Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Sections
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Submit
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Drug Metabolism & Disposition
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Drug Metabolism & Disposition

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Sections
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Submit
  • Visit dmd on Facebook
  • Follow dmd on Twitter
  • Follow ASPET on LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticle

Effects of Coexpression of UGT1A9 on Enzymatic Activities of Human UGT1A Isoforms

Ryoichi Fujiwara, Miki Nakajima, Hiroyuki Yamanaka, Akiko Nakamura, Miki Katoh, Shin-ichi Ikushiro, Toshiyuki Sakaki and Tsuyoshi Yokoi
Drug Metabolism and Disposition May 2007, 35 (5) 747-757; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.106.014191
Ryoichi Fujiwara
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Miki Nakajima
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hiroyuki Yamanaka
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Akiko Nakamura
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Miki Katoh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shin-ichi Ikushiro
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Toshiyuki Sakaki
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tsuyoshi Yokoi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

We established stable HEK293 cell lines expressing double isoforms, UGT1A1 and UGT1A9, UGT1A4 and UGT1A9, or UGT1A6 and UGT1A9, as well as stable cell lines expressing each single isoform. To analyze the protein-protein interaction between the UGT1As, we investigated the thermal stability and resistance to detergent. UGT1A9 uniquely demonstrated thermal stability, which was enhanced in the presence of UDP-glucuronic acid (>90% of control), and resistance to detergent. Interestingly, UGT1A1, UGT1A4, and UGT1A6 acquired thermal stability and resistance to detergent by the coexpression of UGT1A9. An immunoprecipitation assay revealed that UGT1A6 and UGT1A9 interact in the double expression system. Using the single expression systems, it was confirmed that estradiol 3-O-glucuronide, imipramine N-glucuronide, serotonin O-glucuronide, and propofol O-glucuronide formations are specific for UGT1A1, UGT1A4, UGT1A6, and UGT1A9, respectively. By kinetic analyses, we found that the coexpressed UGT1A9 significantly affected the kinetics of estradiol 3-O-glucuronide formation (decreased Vmax), imipramine N-glucuronide formation (increased Km and Vmax), and serotonin O-glucuronide formation (decreased Vmax) catalyzed by UGT1A1, UGT1A4, and UGT1A6, respectively. On the other hand, the coexpressed UGT1A1 increased Km and decreased the Vmax of the propofol O-glucuronide formation catalyzed by UGT1A9. The coexpressed UGT1A4 and UGT1A6 also increased the Vmax of the propofol Oglucuronide formation by UGT1A9. This is the first study showing that human UGT1A isoforms interact with other isoforms to change the enzymatic characteristics.

UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs) are a family of membrane-bound enzymes that catalyze the conjugation of endogenous and exogenous compounds with UDP-glucuronic acid (UDPGA) (Dutton, 1980). Human UGTs are classified into two subfamilies, UGT1A and UGT2B, on the basis of evolutionary divergence (Mackenzie et al., 2005). Characterization of genomic DNA clones encoding the UGT1 gene has shown that the UGT1 locus comprises multiple first exons that encode isoform-specific sequences and a single set of commonly used exons 2 to 5 that encodes the same sequence of all UGT1 isoforms (Bosma et al., 1992; Ritter et al., 1992). The C-terminal domain with very high homology is directly involved in UDPGA binding, whereas the N-terminal halves contain the aglycone binding site (Mackenzie, 1990). Among the UGT1A subfamily, UGT1A1, UGT1A4, UGT1A6, and UGT1A9 are expressed in human liver (Strassburg et al., 1999; Tukey and Strassburg, 2000).

UGTs have been reported to form homo- or hetero-oligomers as follows. Matern et al. (1982) suggested for the first time, on the basis of gel permeation chromatography, that UGTs existed as oligomers in rat liver microsomes. Radiation inactivation analyses revealed that UGT existed as oligomers composed of one to four subunits (Peters et al., 1984; Gschaidmeier and Bock, 1994). Moreover, cross-linking studies confirmed possible hetero-oligomerizations between UGT1As and UGT2B1 (Ikushiro et al., 1997). In addition, several experiments in recent years have verified the formation of homo- or heterooligomers (Ishii et al., 2001; Kurkela et al., 2004). However, the functional significance of the oligomerization is largely unknown. In the present study, we established stable HEK293 cell lines expressing simultaneously UGT1A1 and UGT1A9, UGT1A4 and UGT1A9, or UGT1A6 and UGT1A9 to investigate the effects of the heterodimerization on the enzymatic activities. Estradiol 3-O-glucuronide, imipramine N-glucuronide, serotonin O-glucuronide, and propofol O-glucuronide formations were determined as specific activities for UGT1A1, UGT1A4, UGT1A6, and UGT1A9, respectively. Using these marker activities, the effects of coexpression of other UGT1A isoforms on thermal stability, resistance to detergent, and the kinetic parameters were investigated.

Materials and Methods

Chemicals and Reagents. UDPGA, alamethicin, estradiol, estradiol 3-O-glucuronide, 4-methylumbelliferone (4-MU), and 4-methylumbelliferone O-glucuronide were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO). Imipramine hydrochloride, serotonin, trifluoperazine dihydrochloride, and G418 were purchased from Wako Pure Chemicals (Osaka, Japan). 7-Hydroxy-4-trifluoromethylcoumarin (7-HFC) was obtained from Daiichi Pure Chemicals (Tokyo, Japan). Propofol was kindly supplied by AstraZeneca (London, UK). Recombinant human UGT1A1, UGT1A4, UGT1A6, and UGT1A9 expressed in baculovirus-infected insect cells (Supersomes) and rabbit anti-human UGT1A polyclonal antibody were obtained from BD Gentest (Woburn, MA). Rabbit anti-human UGT1A6 peptide polyclonal antibody was prepared as described previously (Ikushiro et al., 2006). Primers were commercially synthesized at Hokkaido System Sciences (Sapporo, Japan). All other chemicals and solvents were of analytical grade or the highest grade commercially available.

Isolation of Human UGT1A cDNA and Construction of Expression Vectors. Human UGT1A1 (accession number NM000463), UGT1A4 (NM007120). UGT1A6 (NM001072), and UGT1A9 (NM021027) cDNAs were prepared by a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction technique using total RNA from human liver. The sequences of the primers are shown in Table 1. After an initial denaturation at 94°C for 5 min, amplification was performed by denaturation at 94°C for 30 s, annealing at 55°C for 30 s, and extension at 72°C for 90 s for 35 cycles, followed by a final extension at 72°C for 5 min. The polymerase chain reaction products were subcloned into pTARGET Mammalian Expression Vector (Promega, Madison, WI) and the DNA sequences of the inserts were determined using a Thermo Sequenase Cy5.5 Dye Terminator Cycle Sequencing kit (GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences, Piscataway, NJ) with a Long-Read Tower DNA sequencer (GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Primers used in this study

Stable Expression of UGT1A Isoforms in HEK293 Cells. HEK293 (American Type Culture Collection, Rockville, MD) cells were grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium containing 4.5 g/liter glucose, 10 mM HEPES, and 10% fetal bovine serum with 5% CO2 at 37°C. The cells in six-well plates were transfected with 2 μg of UGT expression vector using Lipofectamine (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). For the double expression systems, each expression vector was cotransfected at the ratio of 1:1. Stable transfectants were selected in medium containing 800 μg/ml of G418 and several clones were isolated. The UGT expression levels were determined by immunoblot analysis as described below. As the single expression systems, clones with the highest content of each UGT1A isoform were selected for the assays.

Preparation of Cell Homogenate. HEK293 cells expressing single or double UGT1A isoforms were suspended in Tris-buffered saline [25 mM Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4), 138 mM NaCl, and 2.7 mM KCl] and disrupted by freeze-thawing three times according to the method reported by Ren et al. (2000). Then, the suspensions were homogenized with a Teflon-glass homogenizer for 10 strokes. The protein concentrations were determined according to Bradford (1976).

Immunoblot Analysis. The UGT protein levels were determined by immunoblot analysis. Cell homogenates (2–10 μg) from HEK293 cells or UGT Supersomes (0.2 μg) were boiled for 5 min in Laemmli sample buffer containing 2-mercaptoethanol and separated on a 10% polyacrylamide gel. The separated proteins were electrotransferred onto the polyvinylidene difluoride membrane Immobilon-P (Millipore, Bedford, MA). The membrane was blocked in 3% nonfat dry milk in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) containing 0.1% Tween 20 at room temperature for 12 h. The membranes were incubated with rabbit anti-human UGT1A polyclonal antibody (1:500, PBS) for 5 h at room temperature. Biotinylated anti-rabbit IgG and a VECTASTAIN ABC kit (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA) were used for diaminobenzidine staining. The densities of the bands were determined using an ImageQuant (GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences). Because the anti-human UGT1A antibody recognizes the conserved C-terminal region of all human UGT1A isoforms, it reacts with all UGT1A isoforms as previously reported (Malfatti and Felton, 2004). The expression level of UGT1A was defined on the basis of a standard curve using the UGT1A1 single expression system (1 unit/1 mg of cell homogenates).

Enzyme Assays. Estradiol 3-O-glucuronide formation was determined according to the method of Fisher et al. (2000) with slight modifications. Briefly, a typical incubation mixture (200 μl of total volume) contained 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 10 mM MgCl2, 2 mM UDPGA, 25 μg/ml alamethicin, 0.25 mg/ml total cell homogenates and 2 to 100 μM estradiol. The reaction was initiated by the addition of UDPGA after a 3-min preincubation at 37°C. After incubation at 37°C for 60 min, the reaction was terminated by addition of 100 μl of cold acetonitrile including 6% acetic acid. After removal of the protein by centrifugation at 15,000 rpm for 5 min, a 20-μl portion of the sample was subjected to HPLC.

Imipramine N-glucuronide formation was determined according to the method of Nakajima et al. (2002) with slight modifications. Briefly, a typical incubation mixture (100 μl of total volume) contained 50 mM Tris-HCl buffer, pH 7.4, 5 mM MgCl2, 5 mM UDPGA, 25 μg/ml alamethicin, 0.25 mg/ml total cell homogenates and 0.1 to 5 mM imipramine. The reaction was initiated by the addition of UDPGA, following a 3-min preincubation at 37°C. After incubation at 37°C for 60 min, the reaction was terminated by addition of 100 μl of cold acetonitrile. After removal of the protein by centrifugation at 15,000 rpm for 5 min, a 20-μl portion of the sample was subjected to HPLC.

Serotonin O-glucuronide formation was determined according to the method of Krishnaswamy et al. (2003) with slight modifications. Briefly, a typical incubation mixture (100 μl of total volume) contained 25 mM phosphate buffer (pH 7.5), 2.5 mM MgCl2, 5 mM UDPGA, 25 μg/ml alamethicin, 0.25 mg/ml total cell homogenates, and 0.3 to 20 mM serotonin. The reaction was initiated by the addition of UDPGA after a 3-min preincubation at 37°C. After incubation at 37°C for 30 min, the reaction was terminated by addition of 100 μl of cold acetonitrile. After removal of the protein by centrifugation at 15,000 rpm for 5 min, a 20-μl portion of the sample was subjected to HPLC.

Propofol O-glucuronide formation was determined according to the method of Shimizu et al. (2003) with slight modifications. Briefly, a typical incubation mixture (200 μl of total volume) contained 50 mM potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.4), 10 mM MgCl2, 5 mM UDPGA, 25 μg/ml alamethicin, 0.25 mg/ml total cell homogenates, and 10 μM to 2 mM propofol. The reaction was initiated by addition of UDPGA after a 3-min preincubation at 37°C. After incubation at 37°C for 30 min, the reaction was terminated by addition of 200 μl of cold acetonitrile. After removal of the protein by centrifugation at 15,000 rpm for 5 min, a 20-μl portion of the sample was subjected to HPLC.

4-MU O-glucuronide formation was determined according to the method of Uchaipichat et al. (2004) with slight modifications. Briefly, a typical incubation mixture (200 μl of total volume) contained 50 mM Tris-HCl buffer, pH 7.4, 10 mM MgCl2, 2.5 mM UDPGA, 25 μg/ml alamethicin, 0.25 mg/ml total cell homogenates, and 30 μM 4-MU. The reaction was initiated by addition of UDPGA after a 3-min preincubation at 37°C. After incubation at 37°C for 15 min, the reaction was terminated by addition of 100 μl of cold methanol. After removal of the protein by centrifugation at 15,000 rpm for 5 min, a 20-μl portion of the sample was subjected to HPLC.

Trifluoperazine N-glucuronide formation was determined according to the method of Uchaipichat et al. (2006) with slight modifications. Briefly, a typical incubation mixture (100 μl of total volume) contained 50 mM Tris-HCl buffer, pH 7.4, 10 mM MgCl2, 2.5 mM UDPGA, 25 μg/ml alamethicin, 0.25 mg/ml total cell homogenates, and 50 μM trifluoperazine. The reaction was initiated by addition of UDPGA after a 3-min preincubation at 37°C. After incubation at 37°C for 15 min, the reaction was terminated by addition of 100 μl of cold acetonitrile including 6% acetic acid. After removal of the protein by centrifugation at 15,000 rpm for 5 min, a 20-μl portion of the sample was subjected to HPLC.

7-HFC O-glucuronide formation was determined according to the method of Ghosal et al. (2004) with slight modifications. Briefly, a typical incubation mixture (200 μl of total volume) contained 50 mM Tris-HCl buffer, pH 7.4, 10 mM MgCl2, 2 mM UDPGA, 25 μg/ml alamethicin, 0.25 mg/ml total cell homogenates, and 50 μM 7-HFC. The reaction was initiated by addition of UDPGA after a 3-min preincubation at 37°C. After incubation at 37°C for 15 min, the reaction was terminated by addition of 100 μl of cold acetonitrile including 6% acetic acid. After removal of the protein by centrifugation at 15,000 rpm for 5 min, a 20-μl portion of the sample was subjected to HPLC.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Immunoblot analysis of recombinant human UGT1As expressed in HEK293 cells and baculovirus-infected insect cells (Supersomes) using a rabbit antihuman UGT1A antibody. A, 2 μg of total cell homogenates from the HEK293 cells and 0.2 μg of Supersomes were separated by electrophoresis using 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. The lower UGT1A levels in HEK293 cells compared to the Supersomes were due to the usage of the total cell homogenates instead of microsomes. B, various contents of HEK293 cell homogenates from single expression systems of UGT1A were applied to make the standard curves. C, the expression levels of UGT1A isoforms in double expression systems were defined based on a standard curve using the UGT1A1 single expression system (1 unit/1 mg of cell homogenates). Each column is the mean ± S.D. of three independent determinations. ND, not detected.

Quantification of estradiol 3-O-glucuronide or 4-MU O-glucuronide was performed by comparing the HPLC peak height to that of the authentic standard. For the quantification of the other glucuronides, the eluate from the HPLC column containing each glucuronide was collected, and a part of the eluate was hydrolyzed with NaOH at 75°C for 30 min (Hawes, 1998). The hydrolyzed glucuronides were quantified using HPLC by comparison of peak heights with those of the external standard curve of the substrates.

Kinetic parameters were estimated from the fitted curve using a computer program (KaleidaGraph, Synergy Software, Reading, PA) designed for nonlinear regression analysis. The following equations were used:

Michaelis-Menten equation: Math Hill equation Math Substrate inhibition equation Math where V is the velocity of the reaction, S is the substrate concentration, Km is the Michaelis-Menten constant, Vmax is the maximum velocity, S50 is the substrate concentration showing the half-Vmax, n is Hill coefficient, and Ki is the substrate inhibition constant. Data are expressed as the means ± S.D. of three independent determinations.

Effects of Heat Treatment and Detergent on Enzymatic Activities. To investigate the effect of heat treatment, the reaction mixtures containing the cell homogenate were treated at 37, 42, 47, 52, and 57°C for 15 min in the presence or absence of UDPGA or substrate. Immediately, the enzymatic activities were determined as described above with the incubation at 37°C for 15 min. To investigate the effect of the detergent, the incubation mixture was incubated with 0.02% (v/v) Triton X-100 for 15 min on ice. Immediately, the enzymatic activities were determined as described above with the incubation at 37°C for 15 min.

Immunoprecipitation. Rabbit anti-UGT1A6 peptide antibody was conjugated with protein A-Sepharose CL-4B (GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences) using dimethylpimelimidate in PBS containing 0.2 M triethanolamine. The beads were washed with 50 mM ethanolamine in PBS for 5 min and 1 M glycine (pH 3.0) for 20 min. The beads were resuspended in lysis buffer (2 mM EDTA, 1% Triton X-100, 0.1% SDS in PBS). Cell homogenates were lysed with the lysis buffer at 4°C for 60 min. After centrifugation at 13,000g for 30 min at 4°C, the supernatants (0.2 mg) were incubated with the beads at 4°C for 12 h. The beads were washed three times with the lysis buffer. The bound proteins were eluted with 2 M guanidine hydrochloride for 2 h at room temperature. After guanidine hydrochloride was removed using a PAGEprep Advance Protein Clean-up and Enrichment kit (Pierce Biotechnology, Rockford, IL), the immunoprecipitates were subjected to immunoblot analysis.

Statistical Analyses. Statistical significances of the effects of the temperature and kinetic parameters were determined by analysis of variance followed by Dunnett's test. Statistical significance of the effects of detergent was determined by unpaired Student's t test. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Establishment of Single and Double Expression Systems of UGT1A in HEK293 Cells. To establish the stable cell lines expressing single isoforms of UGT1A1, UGT1A4, UGT1A6, or UGT1A9, we isolated five clones for each isoform. Immunoblot analysis revealed that the expression levels of UGT varied among the clones (data not shown). We selected the clones with the highest UGT1A protein levels for the subsequent analyses. As shown in Fig. 1A, the HEK293 single expression systems of each UGT1A isoform showed a single band at 50 to 55 kDa. In contrast, recombinant UGT1A4, UGT1A6, and UGT1A9 in baculovirus-infected insect cells (Supersomes) showed multiple bands, possibly owing to variability in the glycosylation (Malfatti and Felton, 2004). Based on the UGT1A1 level in HEK293 cells of 1.00 unit/mg protein, UGT1A4, UGT1A6, and UGT1A9 levels were estimated to be 0.94, 0.81, and 0.68 unit/mg protein, respectively (Fig. 1B). The minimal S.D. values of the protein levels (Table 2) revealed the reproducibility of quantification of UGT1As.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Expression levels of UGT1A1, UGT1A4, UGT1A6, and UGT1A9 in single and double expression systems

Data are means ± S.D. of three independent determinations.

Because of the different mobilities, UGT1A1 and UGT1A9, UGT1A4 and UGT1A9, or UGT1A6 and UGT1A9 in each double expression system were separately detected in immunoblot analysis (Fig. 1C). The expression levels of UGT1As in the double expression systems ranged from 0.14 to 0.90 unit/mg protein (Table 2). Although the two expression vectors were transfected with equal content, the ratios of the expression level of UGT1A1 to UGT1A9 in each clone ranged from 0.8 to 2.9, those of UGT1A4 to UGT1A9 ranged from 0.6 to 2.5, and those of UGT1A6 to UGT1A9 ranged from 0.9 to 1.0. The quantification of each UGT1A isoform was reproducible as shown in Table 2.

Thermal Instability of UGT1A1, UGT1A4, UGT1A6, and UGT1A9 in Single Expression Systems. Because the pretreatment of cell homogenate at 37°C for 15 min did not affect any enzymatic activity (data not shown), the activities after a 15-min pretreatment at 37°C were used as controls. Estradiol 3-O-glucuronide formation by the single expression system of UGT1A1 was slightly decreased by heat treatment at 42°C (91% of control) and prominently decreased by treatment at 47°C (17% of control) in the absence of substrate or UDPGA (Fig. 2A). Treatment at 52 and 57°C completely abolished the activity. UDPGA significantly restored the thermal instability at 47°C, yielding 67% of control. In contrast, estradiol had little effect on the restoration. Imipramine N-glucuronide formation by the single expression system of UGT1A4 was decreased by heat treatment at 47°C (80% of control) and at 52°C (25% of control). Treatment at 57°C completely abolished the activity. UDPGA significantly restored the thermal instability at 52°C, yielding 64% of control. The effects of imipramine on the thermal instability could not be determined, because imipramine was unstable when heated. Serotonin O-glucuronide formation by the single expression system of UGT1A6 was decreased by heat treatment at 42°C (73% of control) and at 52°C (31% of control) (Fig. 2C). UDPGA highly restored the activity at 42°C (100% of control), 47°C (94% of control), and 52°C (61% of control). However, serotonin had no effect on the thermal instability. Propofol O-glucuronide formation by the single expression system of UGT1A9 was relatively stable for the heat treatment, yielding 89% of control at 47°C, 53% of control at 52°C, and 40% of control at 57°C (Fig. 2D). UDPGA prominently restored the activity at all temperatures (>91% of control). Because propofol was unstable in heat, the effects of propofol on thermal instability could not be determined.

To verify the thermal instability profile of UGT1As and the effects of UDPGA or substrates, 4-MU O-glucuronide formation by UGT1A1 (Fig. 2E), UGT1A6 (Fig. 2G), and UGT1A9 (Fig. 2H) and trifluoperazine N-glucuronide formation by UGT1A4 (Fig. 2F) were measured. Consequently, it was demonstrated that UGT1A9 is more thermally stable compared with UGT1A1, UGT1A4, and UGT1A6 in the absence of UDPGA and that UDPGA could restore the enzymatic activities. Because trifluoperazine was also unstable in heat, we could not determine the effects of the substrate on the thermal instability of UGT1A4.

We expanded this experiment for recombinant UGTs in baculovirus-infected insect cells (Supersomes) to compare the differences in hosts or expression systems (Fig. 3). The thermal instability properties of UGT1A1, UGT1A4, UGT1A6, and UGT1A9 Supersomes were almost the same as those of UGT1As in HEK293 cells. In addition, it was clearly demonstrated that the enzymatic activities of UGT1A3, UGT1A7, UGT1A8, and UGT1A10 were also prominently decreased at 52 and 57°C.

Effects of Coexpression of UGT1A9 on Thermal Instability of UGT1A1, UGT1A4, and UGT1A6. We investigated the thermal instability of UGTs in the double expression systems. In the clone 19-3, estradiol 3-O-glucuronide formation catalyzed by UGT1A1 was restored by the coexpression of UGT1A9 (30% of control in clone 19-3 versus 1% of control in the UGT1A1 single expression system at 52°C) (Fig. 4A). However, the restoration was weak in the absence of UDPGA (21% of control). Clones 19-1 and 19-2 showed similar profiles as the single expression system of UGT1A1 (data not shown). The imipramine N-glucuronide formation catalyzed by UGT1A4 was restored by the coexpression of UGT1A9 (Fig. 4B). In clone 49-3, the activity was restored to 61% of control at 57°C, whereas the activity of the single expression system was only 1% of control. However, the restoration was not observed in the absence of UDPGA. Clones 49-1 and 49-2 also showed the restoration, but the extents were lower than that in 49-3 (data not shown). In clone 69-3, serotonin O-glucuronide formation catalyzed by UGT1A6 was restored by the coexpression of UGT1A9 (58% of control in clone 69-3 versus 3% of control in the UGT1A6 single expression system at 57°C) (Fig. 4C). However, the restoration was weak in the absence of UDPGA (8% of control). Clones 69-1 and 69-2 also showed a profile similar to that for clone 69-3 (data not shown). On the other hand, coexpression of UGT1A1, UGT1A4, and UGT1A6 did not show any effect on the thermal stability of UGT1A9 measured by propofol O-glucuronide formation (data not shown).

Effects of Coexpression of UGT1A9 on the Inhibitory Effects of Triton X-100. The effects of Triton X-100 on the enzymatic activities of UGT1A in the single expression systems were investigated (Fig. 5). The activities of UGT1A1, UGT1A4, and UGT1A6 were abolished to <3% of the control activities by 0.02% Triton X-100, whereas the activity of UGT1A9 showed 66% of the control activity. Thus, UGT1A9 was resistant to the treatment with Triton X-100. We then examined the effects of Triton X-100 on the UGT1A activities in the double expression systems. Clones 19-3, 49-3, and 69-3 showed significantly higher residual activity compared with their single expression systems, suggesting that the coexpression of UGT1A9 could increase the resistance to Triton X-100. Clones 69-1 and 69-2 also showed the higher residual activities, although clones 19-1, 19-2, 49-1, and 49-2 showed residual activities similar to those of the single expression systems of UGT1A1 and UGT1A4 (data not shown). The differences in the three clones from each cotransfection were similar to those for the effects on thermal stability, depending on the relative expression ratio. The effects of Triton X-100 on UGT1A9 activity were not changed by the coexpression of UGT1A1, UGT1A4, or UGT1A6. These results suggested that the coexpression of UGT1A9 altered the properties of UGT1A1, UGT1A4, and UGT1A6.

Coimmunoprecipitation of UGT1A6-UGT1A9. To investigate the direct association between UGT1A9 and the other UGT1A isoforms, immunoprecipitation analysis was performed (Fig. 6). It was confirmed that the anti-human UGT1A6 antibody could immunoprecipitate UGT1A6 protein. When the cell homogenate from the double expression system of UGT1A6 and UGT1A9 was used, both UGT1A6 and UGT1A9 were immunoprecipitated. However, mixing of the single expression systems of UGT1A6 and UGT1A9 could not yield the immunoprecipitant of UGT1A9 (data not shown). The results suggested that UGT1A6 directly interacted with UGT1A9 in a common membrane. Unfortunately, the association between UGT1A1/UGT1A9 and UGT1A4/UGT1A9 could not be investigated, because antibodies for immunoprecipitation are not available.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Effect of heat treatment on the enzymatic activities of recombinant UGT1A1, UGT1A4, UGT1A6, and UGT1A9 in single expression systems. The reaction mixtures were treated at 37, 42, 47, 52, or 57°C for 15 min in the absence (•) or presence of the substrate (○) or UDPGA (▵). Estradiol 3-O-glucuronide (A), imipramine N-glucuronide (B), serotonin O-glucuronide (C), propofol O-glucuronide (D), 4-MU O-glucuronide (E, G, and H), and trifluoperazine N-glucuronide (F) formations were measured at the substrate concentrations of 50 μM, 1 mM, 5 mM, 200 μM, 30 μM, and 50 μM, respectively. The residual activity was determined by comparing with the activity when preincubated at 37°C. Data are the means ± S.D. of three independent determinations. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01, compared with the activities treated in the absence of both the substrate and UDPGA at each temperature.

Kinetic Analyses of Estradiol 3-O-Glucuronide, ImipramineN-Glucuronide, SerotoninO-Glucuronide, and PropofolO-Glucuronide Formations. It was confirmed that the estradiol 3-O-glucuronide, imipramine N-glucuronide, serotonin O-glucuronide, and propofol O-glucuronide formations were specifically detected by UGT1A1, UGT1A4, UGT1A6, and UGT1A9, respectively (data not shown). In addition, the reproducibility of the kinetics of each glucuronide formation by the single expression systems was confirmed using multiple preparations. The estradiol 3-O-glucuronide formation by the single expression system of UGT1A1 in HEK293 cells followed the Hill equation (Fig. 7A), yielding S50 = 8.5 ± 0.2 μM, Vmax = 983.7 ± 21.2 pmol/min/unit, Vmax/S50 = 115.7 ± 1.2 μl/min/unit, and Hill coefficient, n = 1.8 ± 0.1 (Table 3). The kinetic parameters in the double expression systems of UGT1A1/UGT1A9 are shown in Table 3. The coexpression of UGT1A9 did not affect the S50 and Hill coefficient, but significantly decreased the Vmax, resulting in decreased Vmax/S50 values. Clone 19-3 with the highest ratio of UGT1A9 to UGT1A1 showed the lowest Vmax value (about one-sixth that of the single expression system).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Kinetic parameters for estradiol 3-O-glucuronide formation by UGT1A1 in single and double expression systems

Data are means ± S.D. of three independent determinations.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Effect of heat treatment on the enzymatic activities of recombinant UGT1A1 (A), UGT1A3 (B), UGT1A4 (C), UGT1A6 (D), UGT1A7 (E), UGT1A8 (F), UGT1A9 (G), and UGT1A10 (H) in baculovirus-infected insect cells (Supersomes). The thermal stability of each isoform was determined as described in Fig. 2. After heat treatment in the presence of UDPGA, estradiol 3-O-glucuronide (A), imipramine N-glucuronide (C), serotonin O-glucuronide (D), propofol O-glucuronide (G), and 7-HFC O-glucuronide (B, E, F, and H) formations were measured at the substrate concentrations of 50 μM, 1 mM, 5 mM, 200 μM, and 50 μM, respectively. Data are the mean of two independent determinations.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Effects of coexpression of UGT1A9 on thermal stability of UGT1A1, UGT1A4, or UGT1A6. The total cell lysate was incubated at each temperature for 15 min in the presence (+) or absence (–) of UDPGA. Estradiol 3-O-glucuronide (A), imipramine N-glucuronide (B), and serotonin O-glucuronide (C) formations were measured at the substrate concentrations of 50 μM, 1 mM, and 5 mM, respectively. Data are the means ± S.D. of three independent determinations. *, P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01, compared with the residual activities of single expression systems; †, P < 0.05; ††, P < 0.01; compared with the activities of double expression systems incubated in the presence of UDPGA.

Fig. 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 5.

Effects of coexpression of UGT1A9 on the inhibitory effects of Triton X-100. The residual activities are shown as percentages of the activity in the absence of Triton X-100. Estradiol 3-O-glucuronide, imipramine N-glucuronide, serotonin O-glucuronide, and propofol O-glucuronide formations were measured at the substrate concentrations of 50 μM, 1 mM, 5 mM, and 200 μM, respectively. Data are the means ± S.D. of independent three determinations. *, P < 0.05, compared with the residual activities of single expression systems.

Fig. 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 6.

Coimmunoprecipitation of UGT1A6 and UGT1A9. Coimmunoprecipitation was performed with cell homogenates from Mock cells, single expression systems of UGT1A6 or UGT1A9, and double expression systems of UGT1A6 and UGT1A9 (69-3) using anti-UGT1A6 antibody. The coimmunoprecipitates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis followed by immunoblot analysis by using anti-UGT1A antibody. As the controls, input proteins were also subjected to immunoblot analysis. IP, immunoprecipitation; WB, Western blot.

Imipramine N-glucuronide formation by the single expression system of UGT1A4 in HEK293 cells showed substrate inhibition at substrate concentrations >1.5 mM, but the plot did not fit to the substrate inhibition kinetics (Fig. 7B). When the kinetics were analyzed by fitting to Michaelis-Menten kinetics with substrate concentrations up to 1.5 mM, Km and Vmax were 1.1 ± 0.1 mM and 91.7 ± 9.5 pmol/min/unit, respectively (Table 4). Coexpression of UGT1A9 significantly increased the Km and Vmax values, resulting in slightly increased Vmax/Km. Clone 49-3 with the highest ratio of UGT1A9 to UGT1A4 showed 4-fold higher Km and Vmax than those of the single expression system (Table 4). In addition, the coexpression of UGT1A9 attenuated the substrate inhibition, shifting the substrate concentration and showing inhibition from 1.5 to 2.0 mM.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 4

Kinetic parameters for imipramine N-glucuronide formation by UGT1A4 in single and double expression systems

Data are means ± S.D. of three independent determinations.

Fig. 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 7.

Kinetic analyses of various glucuronide formations by recombinant UGT1As in single or double expression systems. Estradiol 3-O-glucuronide (A), imipramine N-glucuronide (B), serotonin O-glucuronide (C), and propofol O-glucuronide (D–F) formations catalyzed by UGT1A1, UGT1A4, UGT1A6, and UGT1A9, respectively were determined as described under Materials and Methods. Data are the means ± S.D. of three independent determinations.

Serotonin O-glucuronide formation by the single expression system of UGT1A6 fitted to the Michaelis-Menten kinetics (Fig. 7C) with Km = 4.8 ± 0.2 mM and Vmax = 1.9 ± 0.1 nmol/min/unit (Table 5). Coexpression of UGT1A9 significantly increased the Km and decreased the Vmax values, resulting in decreased Vmax/Km. The Vmax/Km value of clone 69-3 with the highest ratio of UGT1A9 to UGT1A6 was 76% of that of the single expression system (Table 5).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 5

Kinetic parameters for serotonin O-glucuronide formation by UGT1A6 in single and double expression systems

Data are means ± S.D. of three independent determinations.

Propofol O-glucuronide formation by the single expression system of UGT1A9 fitted to the substrate inhibition kinetics (Figs. 7, D–F) with Km = 59.8 ± 3.1 μM, Vmax = 8.8 ± 0.4 nmol/min/unit, and Ki = 1.5 ± 0.1 mM (Table 6). Coexpression of UGT1A1 significantly increased the Km value, decreased the Vmax value, and slightly increased the Ki value. Clone 19-1, with the highest ratio of UGT1A1 to UGT1A9, showed a 3-fold higher Km value and 9-fold lower Vmax value than those of the single expression system, resulting in 25-fold lower Vmax/Km. Coexpression of UGT1A4 significantly decreased the Km value and increased the Vmax value, resulting in increased Vmax/Km. Clone 49-1, with the highest ratio of UGT1A4 to UGT1A9, showed a 5-fold higher Vmax/Km than that of the single expression system. Coexpression of UGT1A6 significantly increased the Km and Vmax values, resulting in increased Vmax/Km. It was confirmed that mixing of each single expression system did not influence the kinetics of the enzymatic activities (data not shown). Thus, it is suggested that the coexpressed UGT isoforms functionally interacted with each other in the double expression systems.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 6

Kinetic parameters for propofol O-glucuronide formation by UGT1A9 in single and double expression systems

Data are means ± S.D. of three independent determinations.

Discussion

UGTs play a key role in detoxification by conjugating glucuronic acid to various lipophilic compounds. It has been reported that UGTs form oligomers, but the effects of the oligomerizations on enzymatic activities have not been completely investigated. There is only one report suggesting that UGT hetero-oligomerization results in a change of the substrate specificity (Ishii et al., 2001). The authors reported that the formation ratio of morphine 3-glucuronide/morphine 6-glucuronide by guinea pig UGT2B21 was affected by the simultaneous expression of UGT2B22 in COS-7 cells. Unfortunately, a limitation of the study was that the activity was evaluated by a transient expression system. The expression levels and the expression ratios of two UGT isoforms differ in each transient transfection. Therefore, in the present study, we established stable cell lines expressing double UGT isoforms with various expression ratios to examine the effects of simultaneous expression of UGT1A isoforms on the enzymatic activities.

One approach to understanding protein-protein interactions is to investigate the thermal stability of the proteins. It has been reported that protein shows increased thermal stability when it interacts with another protein (Ruvinov and Miles, 1994). Thus, we investigated the thermal stability of the double UGT1A expression system to analyze the protein-protein interactions and found three interesting results. First, we found that UDPGA could increase the thermal stability of UGTs. This phenomenon is reminiscent of MurG (UDP-N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase from Escherichia coli) and GtfA (TDP-epi-vancosaminyltransferase from Amycolatopsis orientalis), which are in the glycosyltransferase-B superfamily as are UGTs. These enzymes have the C-terminal domains responsible for donor substrate binding and N-terminal domains responsible for aglycon binding like UGT (Hu et al., 2003; Mulichak et al., 2003). Interestingly, X-ray crystal analyses of MurG and GtfA revealed that the binding of a donor substrate causes a conformational change from the open to closed type of N- and C-terminal domains (Hu et al., 2003; Mulichak et al., 2003). Conceivably, the binding of UDPGA may trigger the conformational change to a more stable form by making a closing between the N- and C-terminal domains. Second, UGT1A9 uniquely showed thermal stability. It is interesting that UGT1A7, UGT1A8, and UGT1A10, which have 93 to 95% amino acid homology with UGT1A9, were unstable (Fig. 3). It would be worth analyzing which amino acid(s) is involved in the thermal stability in a future study. Third, UGT1A1, UGT1A4, and UGT1A6 acquired thermal stability by the coexpression of UGT1A9, suggesting that there were protein-protein interactions with UGT1A9. However, the acquisition of thermal stability was weak in the absence of UDPGA. Thus, UDPGA may play roles in the conformational stabilization of UGTs not only for monomers or homodimers but also for heterodimers.

Because UGT in microsomes is latent, various types of detergents increase the enzymatic activities by improving the permeability of substrates or UDPGA. However, high concentrations of detergents over the optimal condition conversely decrease the activity due to progressive disruption of the membrane organization of the UGT (Luukkanen et al., 1997). Kurkela et al. (2003) have reported that UGT1A9 was uniquely tolerable to the inhibitory effects of detergent. In the present study, we found that UGT1A1, UGT1A4, and UGT1A6 acquired tolerance to detergent by the coexpression of UGT1A9. The phenomenon may result from protein-protein interactions. Although the mechanism determining the tolerance to detergent remains to be clarified, particular properties of UGT1A9 per se or interaction with membrane components such as phospholipids might be relevant to the stability against heat and detergent. Finally, the immunoprecipitation assay proved an association between UGT1A6 and UGT1A9. These results strongly demonstrated the existence of protein-protein interactions between UGT1A1/UGT1A9, UGT1A4/UGT1A9, and UGT1A6/UGT1A9 in the double expression systems.

To examine the effects of the interactions on the enzymatic activities of the UGTs, single and double expression systems were used for kinetic analyses. We found that coexpression of UGT1A9 significantly affected the kinetics of the activities by UGT1A1, UGT1A4, and UGT1A6 and vice versa. The decrease in the Vmax value of estradiol 3-O-glucuronide formation by UGT1A1 was 19-1 < 19-2 < 19-3. The increase in Km and Vmax values in imipramine N-glucuronide formation was 49-1 < 49-2 < 49-3. Thus, the effects of UGT1A9 depended on the expression ratio of UGT1A9 toward UGT1A1 or UGT1A4 (Table 2). However, the effects of UGT1A9 on serotonin O-glucuronide formation by UGT1A6 were approximately equal within three clones, because the expression ratios UGT1A6/UGT1A9 were almost the same (Table 5). The expression ratio-dependent effects were also observed in propofol O-glucuronide formation by UGT1A9 (Table 6). These results suggested that the effects of coexpression of other UGT1A isoform on the kinetics were dependent on the expression ratios of each UGT1A isoform.

Extending the results obtained in the present study, comparison of Km or S50 between recombinant systems and human liver microsomes would be useful to understand the enzymatic characteristics, but the Vmax values cannot be compared, because the lack of specific antibodies prevents determination of the expression levels of each UGT1A isoform in human liver microsomes. The present study demonstrated that the Km value of propofol O-glucuronide formation by UGT1A9 was significantly increased from 59.8 to 173.1 μMbythe coexpression of UGT1A1 or UGT1A6 (Table 6). The Km values for recombinant UGT1A9 expressed in insect cell and human liver microsomes were reported to be 37 μM (Soars et al., 2003) and 190 to 213 μM (Shimizu et al., 2003; Soars et al., 2003), respectively. The higher Km values in human liver microsomes might result from protein-protein interactions between UGT1A9 and UGT1A1 or UGT1A6. Imipramine N-glucuronide formation showed substrate inhibition at concentrations >1.5 mM in the single expression system of UGT1A4 but at >2.0 mM by the coexpression of UGT1A9 (Fig. 7B). Interestingly, the kinetics in human liver microsomes also showed substrate inhibition at >2.0 to 2.5 mM (Nakajima et al., 2002; Qian and Zeng, 2006). Thus, the change of the substrate concentration showing inhibition might also result from protein-protein interactions between UGT1A4 and UGT1A9. Although the Km values for estradiol 3-O-glucuronide and serotonin O-glucuronide formations were not changed by the coexpression of UGT1A9, these values were close to that in human liver microsomes (Fisher et al., 2000; Krishnaswamy et al., 2003; Lepine et al., 2004). The Vmax values were decreased or increased by the coexpression of other isoforms. Therefore, to predict the glucuronide formations in human liver microsomes, it might be necessary to understand these UGT-UGT interactions.

In conclusion, we found that UGT1A1, UGT1A4, and UGT1A6 interact with UGT1A9, acquiring the enzymatic characteristics of the other isoform, resulting in a change of the kinetics of the enzymatic activities. Extending the lines of research presented here to the interaction between UGT1A and UGT2B may also increase our understanding of UGT activities in human liver microsomes.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Brent Bell for reviewing the manuscript.

Footnotes

  • Article, publication date, and citation information can be found at http://dmd.aspetjournals.org.

  • doi:10.1124/dmd.106.014191.

  • ABBREVIATIONS: UGT, UDP-glucuronosyltransferase; UDPGA, UDP-glucuronic acid; HPLC, high performance liquid chromatography; 4-MU, 4-methylumbelliferone; 7-HFC, 7-hydroxy-4-trifluoromethylcoumarin; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; HPLC, high-performance liquid chromatography.

    • Received December 2, 2006.
    • Accepted February 7, 2007.
  • The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

References

  1. ↵
    Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72: 248–254.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Bosma PJ, Chowdhury NR, Goldhoorn BG, Hofker MH, Oude Elferink RP, Jansen PL, and Chowdhury JR (1992) Sequence of exons and the flanking regions of human bilirubin-UDP-glucuronosyltransferase gene complex and identification of a genetic mutation in a patient with Crigler-Najjar syndrome, type I. Hepatology 15: 941–947.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    Dutton GJ (1980) Acceptor substrates of UDP glucuronosyltransferase and their assay, in Glucuronidation of Drugs and Other Compounds (Dutton GJ ed) pp 69–78, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  4. ↵
    Fisher MB, Campanale K, Ackermann BL, VandenBranden M, and Wrighton SA (2000) In vitro glucuronidation using human liver microsomes and the pore-forming peptide alamethicin. Drug Metab Dispos 28: 560–566.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Ghosal A, Hapangama N, Yuan Y, Achanfuo-Yeboah J, Iannucci R, Chowdhury S, Alton K, Patrick JE, and Zbaida S (2004) Identification of human UDP-glucuronosyltransferase enzyme(s) responsible for the glucuronidation of posaconazole (Noxafil). Drug Metab Dispos 32: 267–271.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Gschaidmeier H and Bock KW (1994) Radiation inactivation analysis of microsomal UDP-glucuronosyltransferases catalysing mono- and diglucuronide formation of 3,6-dihydroxybenzo(a)pyrene and 3,6-dihydroxychrysene. Biochem Pharmacol 48: 1545–1549.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Hawes EM (1998) N+-glucuronidation, a common pathway in human metabolism of drugs with a tertiary amine group. Drug Metab Dispos 26: 830–837.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Hu Y, Chen L, Ha S, Gross B, Falcone B, Walker D, Mokhtarzadeh M, and Walker S (2003) Crystal structure of the MurG:UDP-GlcNAc complex reveals common structural principles of a superfamily of glycosyltransferases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 845–849.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    Ikushiro S, Emi Y, Kato Y, Yamada S, and Sakaki T (2006) Monospecific antipeptide antibodies against human hepatic UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A subfamily (UGT1A) isoforms. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 21: 70–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Ikushiro S, Emi Y, and Iyanagi T (1997) Protein-protein interactions between UDP-glucuronosyltransferase isozymes in rat hepatic microsomes. Biochemistry 36: 7154–7161.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    Ishii Y, Miyoshi A, Watanabe R, Tsuruda K, Tsuda M, Yamaguchi-Nagamatsu Y, Yoshisue K, Tanaka M, Maji D, Ohgiya S, et al. (2001) Simultaneous expression of guinea pig UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 2B21 and 2B22 in COS-7 cells enhances UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 2B21-catalyzed morphine-6-glucuronide formation. Mol Pharmacol 60: 1040–1048.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    Krishnaswamy S, Duan SX, Von Moltke LL, Greenblatt DJ, and Court MH (2003) Validation of serotonin (5-hydroxtryptamine) as an in vitro substrate probe for human UDP-glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) 1A6. Drug Metab Dispos 31: 133–139.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    Kurkela M, Garcia-Horsman JA, Luukkanen L, Morsky S, Taskinen J, Baumann M, Kostiainen R, Hirvonen J, and Finel M (2003) Expression and characterization of recombinant human UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs): UGT1A9 is more resistant to detergent inhibition than the other UGTs and was purified as an active dimeric enzyme. J Biol Chem 278: 3536–3544.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    Kurkela M, Hirvonen J, Kostiainen R, and Finel M (2004) The interactions between the N-terminal and C-terminal domains of the human UDP-glucuronosyltransferases are partly isoform-specific and may involve both monomers. Biochem Pharmacol 68: 2443–2450.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Lepine J, Bernard O, Plante M, Tetu B, Pelletier G, Labrie F, Belanger A, and Guillemette C (2004) Specificity and regioselectivity of the conjugation of estradiol, estrone, and their catecholestrogen and methoxyestrogen metabolites by human uridine diphosphoglucuronosyltransferases expressed in endometrium. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89: 5222–5232.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    Luukkanen L, Elovaara E, Lautala P, Taskinen J, and Vainio H (1997) Characterization of 1-hydroxypyrene as a novel marker substrate of 3-methylcholanthrene-inducible phenol UDP-glucuronosyltransferase(s). Pharmacol Toxicol 80: 152–158.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    Mackenzie PI (1990) Expression of chimeric cDNAs in cell culture defines a region of UDP glucuronosyltransferase involved in substrate selection. J Biol Chem 265: 3432–3435.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    Mackenzie PI, Walter Bock K, Burchell B, Guillemette C, Ikushiro S, Iyanagi T, Miners JO, Owens IS, and Nebert DW (2005) Nomenclature update for the mammalian UDP glycosyltransferase (UGT) gene superfamily. Pharmacogenet Genomics 15: 677–685.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Malfatti MA, and Felton JS (2004) Human UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 is the primary enzyme responsible for the N-glucuronidation of N-hydroxy-PhIP in vitro. Chem Res Toxicol 17: 1137–1144.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    Matern H, Matern S, and Gerok W (1982) Isolation and characterization of rat liver microsomal UDP-glucuronosyltransferase activity toward chenodeoxycholic acid and testosterone as a single form of enzyme. J Biol Chem 257: 7422–7429.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    Mulichak AM, Losey HC, Lu W, Wawrzak Z, Walsh CT, and Garavito RM (2003) Structure of the TDP-epi-vancosaminyltransferase GtfA from the chloroeremomycin biosynthetic pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 9238–9243.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    Nakajima M, Tanaka E, Kobayashi T, Ohashi N, Kume T, and Yokoi T (2002) Imipramine N-glucuronidation in human liver microsomes: biphasic kinetics and characterization of UDP-glucuronosyltransferase isoforms. Drug Metab Dispos 30: 636–642.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    Peters WH, Jansen PL, and Nauta H (1984) The molecular weights of UDP-glucuronyltransferase determined with radiation-inactivation analysis. a molecular model of bilirubin UDP-glucuronyltransferase. J Biol Chem 259: 11701–11705.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    Qian MR and Zeng S (2006) Biosynthesis of imipramine glucuronide and characterization of imipramine glucuronidation catalyzed by recombinant UGT1A4. Acta Pharmacol Sin 27: 623–628.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Ren Q, Murphy SE, Zheng Z, and Lazarus P (2000) O-Glucuronidation of the lung carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) by human UDP-glucuronosyltransferases 2B7 and 1A9. Drug Metab Dispos 28: 1352–1360.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    Ritter JK, Chen F, Sheen YY, Tran HM, Kimura S, Yeatman MT, and Owens IS (1992) A novel complex locus UGT1 encodes human bilirubin, phenol, and other UDP-glucuronosyltransferase isozymes with identical carboxyl termini. J Biol Chem 267: 3257–3261.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    Ruvinov SB and Miles EW (1994) Thermal inactivation of tryptophan synthase. Stabilization by protein-protein interaction and protein-ligand interaction. J Biol Chem 269: 11703–11706.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    Shimizu M, Matsumoto Y, Tatsuno M, and Fukuoka M (2003) Glucuronidation of propofol and its analogs by human and rat liver microsomes. Biol Pharm Bull 26: 216–219.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    Soars MG, Ring BJ, and Wrighton SA (2003) The effect of incubation conditions on the enzyme kinetics of UDP-glucuronosyltransferases. Drug Metab Dispos 31: 762–767.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    Strassburg CP, Nguyen N, Manns MP, and Tukey RH (1999) UDP-glucuronosyltransferase activity in human liver and colon. Gastroenterology 116: 149–160.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Tukey RH and Strassburg CP (2000) Human UDP-glucuronosyltransferases: metabolism, expression and disease. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 40: 581–616.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    Uchaipichat V, Mackenzie PI, Guo XH, Gardner-Stephen D, Galetin A, Houston JB, and Miners JO (2004) Human UDP-glucuronosyltransferases, isoform selectivity and kinetics of 4-methylumbelliferone and 1-naphthol glucuronidation, effects of organic solvents, and inhibition by diclofenac and probenecid. Drug Metab Dispos 32: 413–423.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    Uchaipichat V, Mackenzie PI, Elliot DJ, and Miners JO (2006) Selectivity of substrate (trifluoperazine) and inhibitor (amitriptyline, androsterone, canrenoic acid, hecogenin, phenylbutazone, quinidine, quinine, and sulfinpyrazone) “probes” for human UDP-glucuronosyltransferases. Drug Metab Dispos 34: 449–456.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Drug Metabolism and Disposition: 35 (5)
Drug Metabolism and Disposition
Vol. 35, Issue 5
1 May 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Drug Metabolism & Disposition article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effects of Coexpression of UGT1A9 on Enzymatic Activities of Human UGT1A Isoforms
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Drug Metabolism & Disposition
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Drug Metabolism & Disposition.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Research ArticleArticle

Effects of Coexpression of UGT1A9 on Enzymatic Activities of Human UGT1A Isoforms

Ryoichi Fujiwara, Miki Nakajima, Hiroyuki Yamanaka, Akiko Nakamura, Miki Katoh, Shin-ichi Ikushiro, Toshiyuki Sakaki and Tsuyoshi Yokoi
Drug Metabolism and Disposition May 1, 2007, 35 (5) 747-757; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.106.014191

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Research ArticleArticle

Effects of Coexpression of UGT1A9 on Enzymatic Activities of Human UGT1A Isoforms

Ryoichi Fujiwara, Miki Nakajima, Hiroyuki Yamanaka, Akiko Nakamura, Miki Katoh, Shin-ichi Ikushiro, Toshiyuki Sakaki and Tsuyoshi Yokoi
Drug Metabolism and Disposition May 1, 2007, 35 (5) 747-757; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.106.014191
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • P450 cell lines for xenobiotic metabolite generation
  • New Dog, Cat, and Pig P450 2J Enzymes
  • Human ADME properties of abrocitinib
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Advertisement
  • Home
  • Alerts
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   RSS

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Fast Forward by date
  • Fast Forward by section
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive
  • Search for Articles
  • Feedback
  • ASPET

More Information

  • About DMD
  • Editorial Board
  • Instructions to Authors
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Customized Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions
  • Permissions
  • Terms & Conditions of Use

ASPET's Other Journals

  • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
  • Molecular Pharmacology
  • Pharmacological Reviews
  • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
ISSN 1521-009X (Online)

Copyright © 2022 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics