![[Feedback]](/icons/banner/feedbackACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[For Subscribers]](/icons/banner/subscriberACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Archive]](/icons/banner/archiveACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Search]](/icons/banner/searchACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Contents]](/icons/banner/tocACT.gif){kind=icon}
|
|
|
|
|
||
Centre for Applied Pharmacokinetic Research, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
(Received September 29, 2005; accepted January 11, 2006)
; Bjornsson et al., 2003). The ability to predict in silico the extent of microsomal binding from a drug's physicochemical properties, as proposed by Austin et al. (2002), is an attractive option that has engendered much interest. Recently, the same authors have extended earlier principles from microsomes to intact hepatocytes (Austin et al., 2005) and have shown application to various sets of hepatocyte and microsomal clearance data (Riley et al., 2005).
Having demonstrated a relationship between the charge-dependent lipophilicity parameter "logP/D" and binding affinity to microsomes for a range of drugs, Austin et al. (2002) proposed that the fuinc could be predicted using a simple linear relationship. This method was based on a theoretical combination of the above relationship and the ability to project fuinc from one concentration of microsomes to another. As no evaluation of prediction outcome was provided, we have assessed the prediction of fuinc using the Austin equation. A dataset including the 56 drugs used in the original study together with an additional 36 drugs both from other published studies (Obach, 1999; Naritomi et al., 2001; Soars et al., 2002) and from our own unpublished work was used.
First, we examined logP values from several sources (including experimental and in silico) for as many drugs for which data were available but found no major influence of source; mean logP values were therefore used, and these were converted to logD values where appropriate. Binding affinity (Ka) values were calculated from experimental microsomal fuinc values, and the latter were converted to values corresponding to 1 mg microsomal protein per ml, as required; when several experimental values were obtained for the same drug, a mean value was used. In demonstrating the relationship between binding affinity and logP/D, Austin et al. (2002) deliberately omitted drugs weakly bound (fu >0.9)—effectively excluding acidic drugs—and justified this based on the relative difficulty in determining minor binding and the fact that this degree of binding was not important. Figure 1A shows the relationship between binding affinity and logP/D for all of the basic and neutral drugs in the extended database (n = 64). The fitted linear relationship is similar to that obtained by Austin et al. (2002), and the correlation (r2 = 0.68) is comparable despite the increase in the number of drugs used. The linear equation parameters obtained using this extended database analysis were substituted into the Austin equation, and the resultant predicted fuinc values for all drugs were compared with observed values of fuinc. This prediction calculation typically resulted in underprediction of fuinc across the range of binding (average fold error = –1.5); 65% of all fuinc predictions were less than the observed fuinc values. In terms of precision, 28% of the predictions were greater than 2-fold different from observed.
|
) does show the most consistent trend between both drug type and individual drugs, including acidic drugs, when compared with logP or logD. It does not seem justified to exclude acidic drugs in quantifying this relationship because they provide limiting values within this inclusive property. Figure 1B, which includes all the drugs, shows that the relationship between binding affinity and logP/D is not linear. Any mechanistic model for microsomal binding would involve a polar interaction as well as a lipophilic/hydrophobic interaction, and so it is not surprising that the overall interaction is more complex than a simple linear relationship. As an alternative empirical approach, we fitted a quadratic relationship to all the data in the extended database and modified the fuinc prediction to that given in the equation below.
 |
Despite a similar degree of correlation for the nonlinear affinity relationship (R'2 = 0.75) compared with the linear relationship (R'2 = 0.68), the resultant prediction calculation (average fold error = 1.1) successfully eliminated the negative bias found when applying the linear equation to prediction of fuinc (Fig. 1B). This represents a useful improvement on the Austin prediction method, although the precision of prediction remains approximately the same, with 25% of the predictions outside 2-fold accuracy.
Drug amphiphilicity may be an important prerequisite for binding to microsomes, with strong binding being associated with a charged amine moiety in combination with a multiple aromatic/cyclic hydrophobic moiety. However, few drug molecules are this simple, and greater precision of prediction might only be achieved by mechanistic modeling of additional binding traits such as molecule shape, type and location of additional polar/functional groups, etc. Despite these caveats, there is a strong general trend in binding affinity with lipophilicity, which can be represented in a relatively simple nonlinear manner.
Consideration of neutral and basic drugs separately further illustrates the inadequacy of the linear relationship assumed in the Austin equation. In the case of neutrals, which are mostly moderately bound, inaccuracy in the fuinc values predicted by the linear model can be explained simply by a constant overestimation of affinity. Figure 1C shows the predicted fuinc (based on the linear equation) with a fitted bias for affinity. For bases, however, the fuinc values predicted by the linear model seem to diverge from observed fuinc in a disproportionate manner with increasing fuinc (Fig. 1D). In other words, as binding affinity of bases decreases, increasingly biased estimates of affinity are provided; in both cases, this misrepresentation is resolved using the quadratic model [Fig. 1, E (neutrals) and F (bases)].
Austin and coworkers have also advocated a linear relationship for the intracellular binding of drugs within hepatocytes (Austin et al., 2005) and, hence, an fuinc term for this in vitro system. For hepatocytes, although it seems that a major role for lipophilicity is reflected in the trend of logP/D with binding affinity, it would seem that inaccuracies similar to those we describe for microsomes may result. Furthermore, intracellular binding is not the sole reason for cell-to-medium concentration ratios differing from unity. The latter parameter is also affected by membrane transporter activity and is often concentration-dependent (Jones et al., 2004). Thus, for hepatocyte experiments, there is little support for the linear fuinc assumption, and so its validity is questioned.
In summary, the relationship between fu in microsomes and the lipophilicity parameter logP/D can be best described by a nonlinear empirical equation which allows unbiased predictions unlike those based on an assumed linear relationship.
 |
Footnotes |
|---|
Address correspondence to: Professor J. Brian Houston, Centre for Applied Pharmacokinetic Research, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. E-mail: brian.houston{at}man.ac.uk
|
References |
|---|
 Top References |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. J. Kilford, M. Gertz, J. B. Houston, and A. Galetin Hepatocellular Binding of Drugs: Correction for Unbound Fraction in Hepatocyte Incubations Using Microsomal Binding or Drug Lipophilicity Data Drug Metab. Dispos., July 1, 2008; 36(7): 1194 - 1197. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Henshall, A. Galetin, A. Harrison, and J. B. Houston Comparative Analysis of CYP3A Heteroactivation by Steroid Hormones and Flavonoids in Different in Vitro Systems and Potential in Vivo Implications Drug Metab. Dispos., July 1, 2008; 36(7): 1332 - 1340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Gertz, P. J. Kilford, J. B. Houston, and A. Galetin Drug Lipophilicity and Microsomal Protein Concentration as Determinants in the Prediction of the Fraction Unbound in Microsomal Incubations Drug Metab. Dispos., March 1, 2008; 36(3): 535 - 542. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. K. Kuester and I. G. Sipes Prediction of Metabolic Clearance of Bisphenol A (4,4 '-Dihydroxy-2,2-diphenylpropane) using Cryopreserved Human Hepatocytes Drug Metab. Dispos., October 1, 2007; 35(10): 1910 - 1915. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. S. Brown, M. Griffin, and J. B. Houston Evaluation of Cryopreserved Human Hepatocytes as an Alternative in Vitro System to Microsomes for the Prediction of Metabolic Clearance Drug Metab. Dispos., February 1, 2007; 35(2): 293 - 301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
