provide a working model that can explain the idiopathic toxicity mechanism based on marker metabolites found by NMR analysis consistent with tissue NADH measurements. Thus, a pharmacometabonomic approach using pretreatment metabolite profiles may help expedite personalized chemotherapy of anticancer drugs. Kidney International (2011) 79, 529-537; doi: 10.1038/ki.2010.440; published online 27 October 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据