4.6 Article

Kinetic values for mechanism-based enzyme inhibition: Assessing the bias introduced by the conventional experimental protocol

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 26, 期 3-4, 页码 334-340

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2005.07.005

关键词

mechanism-based inhibition; enzyme inactivation; drug-drug interactions; simulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The in vitro characterisation of a mechanism-based enzyme inactivator (MBEI) includes determination of the maximum inactivation rate constant (k(inact)), the inactivator concentration that produces half-maximal rate of inactivation (K-I), and the partition ratio (r). Conventional experimental protocols (CEPs) assume insignificant metabolism of the MBEI during the pre-incubation stage and negligible inactivation of enzyme during the incubation stage. The aim of this study was to evaluate the bias in the estimation of kinetic values as a consequence of these assumptions. Ranges of values of k(inact), K-I, and r for reported MBEls were collated and data for 27 virtual compounds were generated by combining the median, high and low values of each parameter. The kinetics of the virtual compounds and of four reported MBEls were simulated under CEP, but taking account of enzyme inactivation, metabolism of the MBEI and the probe substrate, and their interaction at relevant stages. The differences between the estimated and starting kinetic values reflect the bias introduced by the CEP in the absence of experimental error. Despite simulating a stringent experimental procedure, 19% of the estimated kinetic values of the 27 virtual MBEls had greater than 100% bias. Simulations relating to two of the actual MBEls indicated no bias in k(inact) and 8-33% bias in K-1. However, the bias in K-I values of the two other compounds exceeded 98% and corresponding bias in k(inact) was greater than 300%. Thus, CEP may introduce substantial bias in estimated kinetic values for mechanism-based inhibition, and the validity of some of the reported kinetic parameters may be questionable. (C) 2005 Elsevier B.V 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

4.6
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