4.7 Article

Molecular dynamics simulation and in vitro evaluation of herb-drug interactions involving dietary polyphenols and CDK inhibitors in breast cancer chemotherapy

期刊

PHYTOTHERAPY RESEARCH
卷 36, 期 10, 页码 3988-4001

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ptr.7547

关键词

CDK inhibitors; dietary polyphenols; herb-drug interactions; molecular docking

资金

  1. Indian Council of Medical Research [2020-4462]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Curcumin and quercetin can inhibit the metabolism of CDK inhibitors, potentially causing herb-drug interactions and should be cautiously used to avoid therapeutic failure.
Dietary polyphenols such as quercetin and curcumin have been extensively administered to patients with cancer in the form of herbal supplements. They may have a synergistic anticancer effect; however, a risk of pharmacokinetic interactions with selective CDK-4/6 inhibitors that are metabolized by the CYP3A4 enzyme exists. Considering these pharmacokinetic aspects, the current study examined the effects of curcumin and quercetin on human CYP3A4 to ascertain CYP3A4-mediated herb-drug interactions with CDK inhibitors. In this study, using in silico methods and CYP3A4 inhibition kinetics in human liver microsomes and recombinant CYP3A4 enzymes, the effects of concentration-dependent inhibition of CYP3A4 by quercetin and curcumin on CDK inhibitors metabolism were examined. Based on our in-silico docking findings, curcumin and quercetin were considerably bound to CYP3A4 protein and displace CDK inhibitors from the CYP3A4 substrate binding domain. The IC50 values of curcumin and quercetin were 16.10 and 0.05 mu M, respectively, for CYP3A4-mediated 1 '-hydroxylation of midazolam. The dietary polyphenols prolonged the in vitro half-life of palbociclib and ribociclib by 6.4-fold and decreased their intrinsic microsomal clearance by approximately 4.6 times. Our findings indicate that curcumin and quercetin effectively cause herb-drug interactions and should be cautiously used to avoid therapeutic failure.

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