Display options
Cite
Xu X, Selick P, Pang KS. Nonlinear protein binding and enzyme heterogeneity: effects on hepatic drug removal. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1993;21(1):43-74doi: 10.1007/BF01061775.
Xu, X., Selick, P., & Pang, K. S. (1993). Nonlinear protein binding and enzyme heterogeneity: effects on hepatic drug removal. Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics, 21(1), 43-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01061775
Xu, X, et al. "Nonlinear protein binding and enzyme heterogeneity: effects on hepatic drug removal." Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics vol. 21,1 (1993): 43-74. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01061775
Xu X, Selick P, Pang KS. Nonlinear protein binding and enzyme heterogeneity: effects on hepatic drug removal. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1993 Feb;21(1):43-74. doi: 10.1007/BF01061775. PMID: 8410683.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1993 Feb;21(1):43-74. doi: 10.1007/BF01061775.

Nonlinear protein binding and enzyme heterogeneity: effects on hepatic drug removal.

Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics

X Xu, P Selick, K S Pang

PMID: 8410683 DOI: 10.1007/BF01061775

Abstract

The kinetics of substrate removal by the liver and the resulting nonlinear changes in unbound fraction along the flow path at varying input drug concentrations were examined by a model simulation study. Specifically, we varied the binding association constant, KA, and the Michaelis-Menten constants (Km and Vmax) to examine the steady state drug removal (expressed as hepatic extraction ratio E) and changes in drug binding for (i) unienzyme systems and (ii) simple, parallel metabolic pathways; zonal metabolic heterogeneity was also added as a variable. At low KA, E declined with increasing input drug concentration, due primarily to saturation of enzymes; only small differences in binding were present across the liver. At high KA, a parabolic profile for E with concentration was observed; changes in unbound fraction between the inlet and the outlet of the liver followed in parallel fashion. Protein binding was the rate-determining step at low input drug concentrations, whereas enzyme saturation was the rate-controlling factor at high input drug concentration. Heterogeneous enzymic distribution modulated changes in unbound fraction within the liver and at the outlet. Despite marked changes in unbound fraction occurring within the liver for different enzymic distributions, the overall transhepatic differences were relatively small. We then investigated the logarithmic average unbound concentration and the length averaged concentration as estimates of substrate concentration in liver in the presence of nonlinear drug binding. Fitting of simulated data, with and without assigned random error (10%), to the Michaelis-Menten equation was performed; fitting was repeated for simulated data obtained with presence of a specific inhibitor of the high-affinity, anteriorly distributed pathway. Results were similar for both concentration terms: accurate estimates were obtained for anterior, high affinity pathways; an overestimation of parameters was observed for the lower affinity posteriorly distributed pathways. Improved estimations were found for posteriorly distributed pathways upon inhibition with specific inhibitors; with added random error, however, the improvement was much decreased. We applied the method for fitting of several sets of metabolic data obtained from rat liver perfusion studies performed with salicylamide (SAM) (i) without and (ii) with the presence of 2,6-dichloro-4-nitrophenol (DCNP), a SAM sulfation inhibitor. The fitted results showed that SAM sulfation was a high-affinity high-capacity pathway; SAM glucuronidation was of lower affinity but comparable capacity as the sulfation pathway, whereas SAM hydroxylation was of lower affinity and lower capacity.

References

  1. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1982 Oct;55(4):762-7 - PubMed
  2. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1987 Jun;39(6):416-20 - PubMed
  3. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1988 May;245(2):614-24 - PubMed
  4. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 1989 Sep-Oct;10(5):465-79 - PubMed
  5. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1978 Apr;6(2):165-75 - PubMed
  6. Comput Programs Biomed. 1979 Mar;9(2):115-34 - PubMed
  7. J Pharm Sci. 1975 Aug;64(8):1433 - PubMed
  8. J Pharm Sci. 1986 Jul;75(7):660-3 - PubMed
  9. Res Commun Chem Pathol Pharmacol. 1972 Mar;3(2):285-91 - PubMed
  10. J Pharm Sci. 1971 Nov;60(11):1623-8 - PubMed
  11. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1993 Aug;266(2):492-9 - PubMed
  12. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1988 Oct;16(5):529-42 - PubMed
  13. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1981 Feb;9(1):15-26 - PubMed
  14. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1976 Oct;199(1):67-73 - PubMed
  15. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1980 Mar;27(3):297-300 - PubMed
  16. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1983 Jun;11(3):225-43 - PubMed
  17. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1975 Oct;18(4):377-90 - PubMed
  18. Nature. 1965 Jul 17;207(994):274-6 - PubMed
  19. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1987 Oct;15(5):473-96 - PubMed
  20. J Clin Pharmacol. 1986 Nov-Dec;26(8):583-6 - PubMed
  21. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1984 Jan;9 Suppl 1:10-7 - PubMed
  22. J Theor Biol. 1976 Sep 21;61(2):393-409 - PubMed
  23. Anal Biochem. 1976 Jan;70(1):231-40 - PubMed
  24. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1984 Feb;12(1):67-81 - PubMed
  25. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1990 Jun;253(3):965-73 - PubMed
  26. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1979 Apr;7(2):195-206 - PubMed
  27. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1978 May;5(5):441-6 - PubMed
  28. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1988 Dec;16(6):633-56 - PubMed
  29. Drug Metab Rev. 1976;5(1):43-140 - PubMed
  30. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1989 Dec;17(6):645-71 - PubMed

Substances

MeSH terms

Publication Types