Analytical method for simultaneously measuring ex vivo drug receptor occupancy and dissociation rate: Application to (R)-dimethindene occupancy of central histamine H-1 receptors

Division of Emerging New Technologies, Neurocrine Biosciences, San Diego, California, USA.
Journal of Receptor and Signal Transduction Research (Impact Factor: 1.61). 02/2009; 29(2):84-93. DOI: 10.1080/10799890902721339
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We introduce a novel experimental method to determine both the extent of ex vivo receptor occupancy of administered compound and its dissociation rate constant (k4). [Here, we reference k4 as the rate of offset of unlabeled ligand in convention with Motulsky and Mahan (1)]. We derived a kinetic rate equation based on the dissociation rate constant for an unlabeled compound competing for the same site as a labeled compound and describe a model to simulate fractional occupancy. To validate our model, we performed in vitro kinetics and ex vivo occupancy experiments in rat cortex with varying concentrations of (R)-dimethindene, a sedating antihistamine. Brain tissue was removed at various times post oral administration, and histamine H1 receptor ligand [3H]-doxepin binding to homogenates from drug-treated or vehicle-treated rats was measured at multiple time points at room temperature. Fractional occupancy and k4 for (R)-dimethindene binding to H1 receptors were calculated by using our proposed model. Rats dosed with 30 and 60 mg/kg (R)-dimethindene showed 42% and 67% occupancy of central H1 receptors, respectively. These results were comparable to occupancy data determined by equilibrium radioligand binding. In addition, drug k4 rate determined by using our ex vivo method was equivalent to k4 determined by in vitro competition kinetics (dissociation half-life t(1/2) approximately 30 min). The outlined method can be used to assess, by simulation and experiment, occupancy for compounds based on dissociation rate constants and contributes to current efforts in drug optimization to profile antagonist efficacy in terms of its kinetic drug-target binding parameters. Data described by the method may be analyzed with commercially available software. Suggested fitting procedures are given in the appendix.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Drug–receptor interactions were earlier quantified in terms of affinity and efficacy only but residence time has now also been recognized to affect clinical performance. Different approaches to measure drug binding kinetics are briefly presented and critically evaluated with the help of simulations. Based on the antagonist's ability to reduce agonist-evoked responses, two main methods are used in functional assays. Radiolabelled drug binding to cell membranes constitutes an alternative approach and provides the most direct information. Yet, due to distinct binding properties and the occurrence of rebinding phenomena, intact cell binding studies are likely to be more relevant from a physiological perspective. Indirect information can also be obtained for unlabelled drugs based on their ability to compete with radioligands. Here, attention should be paid to reversible partitioning phenomena. A special matter of concern is that some experimental observations that are commonly interpreted in terms of allosteric interactions can equally well point to long residence time and/or rebinding.
    Medicinal Chemistry Communication 05/2012; 3(6):645-651. DOI:10.1039/C2MD20015E · 2.63 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A vast number of marketed drugs act on G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), the most successful category of drug targets to date. These drugs usually possess high target affinity and selectivity, and such combined features have been the driving force in the early phases of drug discovery. However, attrition has also been high. Many investigational new drugs eventually fail in clinical trials due to a demonstrated lack of efficacy. A retrospective assessment of successfully launched drugs revealed that their beneficial effects in patients may be attributed to their long drug-target residence times (RTs). Likewise, for some other GPCR drugs short RT could be beneficial to reduce the potential for on-target side effects. Hence, the compounds' kinetics behavior might in fact be the guiding principle to obtain a desired and durable effect in vivo. We therefore propose that drug-target RT should be taken into account as an additional parameter in the lead selection and optimization process. This should ultimately lead to an increased number of candidate drugs moving to the preclinical development phase and on to the market. This review contains examples of the kinetics behavior of GPCR ligands with improved in vivo efficacy and summarizes methods for assessing drug-target RT.
    Medicinal Research Reviews 07/2014; 34(4). DOI:10.1002/med.21307 · 8.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Insulin regulated aminopeptidase (IRAP) recognises "AT(4)-receptor" ligands like angiotensin IV (Ang IV) and peptidomimetics like AL-11. The metabolic stability and high affinity of [(3)H]AL-11 for catalytically active IRAP allowed its detection in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO-K1) cell membranes in the absence of chelators (Demaegdt et al., 2009). Here, we show that, contrary to [(3)H]Ang IV, [(3)H]AL-11 displays high affinity and specificity for IRAP in intact CHO-K1 cells as well. After binding to IRAP at the surface, [(3)H]AL-11 is effectively internalized by an endocytotic process. Unexpectedly, surface binding and internalization of [(3)H]AL-11 was not affected by pretreating the cells with Ang IV but declined with AL-11. In the latter case surface expression of IRAP even increased. After elimination of simpler explanations, it is proposed that metabolically stable "AT(4)-receptor" ligands undergo semi-continuous cycling between the cell surface and endosomal compartments. The in vivo efficacy of stable and unstable "AT(4)-receptor" ligands could therefore differ.
    Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 03/2011; 339(1-2):34-44. DOI:10.1016/j.mce.2011.03.005 · 4.24 Impact Factor