4.7 Article

High metabolic in vivo stability and bioavailability of a palmitoylated ghrelin receptor ligand assessed by mass spectrometry

期刊

BIOORGANIC & MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 23, 期 14, 页码 3925-3932

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bmc.2014.12.008

关键词

Ghrelin receptor; Inverse agonist; Metabolic stability; Mass spectrometry; Stable isotopic labeling

资金

  1. Graduate School 'Leipzig School of Natural Sciences-Building with Molecules and Nano-objects' (BuildMoNa)
  2. Graduate School 'Helmholtz Interdisciplinary GRADuate School for Environmental Research' (HIGRADE)
  3. GIPIO [223057]
  4. State of Saxony
  5. European Union [ESF 22117016]
  6. [IFB-K7-18]
  7. [FKZ: 01EO1001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The constitutive activity of the ghrelin receptor is of high physiological and pathophysiological relevance. In-depth structure-activity relationship studies revealed a palmitoylated ghrelin receptor ligand that displays an in vitro binding affinity in the low nanomolar range. Activity studies revealed inverse agonistic as well as antagonistic properties and in vitro metabolic analysis indicated a high stability in blood serum and liver homogenate. For metabolic testing in vivo, a combined approach of stable isotopic labeling and mass spectrometry-based analysis was established. Therefore, a heavy isotopic version of the peptide containing a C-13-labeled palmitic acid was synthesized and a 1: 1 ratio of a C-12/C-13-peptide mixture was injected into rats. Biological samples were analyzed by multiple reaction monitoring allowing simultaneous peptide detection and quantification. Measurements revealed a suitable bioavailability over 24 h in rat serum and subsequent high-resolution mass spectrometry investigations showed only negligible degradation and slow body clearance. Hence, this method combination allowed the identification and evaluation of a highly potent and metabolically stable ghrelin receptor ligand in vivo. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. 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