4.5 Article

The effect of age on P-glycoprotein expression and function in the Fischer-344 rat

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/jpet.103.061234

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR-00054] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG-17880] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDA NIH HHS [DA-05258, DA-13209, DA-13834] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK/AI-58496] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NIMH NIH HHS [MH-58435] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the effect of age on P-glycoprotein (P-gp) expression and function in rat liver, intestine, kidney, and endothelial cells of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and lymphocytes. Flow cytometric analysis was used to examine P-gp expression in lymphocytes from male Fischer-344 rats from three age groups (young at 3-4 months, intermediate at 13-14 months, and old at 25-26 months). In addition, P-gp function in lymphocytes was assessed by measuring the ability of the P-gp inhibitor verapamil to limit the efflux of the fluorescent P-gp substrate rhodamine 123. P-gp expression was evaluated in the remaining four tissues by Western blot analysis. The effect of age on P-gp expression was tissue-specific. Although lymphocytic and hepatic P-gp expression increased with age, renal P-gp content was lower in the old kidneys. No statistical difference was observed in P-gp expression in intestinal microsomes or in BBB cell lysates among the three age groups. P-gp function was also increased by 6- to 8-fold in lymphocytes from the old rats. When P-gp expression was compared with CYP3A expression in these rats ( reported elsewhere in this journal), we found that P-gp expression increased with age, whereas CYP3A expression and activity declined in the old livers. The converse pattern was observed in the kidney. Thus, age-related changes in P-gp expression and function are likely to be tissue-specific, and these changes may be inversely related to differences in CYP3A expression.

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