4.2 Article

Species differences in liver microsomal hydrolysis of acyl glucuronide in humans and rats

期刊

XENOBIOTICA
卷 52, 期 7, 页码 653-660

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00498254.2022.2131484

关键词

Species differences; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; acyl glucuronide; beta-glucuronidase; esterase

资金

  1. Antiaging Project in Kindai University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the characteristics and species differences in the hydrolysis of acyl glucuronides (AGs) in human and rat liver microsomes (HLM and RLM). The results showed significant differences in AG hydrolysis rates and the contribution of different enzymes between HLM and RLM. This finding is important for understanding idiosyncratic drug toxicity.
1. Acyl glucuronides (AGs) are known as one of the causes of idiosyncratic drug toxicity (IDT). Although AGs can be enzymatically hydrolysed by beta-glucuronidase and esterase, much information on their characteristics and species differences is lacking. This study was aimed to clarify species differences in AG hydrolysis between human and rat liver microsomes (HLM and RLM). 2. To evaluate the AG hydrolysis profile, and the contribution of beta-glucuronidase and esterase towards AG hydrolysis in HLM and RLM, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were used. AGs were incubated with 0.1 M Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4) and 0.3 mg/mL HLM or RLM in the absence or presence of P-glucuronidase inhibitor, D-saccharic acid 1,4-lactone (D-SL) and esterase inhibitor, phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF). 3. AGs of mefenamic acid (MEF-AG) and etodolac (ETO-AG) showed significantly higher AG hydrolysis rates in RLM than in HLM. Esterases were found to serve as AG hydrolases dominantly in HLM, whereas both esterases and beta-glucuronidase equally contribute to AG hydrolysis in RLM. However, MEF-AG and ETO-AG were hydrolysed only by beta-glucuronidase. 4. We demonstrated for the first time that the activity of AG hydrolases towards NSAID-AGs differs between humans and rats.

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

4.2
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