4.4 Article

Influx and efflux transport of H1-antagonist epinastine across the blood-brain barrier

期刊

DRUG METABOLISM AND DISPOSITION
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 519-524

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/dmd.32.5.519

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated influx and efflux transporters involved in blood-brain barrier transport of the nonsedative H1-antagonist epinastine. The basal-to-apical transport of [C-14] epinastine was markedly higher than that in the opposite direction in LLC-GA5-COL150 cells stably transfected with human multidrug resistance (MDR) 1 gene. The brain-to-plasma concentration ratio of [C-14] epinastine in mdr1a/b(-/-) mice was 3.2 times higher than that in wild-type mice. The uptake of both [H-3] mepyramine and [C-14] epinastine into immortalized rat brain capillary endothelial cells ( RBEC) 1 showed temperature and concentration dependence. The kinetic parameters, K-m, V-max, and uptake clearance (V-max/K-m), of the initial uptake of [H-3] mepyramine and [C-14] epinastine by RBEC1 were 150 muM, 41.8 nmol/min/mg protein, and 279 mul/min/mg protein for mepyramine and 10.0 mM, 339 nmol/min/mg protein, and 33.9 mul/min/mg protein for epinastine, respectively. The uptake of [H-3] mepyramine and [C-14] epinastine by RBEC1 was inhibited by organic cations such as quinidine, amantadine, and verapamil, but not by other organic cations, tetraethyl ammonium, guanidine, and carnitine. Organic anions such as benzoic acid, estrone-3-sulfate, taurocholate, and neutral digoxin were not inhibitory. Furthermore, some cationic H1 antagonists (chlorpheniramine, cyproheptadine, ketotifen, and desloratadine) inhibited the [H-3] mepyramine and [C-14] epinastine uptake into RBEC1. In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that the combination of efficient efflux transport by P-glycoprotein and poor uptake by the influx transporter, which is identical with that responsible for the uptake of mepyramine, account for the low brain distribution of epinastine.

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

4.4
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