4.7 Article

Use of physiologically based kinetic (PBK) modeling to study interindividual human variation and species differences in plasma concentrations of quercetin and its metabolites

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 98, 期 4, 页码 690-702

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bcp.2015.09.022

关键词

Quercetin; Absorption distribution metabolism excretion (ADME); Physiologically based kinetic (PBK) modeling; Species differences; Human variation

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of Thailand through a Royal Thai Government Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biological activities of flavonoids in vivo ultimately depend on the systemic bioavailability of the aglycones and their metabolites. We aimed to develop physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models to predict plasma concentrations of the flavonoid quercetin and its metabolites in individual human subjects and to define species differences compared with male rat. The human models were developed based on in vitro metabolic parameters derived from incubations with pooled and 20 individual human tissue fractions and by fitting kinetic parameters to available in vivo data. The outcomes obtained were compared to a previously developed model for quercetin and its metabolites formation in male rat. Quercetin-3'-O-glucuronide was predicted to be the major circulating metabolite in 19 out of 20 individuals, while in male rat di- and tri-conjugates of quercetin containing a glucuronic acid, sulfate and/or methyl moieties are the major metabolites. Significant species differences occur in major circulating metabolites of quercetin suggesting that rat is not an adequate model to study effects of quercetin in man. The defined PBK models can be used to guide the experimental design of in vitro experiments with flavonoids, especially to better take into account the relevance of metabolism and the contribution of metabolites to the biological activity in humans. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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