4.7 Article

Modulation of high affinity ATP-dependent cyclic nucleotide transporters by specific and non-specific cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterase inhibitors

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 745, 期 -, 页码 249-253

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2014.10.051

关键词

ABC-transporters; ABCC5; PDE5; PDE inhibitors; cGMP; cAMP

资金

  1. Norwegian Cancer Society
  2. University Hospital of North Norway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intracellular cyclic nucleotides are eliminated by phosphodiesterases (PDEs) and by ATP Binding cassette transporters such as ABCC4 and ABCC5. PDE5 and ABCC5 have similar affinity for cGMP whereas ABCC5 has much higher affinity for cGMP compared with cAMP. Since the substrate (cGMP) is identical for these two eliminatory processes it is conceivable that various PDE inhibitors also modulate ABCC5-transport. Cyclic GMP is also transported by ABBC4 but the affinity is much lower with a K-m 50-100 times higher than for that of ABBCC5. The present study aimed to determine K-i-values for specific or relative specific PDE5 inhibitors (vardenafil, tadalafil, zaprinast and dipyridamole) and the non-specific PDE inhibitors (IBMX, caffeine and theophylline) for ABCC5 andABCC4 transport. The transport of [H-3]-cGMP (2 mu M) was concentration-dependently inhibited with the following K-i-values: vardenafil (0.62 mu M), tadalatil (14.1 mu M), zaprinast (0.68 mu M) and dipyridamole (1.2 mu M), IBMX (10 mu M), caffeine (48 mu M) and theophylline (69 mu M). The K-i-values for the inhibition of the [H-3]-cAMP (2 mu M) transport were: vardenatil (3.4 mu M), tadalafil (194 mu M), zaprinast (2.8 mu M), clipyridamole (5.5 mu M), [BMX (16 mu M), caffeine (41 mu M) and theophylline (85 mu M). The specificity for ABCC5 we defined as ratio between K-i-values for inhibition at [H-3] -cAMP and [H-3]-cAMP transport. Tadalafil showed the highest specificity (K-i-ratio: 0.073) and caffeine the lowest (K-i-ratio: 1.2). (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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