4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Method for evaluating the potential of 14C labeled plant polyphenols to cross the blood-brain barrier using accelerator mass spectrometry

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2009.10.161

关键词

Blood-brain barrier; Grape polyphenols; Pharmacokinetics; Accelerator mass spectrometry; C-14 labeled plant polyphenols

资金

  1. NCCIH NIH HHS [P50 AT000477-01, P50 AT000477] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bioactive compounds in botanicals may be beneficial in preventing age-related neurodegenerative diseases, but for many compounds conventional methods may be inadequate to detect if these compounds cross the blood-brain barrier or to track the pharmacokinetics in the brain. By combining a number of unique technologies it has been possible to utilize the power of AMS to study the pharmacokinetics of bioactive compounds in the brain at very low concentrations. C-14 labeled compounds can be biosynthesized by plant cell suspension cultures co-incubated with radioisotopically-labeled sucrose and isolated and separated into a series of bioactive fractions. To study the pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution of C-14 labeled plant polyphenols, rats were implanted with jugular catheters, subcutaneous ultrafiltration probes and brain microdialysis probes. Labeled fractions were dosed orally. Interstitial fluid (ISF) and brain microdialysate samples were taken in tandem with blood samples. It was often possible to determine C-14 in blood and ISF with a 3-counter. However, brain microdialysate samples C-14 levels on the order of 10(7) atoms/sample required AMS technology. The Brain MicrodialysateAuc/SerumAuc ranged from .021- to .029, with the higher values for the glycoside fractions. By using AMS in combination with traditional methods, it is possible to study uptake by blood, distribution to ISF and determine the amount of a dose which can reach the brain and follow the pharmacokinetics in the brain. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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