4.6 Article

An Effective Assessment of Simvastatin-Induced Toxicity with NMR-Based Metabonomics Approach

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016641

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry for Health, Welfare & Family Affairs, Republic of Korea [A084338]
  2. Korean gvernment [2010-0076692]
  3. 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

Background: Simvastatin, which is used to control elevated cholesterol levels, is one of the most widely prescribed drugs. However, a daily excessive dose can induce drug-toxicity, especially in muscle and liver. Current markers for toxicity reflect mostly the late stages of tissue damage; thus, more efficient methods of toxicity evaluation are desired. Methodology/Principal Findings: As a new way to evaluate toxicity, we performed NMR-based metabonomics analysis of urine samples. Compared to conventional markers, such as AST, ALT, and CK, the urine metabolic profile provided clearer distinction between the pre- and post-treatment groups treated with toxic levels of simvastatin. Through multivariate statistical analysis, we identified marker metabolites associated with the toxicity. Importantly, we observed that the treatment group could be further categorized into two subgroups based on the NMR profiles: weak toxicity (WT) and high toxicity (HT). The distinction between these two groups was confirmed by the enzyme values and histopathological exams. Time-dependent studies showed that the toxicity at 10 days could be reliably predicted from the metabolic profiles at 6 days. Conclusions/Significance: This metabonomics approach may provide a non-invasive and effective way to evaluate the simvastatin-induced toxicity in a manner that can complement current measures. The approach is expected to find broader application in other drug-induced toxicity assessments.

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

4.6
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