4.7 Article

Danofloxacin-mesylate is a substrate for ATP-dependent efflux transporters

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 150, 期 4, 页码 463-469

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0706974

关键词

fluoroquinolones; danofloxacin; mesylate; ABC; transport; ABCB1; ABCC2; ABCG2

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: Next to its broad antimicrobial spectrum, the therapeutic advantages of the fluoroquinolone antimicrobial drug Danofloxacin-Mesylate (DM) are attributed to its rapid distribution to the major target tissues such as lungs, intestines and the mammary gland in animals. Previous analyses revealed that effective drug concentrations are achieved also in luminal compartments of these organs, suggesting that active transport proteins facilitate excretion into the luminal space. Members of the ATP-Binding Cassette (ABC) superfamily, including P-gp, BCRP and MRP2 are known to be expressed in many tissue barriers and in cell-membranes facing luminal compartments. Hence we hypothesized that DM is a substrate for one of these efflux-transporters. Experimental approach: Confluent monolayers of Caco-2 cells, grown on microporous membranes in two-chamber devices were used. DM concentrations were measured by fluorimetric assay after HPLC of the culture media. Key results: DM transport across Caco-2 cells was asymmetric, with a rate of secretion exceeding that of absorption. The P-gp inhibitors PSC833 and GF120918 and the MRP-inhibitor MK571 partially decreased the secretion of DM and increased its absorption rate. The BCRP inhibitor, Ko143, decreased secretion only at a concentration of 1 mu M. When DM was applied together with ciprofloxacin, secretion as well as absorption of DM decreased. Conclusions and Implications: DM is a substrate for the efflux transporters P-gp and MRP2, whereas the specific role of BCRP in DM transport needs further evaluation. These findings provide a mechanistic basis for the understanding of the pharmacokinetics of DM in healthy and diseased individuals.

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

4.7
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