4.5 Article

Mechanistic Understanding of Brain Drug Disposition to Optimize the Selection of Potential Neurotherapeutics in Drug Discovery

期刊

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
卷 31, 期 8, 页码 2203-2219

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11095-014-1319-1

关键词

blood-brain barrier; brain drug delivery; neuropharmacokinetics; neurotherapeutics; screening cascade; unbound-drug

资金

  1. Janssen Pharmaceutica

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current project was undertaken with the aim to propose and test an in-depth integrative analysis of neuropharmacokinetic (neuroPK) properties of new chemical entities (NCEs), thereby optimizing the routine of evaluation and selection of novel neurotherapeutics. Forty compounds covering a wide range of physicochemical properties and various CNS targets were investigated. The combinatory mapping approach was used for the assessment of the extent of blood-brain and cellular barriers transport via estimation of unbound-compound brain (K-p,K-uu,K-brain) and cell (K-p,K-uu,K-cell) partitioning coefficients. Intra-brain distribution was evaluated using the brain slice method. Intra- and sub-cellular distribution was estimated via calculation of unbound-drug cytosolic and lysosomal partitioning coefficients. Assessment of K-p,K-uu,K-brain revealed extensive variability in the brain penetration properties across compounds, with a prevalence of compounds actively effluxed at the blood-brain barrier. K-p,K-uu,K-cell was valuable for identification of compounds with a tendency to accumulate intracellularly. Prediction of cytosolic and lysosomal partitioning provided insight into the subcellular accumulation. Integration of the neuroPK parameters with pharmacodynamic readouts demonstrated the value of the proposed approach in the evaluation of target engagement and NCE selection. With the rather easily-performed combinatory mapping approach, it was possible to provide quantitative information supporting the decision making in the drug discovery setting.

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