4.4 Article

Rate-limiting steps in hepatic drug clearance: Comparison of hepatocellular uptake and metabolism with microsomal metabolism of saquinavir, nelfinavir, and ritonavir

期刊

DRUG METABOLISM AND DISPOSITION
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 1375-1384

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/dmd.108.020917

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The intrinsic metabolic clearance of saquinavir, nelfinavir, and ritonavir was determined over a range of concentrations (0.02-20 mu M) in both rat liver microsomes and fresh isolated rat hepatocytes in suspension. Clearance values were found to be concentration dependent for both systems, and at low concentrations, microsomal clearance was much greater (7-14-fold) than in hepatocytes. Kinetic parameters showed substantially lower microsomal K-m values (5-42 nM) compared with suspended rat hepatocytes (34-270 nM) but similar scaled V-max values (2-26 nmol/min/g liver). In the absence of metabolism (achieved by pretreating hepatocytes with a mechanism-based inhibitor of cytochrome P450), saquinavir, nelfinavir, and ritonavir were actively and rapidly taken up into hepatocytes (cell/medium concentration ratios of 306-3352), and intracellular unbound drug concentrations between 5- and 12-fold higher than extracellular unbound concentrations were achieved. Comparison of the rate of uptake into hepatocytes with the rate of metabolism in hepatocytes and microsomes indicates that the former is the rate-limiting step at low concentrations. The rate of metabolism saturates at lower concentrations (100-400-fold) than the rate of uptake; hence, at the high concentrations metabolic rate-limited clearance occurs. In conclusion, the clearance of saquinavir, nelfinavir, and ritonavir is extremely rapid, and it is proposed that in the case of hepatocytes and by inference in vivo, the rate of uptake limits the metabolic clearance of these three drugs.

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