4.5 Article

A gel-free MS-based quantitative proteomic approach accurately measures cytochrome P450 protein concentrations in human liver microsomes

期刊

PROTEOMICS
卷 8, 期 20, 页码 4186-4196

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/pmic.200800144

关键词

Absolute quantification; CYP3A; Cytochrome P450; LC-MS/MS; Pharmacoproteomics

资金

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The human cytochrome P450 (P450) superfamily consists of membrane-bound proteins that metabolize a myriad of xenobiotics and endogenous compounds. Quantification of P450 expression in various tissues under normal and induced conditions has an important role in drug safety and efficacy. Conventional immunoquantification methods have poor dynamic range, low throughput, and a limited number of specific antibodies. Recent advances in M S-based quantitative proteomics enable absolute protein quantification in a complex biological mixture. We have developed a gel-free MS-based protein quantification strategy to quantify CYP3A enzymes in human liver microsomes (HIM). Recombinant protein-derived proteotypic peptides and synthetic stable isotope-labeled proteotypic peptides were used as calibration standards and internal standards, respectively. The lower limit of quantification was similar to 20 fmol P450. In two separate panels of HLM examined (n = 11 and n = 22), CYP3A, CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 concentrations were determined reproducibly (CV <= 27%). The MS-based method strongly correlated with the immunoquantification method (r(2)>= 0.87) and marker activities (r(2)>= 0.88), including testosterone 6 beta-hydroxylation (CYP3A), midazolam 1'-hydroxylation (CYP3A), itraconazole 6-hydroxylation (CYP3A4) and CYP3A5-mediated vincristine M1 formation (CYP3A5). Taken together, our MS-based method provides a specific, sensitive and reliable means of P450 protein quantification and should facilitate P450 characterization during drug development, especially when specific substrates and/or antibodies are unavailable.

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