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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Laine, Jaana E., Häkkinen, Merja R., Auriola, Seppo, Juvonen, Risto O., Pasanen, Markku
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