4.5 Article

In vitro assessment of cytochrome P450 inhibition:: Strategies for increasing LC/MS-Based assay throughput using a one-point IC50 method and multiplexing high-performance liquid chromatography

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 96, 期 9, 页码 2485-2493

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1002/jps.20884

关键词

cytochrome P450; drug-drug interactions; drug metabolizing enzymes; high-throughput technologies; human liver microsomes; inhibition; mass spectrometry; mathematical model; one-point IC50; probe substrates

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A fast and robust LC/MS-based cytochrome P450 (CYP) inhibition assay, using human liver microsomes, has been fully developed and validated for the major human liver CYPs. Probe substrates were phenacetin, diclofenac, S-mephenytoin, and dextromethorphan for CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP2D6, respectively. Midazolam and testosterone were chosen for CYP3A4. Furafylline, sulfaphenazole, tranylcypromine, quinidine, and ketoconazole were identified as positive control inhibitors for CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, and CYP3A4, respectively. To increase the throughput of the assay, a one-point method was developed, using data from CYP inhibition assays conducted at one concentration (i.e., 10 mu M), to estimate the drug concentration at which the metabolism of the CYP probe substrate was reduced by 50% (IC50). The IC50 values from the one-point assay were validated by correlating the results with IC50 values that were obtained with a traditional eight-point concentration response curve. Good correlation was achieved with the slopes of the trendlines between 0.95 and 1.02 and with R-2 between 0.77 and 1.0. Throughput was increased twofold by using a Cohesive multiplexing high-performance liquid chromatography system. The one-point IC50 estimate is useful for initial compound screening, while the full concentration-response IC50 method provides detailed CYP inhibition data for later stages of drug development. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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