DMD Simcyp

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Drug Metabolism and Disposition Fast Forward
First published on December 4, 2008; DOI: 10.1124/dmd.108.022046


0090-9556/09/3703-560-570$20.00
DMD 37:560-570, 2009

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
dmd.108.022046v1
37/3/560    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Giri, N.
Right arrow Articles by Elmquist, W. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Giri, N.
Right arrow Articles by Elmquist, W. F.

Substrate-Dependent Breast Cancer Resistance Protein (Bcrp1/Abcg2)-Mediated Interactions: Consideration of Multiple Binding Sites in in Vitro Assay Design

Nagdeep Giri, Sagar Agarwal, Naveed Shaik, Guoyu Pan, Ying Chen, and William F. Elmquist

Department of Pharmaceutics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota

In vitro assays are frequently used for the screening of substrates and inhibitors of transporter-mediated efflux. Examining directional flux across Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) II cell monolayers that overexpress a transporter protein is particularly useful in identifying whether or not a candidate compound is an inhibitor or substrate for that transport system. Studies that use a single substrate or inhibitor in competition assays can be challenging to interpret because of the possible multiple mechanisms involved in substrate/inhibitor-protein interactions. During our previous studies of substrate-inhibitor-transporter interactions, we observed differences in breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) inhibition, depending on the substrate and the inhibitor. Therefore, we investigated BCRP-mediated interactions with a 4 x 4 matrix of substrates and inhibitors using monolayers formed from MDCKII cells transfected with murine BCRP (Bcrp1/Abcg2). The selective BCRP inhibitor 3-(6-isobutyl-9-methoxy-1,4-dioxo-1,2,3,4,6,7,12,12a-octahydropyrazino [1',2':1,6] pyrido [3,4-b]indol-3-yl)-propionic acid tert-butyl ester (Ko143) effectively inhibited the Bcrp1-mediated transport of all substrates examined. However, N-(4-[2-(1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-6,7-dimethoxy-2-isoquinolinyl)ethyl]-phenyl)-9,10-dihydro-5-methoxy-9-oxo-4-acridine carboxamide (GF120918), nelfinavir, and Pluronic P85 exhibited differences in inhibition depending on the substrate examined. Our findings support recent reports suggesting that the interactions of substrate molecules with BCRP involve multiple binding regions in the protein. The nucleoside substrates zidovudine and abacavir seem to bind to a region on BCRP that may have little or no overlap with the binding regions of either prazosin or imatinib. In conclusion, the choice of substrate or inhibitor molecules for an in vitro assay system can be crucial for the optimal design of experiments to evaluate transporter-mediated drug-drug interactions.


Address correspondence to: Dr. William F. Elmquist, Department of Pharmaceutics, University of Minnesota, 308 Harvard St. SE, Weaver-Densford Hall 9-127, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: elmqu011{at}umn.edu







Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
All ASPET Journals Molecular Pharmacology Pharmacological Reviews
 Molecular Interventions Drug Metabolism and Disposition

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.