Cargando…
Comparison of trapping profiles between d-peptides and glutathione in the identification of reactive metabolites
Qualitative trapping profile of reactive metabolites arising from six structurally different compounds was tested with three different d-peptide isomers (Peptide 1, gly–tyr–pro–cys–pro–his-pro; Peptide 2, gly–tyr–pro–ala–pro–his–pro; Peptide 3, gly–tyr–arg–pro–cys–pro–his–lys–pro) and glutathione (G...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5598498/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28962444 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2015.07.002 |
_version_ | 1783263917391216640 |
---|---|
author | Laine, Jaana E. Häkkinen, Merja R. Auriola, Seppo Juvonen, Risto O. Pasanen, Markku |
author_facet | Laine, Jaana E. Häkkinen, Merja R. Auriola, Seppo Juvonen, Risto O. Pasanen, Markku |
author_sort | Laine, Jaana E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Qualitative trapping profile of reactive metabolites arising from six structurally different compounds was tested with three different d-peptide isomers (Peptide 1, gly–tyr–pro–cys–pro–his-pro; Peptide 2, gly–tyr–pro–ala–pro–his–pro; Peptide 3, gly–tyr–arg–pro–cys–pro–his–lys–pro) and glutathione (GSH) using mouse and human liver microsomes as the biocatalyst. The test compounds were classified either as clinically “safe” (amlodipine, caffeine, ibuprofen), or clinically as “risky” (clozapine, nimesulide, ticlopidine; i.e., associated with severe clinical toxicity outcomes). Our working hypothesis was as follows: could the use of short different amino acid sequence containing d-peptides in adduct detection confer any add-on value to that obtained with GSH? All “risky” agents’ resulted in the formation of several GSH adducts in the incubation mixture and with at least one peptide adduct with both microsomal preparations. Amlodipine did not form any adducts with any of the trapping agents. No GSH and peptide 2 and 3 adducts were found with caffeine, but with peptide 1 one adduct with human liver microsomes was detected. Ibuprofen produced one Peptide 1-adduct with human and mouse liver microsomes but not with GSH. In conclusion, GSH still remains the gold trapping standard for reactive metabolites. However, targeted d-peptides could provide additional information about protein binding potential of electrophilic agents, but their clinical significance needs to be clarified using a wider spectrum of chemicals together with other safety estimates. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5598498 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55984982017-09-28 Comparison of trapping profiles between d-peptides and glutathione in the identification of reactive metabolites Laine, Jaana E. Häkkinen, Merja R. Auriola, Seppo Juvonen, Risto O. Pasanen, Markku Toxicol Rep Article Qualitative trapping profile of reactive metabolites arising from six structurally different compounds was tested with three different d-peptide isomers (Peptide 1, gly–tyr–pro–cys–pro–his-pro; Peptide 2, gly–tyr–pro–ala–pro–his–pro; Peptide 3, gly–tyr–arg–pro–cys–pro–his–lys–pro) and glutathione (GSH) using mouse and human liver microsomes as the biocatalyst. The test compounds were classified either as clinically “safe” (amlodipine, caffeine, ibuprofen), or clinically as “risky” (clozapine, nimesulide, ticlopidine; i.e., associated with severe clinical toxicity outcomes). Our working hypothesis was as follows: could the use of short different amino acid sequence containing d-peptides in adduct detection confer any add-on value to that obtained with GSH? All “risky” agents’ resulted in the formation of several GSH adducts in the incubation mixture and with at least one peptide adduct with both microsomal preparations. Amlodipine did not form any adducts with any of the trapping agents. No GSH and peptide 2 and 3 adducts were found with caffeine, but with peptide 1 one adduct with human liver microsomes was detected. Ibuprofen produced one Peptide 1-adduct with human and mouse liver microsomes but not with GSH. In conclusion, GSH still remains the gold trapping standard for reactive metabolites. However, targeted d-peptides could provide additional information about protein binding potential of electrophilic agents, but their clinical significance needs to be clarified using a wider spectrum of chemicals together with other safety estimates. Elsevier 2015-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5598498/ /pubmed/28962444 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2015.07.002 Text en © 2015 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Laine, Jaana E. Häkkinen, Merja R. Auriola, Seppo Juvonen, Risto O. Pasanen, Markku Comparison of trapping profiles between d-peptides and glutathione in the identification of reactive metabolites |
title | Comparison of trapping profiles between d-peptides and glutathione in the identification of reactive metabolites |
title_full | Comparison of trapping profiles between d-peptides and glutathione in the identification of reactive metabolites |
title_fullStr | Comparison of trapping profiles between d-peptides and glutathione in the identification of reactive metabolites |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of trapping profiles between d-peptides and glutathione in the identification of reactive metabolites |
title_short | Comparison of trapping profiles between d-peptides and glutathione in the identification of reactive metabolites |
title_sort | comparison of trapping profiles between d-peptides and glutathione in the identification of reactive metabolites |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5598498/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28962444 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2015.07.002 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lainejaanae comparisonoftrappingprofilesbetweendpeptidesandglutathioneintheidentificationofreactivemetabolites AT hakkinenmerjar comparisonoftrappingprofilesbetweendpeptidesandglutathioneintheidentificationofreactivemetabolites AT auriolaseppo comparisonoftrappingprofilesbetweendpeptidesandglutathioneintheidentificationofreactivemetabolites AT juvonenristoo comparisonoftrappingprofilesbetweendpeptidesandglutathioneintheidentificationofreactivemetabolites AT pasanenmarkku comparisonoftrappingprofilesbetweendpeptidesandglutathioneintheidentificationofreactivemetabolites |