4.7 Article

Exploiting Transport Activity of P-Glycoprotein at the Blood-Brain Barrier for the Development of Peripheral Cannabinoid Type 1 Receptor Antagonists

期刊

MOLECULAR PHARMACEUTICS
卷 9, 期 5, 页码 1351-1360

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/mp200617z

关键词

peripheral CB1 receptor antagonist; P-glycoprotein; breast cancer resistance protein; active transport; blood-brain barrier; cellular accumulation assay; brain/plasma ratio; baculovirus

资金

  1. Dutch Top Institute Pharma [T5-105]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the CB1 receptor antagonist/inverse agonist rimonabant has positive effects on weight loss and cardiometabolic risk factors, neuropsychiatric side effects have prompted researchers to develop peripherally acting derivatives. Here, we investigated for a series of 3,4-diarylpyrazoline CB1 receptor antagonists if transport by the brain efflux transporter P-gp could be used as a selection criterion in the development of such drugs. All 3,4-diarylpyrazolines and rimonabant inhibited P-gp transport activity in membrane vesicles isolated from HEK293 cells overexpressing the transporter, but only the 1,1-dioxo-thiomorpholino analogue 23 exhibited a reduced accumulation (-38 +/- 2%) in these cells, which could be completely reversed by the P-gp/BCRP inhibitor elacridar. In addition, 23 appeared to be a BCRP substrate, whereas rimonabant was not. In rats, the in vivo brain/plasma concentration ratio of 23 was significantly lower than for rimonabant (0.4 +/- 0.1 vs 6.2 +/- 1.6, p < 0.001). Coadministration of elacridar resulted in an 11-fold increase of the brain/plasma ratio for 23 (p < 0.01) and only 1.4-fold for rimonabant (p < 0.05), confirming the involvement of P-gp and possibly BCRP in limiting the brain entrance of 23 in vivo. In conclusion, these data support the conception that efflux via transporters such as P-gp and BCRP can limit the brain penetration of CBI receptor antagonists, and that this property could be used in the development of peripheral antagonists.

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