4.5 Article

Altered Brain Uptake of Therapeutics in a Triple Transgenic Mouse Model of Alzheimer's Disease

期刊

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 11, 页码 2868-2879

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11095-013-1116-2

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; blood-brain barrier; cerebrovascular basement membrane; in situ transcardiac perfusion; P-glycoprotein; triple transgenic

资金

  1. JO and JR Wicking Trust
  2. Mason Foundation
  3. Helen MacPherson Smith Trust
  4. ANZ Trustees Program
  5. Medical Research & Technology in Victoria - VCF - George Perry Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to systematically assess the impact of Alzheimer's disease (AD)-associated blood-brain barrier (BBB) alterations on the uptake of therapeutics into the brain. The brain uptake of probe compounds was measured in 18-20 month old wild type (WT) and triple transgenic (3xTG) AD mice using an in situ transcardiac perfusion technique. These results were mechanistically correlated with immunohistochemical and molecular studies. The brain uptake of the paracellular marker, [C-14] sucrose, did not differ between WT and 3xTG mice. The brain uptake of passively diffusing markers, [H-3] diazepam and [H-3] propranolol, decreased 54-60% in 3xTG mice, consistent with a 33.5% increase in the thickness of the cerebrovascular basement membrane in 3xTG mice. Despite a 42.4% reduction in P-gp expression in isolated brain microvessels from a sub-population of 3xTG mice (relative to WT mice), the brain uptake of P-gp substrates ([H-3] digoxin, [H-3] loperamide and [H-3] verapamil) was not different between genotypes, likely due to a compensatory thickening in the cerebrovascular basement membrane counteracting any reduced efflux of these lipophilic substrates. These studies systematically assessed the impact of AD on BBB drug transport in a relevant animal model, and have demonstrated a reduction in the brain uptake of passively-absorbed molecules in this mouse model of AD.

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

4.5
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