4.5 Article

Kinetic analysis of interactions of amodiaquine with human cholinesterases and organophosphorus compounds

期刊

TOXICOLOGY LETTERS
卷 246, 期 -, 页码 49-56

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.02.004

关键词

Organophosphorus compounds; Acetylcholinesterase; Amodiaquine; Reactivation; Inhibition; Kinetics

资金

  1. German Ministry of Defence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Standard therapy of poisoning by organophosphorus compounds (OP) is a combined administration of an anti-muscarinic drug (e.g. atropine) and an oxime as reactivator of inhibited acetylcholinesterase (AChE). Limited efficacy of clinically used oximes against a variety of OPs was shown in numerous studies, calling for research on novel reactivators of OP-inhibited AChE. Recently, reactivation of OP-inhibited AChE by the antimalarial drug amodiaquine was reported. In the present study, amodiaquine and its interactions with human cholinesterases in presence or absence of OP nerve agents was investigated in vitro. Thereby, reversible inhibition of human cholinesterases by amodiaquine (AChE >> BChE) was observed. Additionally, a mixed competitive-non-competitive inhibition type of amodiaquine with human AChE was determined. Slow and partial reactivation of sarin-, cyclosarin- and VX-inhibited cholinesterases by amodiaquine was recorded, amodiaquine failed to reactivate tabun-inhibited human cholinesterases. Amodiaquine, being a potent, reversible AChE inhibitor, was tested for its potential benefit as a pretreatment to prevent complete irreversible AChE inhibition by the nerve agent soman. Hereby, amodiaquine failed to prevent phosphonylation and resulted only in a slight increase of AChE activity after removal of amodiaquine and soman. At present the molecular mechanism of amodiaquine-induced reactivation of OP-inhibited AChE is not known, nevertheless amodiaquine could be considered as a template for the design of more potent non-oxime reactivators. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland 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

4.5
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