4.4 Article

Characterization of mouse small intestinal cytochrome P450 expression

期刊

DRUG METABOLISM AND DISPOSITION
卷 31, 期 11, 页码 1346-1351

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/dmd.31.11.1346

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The expression of biotransformation enzymes in mouse small intestine is poorly characterized, which limits the utility of transgenic or knockout mouse models for first-pass drug metabolism studies. In response, we have systematically examined the composition and inducibility of cytochrome P450 (P450) protein and mRNA in mouse small intestinal epithelial cells (enterocytes). RNA-PCR was conducted to confirm the expression and identity of CYP1A1, 1B1, 2B10, 2B19, 2B20, 2C29, 2C38, 2C40, 2E1, 3A11, 3A13, 3A16, 3A25, and 3A44 in the enterocytes of untreated mice, but CYP1A2, 2A4/5, 2A12, 2C37, 2C39, and 2F2 were not detected. The inducibility of CYP2B, 2C, and 3A subfamily forms was determined by real-time quantitative RNA-PCR. All five CYP3A forms were induced, in a range from 1.7- to 4.5-fold, by dexamethasone (DEX). Phenobarbital (PB) induced CYP2B9, CYP2B10, and CYP2B20 mRNAs and suppressed CYP2B19 mRNA levels. PB also induced CYP2C29 and CYP2C40, but not CYP2C38 mRNA. At the protein level, CYP1A1, CYP1B1, CYP2B, CYP2C, CYP2E1, and CYP3A were detected in enterocytes from untreated mice by immunoblot analysis. CYP1A1 was inducible by beta-naphthoflavone (BNF), CYP2B and CYP2C by PB, and CYP3A by DEX. CYP2B, 2C, and 3A proteins were all expressed at high levels proximally, and decreased distally. The inducibility of CYP1A1 followed a similar pattern. Intestinal P450 expression was compared between C57BL/6 (B6) and 129/sv ( 129) mice, strains commonly used in the preparation of transgenic and knockout mouse models. There was no significant strain difference in constitutive levels or induction patterns for CYP2B, 2C, and 3A protein. However, CYP1A1 was induced to a high level by BNF in B6 mice, but was not induced in the 129 mice.

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