4.7 Article

Preclinical toxicity of innovative molecules: In vitro, in vivo and metabolism prediction

期刊

CHEMICO-BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS
卷 315, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbi.2019.108896

关键词

Cytotoxicity; In vitro and in vitro models; OECD-129; OECD-423; Preclinical toxicology

资金

  1. CNPq [456984/2014-3]
  2. Federal University of Minas Gerais
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais [FAPEMIG PPMM-00167-16, APQ-01712-14, PPM-00417-17]
  4. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lack of predictivity of animal's models has increased the failure rate of drug candidates. Thus, the reversion of this scenario using preliminary in vitro assays and metabolism prediction can reduce the unnecessary use of animals, as well as predict toxic effects at preclinical and clinical stages. The present study aimed to evaluate safety of four biologically active molecules (RN104, RI78, ICH, PCH) with potential therapeutic applications synthesized in our laboratory. Initially, we used MTT cytotoxicity against A549, H9C2, HepG2, LLC-PK1 and NEURO-2 cell lines. RN104 showed the lowest cytotoxicity and further studies were conducted with it. The neutral red (NR) test was performed according to OECD-129 and then acute toxicity test (OECD-423). According to NR results we administered at 300 mg/kg on animals; however, no toxic effect was observed, while 2,000 mg/kg resulted in the death of one animal per group. After, metabolism prediction studies, performed using both ligand-based and structure-based, suggests three potential metabolites. In silico results suggested that potential metabolites could be fast eliminated and, then, this could be an explanation for lower observed toxicity in in vivo experiments. The results showed limitations of the NR as a predictor of the initial dose for the acute toxicity study, which may be related to metabolism. Therefore, the combination of theoretical and experimental studies is relevant to a general understanding of new molecule's toxicity.

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