Article

ABC multidrug transporters: target for modulation of drug pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions.

Pharmacologie Cellulaire et moléculaire, Louvain Drug Research Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, B- 1200 Brussels, Belgium.
Current drug targets (Impact Factor: 3.93). 11/2010; 12(5):600-20.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Nine proteins of the ABC superfamily (P-glycoprotein, 7 MRPs and BCRP) are involved in multidrug transport. Being localised at the surface of endothelial or epithelial cells, they expel drugs back to the external medium (if located at the apical side [P-glycoprotein, BCRP, MRP2, MRP4 in the kidney]) or to the blood (if located at the basolateral side [MRP1, MRP3, MRP4, MRP5]), modulating thereby their absorption, distribution, and elimination. In the CNS, most transporters are oriented to expel drugs to the blood. Transporters also cooperate with Phase I/Phase II metabolism enzymes by eliminating drug metabolites. Their major features are (i) their capacity to recognize drugs belonging to unrelated pharmacological classes, and (ii) their redundancy, a single molecule being possibly substrate for different transporters. This ensures an efficient protection of the body against invasion by xenobiotics. Competition for transport is now characterized as a mechanism of interaction between co-administered drugs, one molecule limiting the transport of the other, potentially affecting bioavailability, distribution, and/or elimination. Again, this mechanism reinforces drug interactions mediated by cytochrome P450 inhibition, as many substrates of P-glycoprotein and CYP3A4 are common. Induction of the expression of genes coding for MDR transporters is another mechanism of drug interaction, which could affect all drug substrates of the up-regulated transporter. Overexpression of MDR transporters confers resistance to anticancer agents and other therapies. All together, these data justify why studying drug active transport should be part of the evaluation of new drugs, as recently recommended by the FDA.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
147 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article summarizes the impact of the pharmacogenetics of drug transporters expressed in the enterohepatic circulation on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs. The role of pharmacogenetics in the function of drug transporter proteins in vitro is now well established and evidence is rapidly accumulating from in vivo pharmacokinetic studies, which suggests that genetic variants of drug transporter proteins can translate into clinically relevant phenotypes. However, a large amount of conflicting information on the clinical relevance of drug transporter proteins has so far precluded the emergence of a clear picture regarding the role of drug transporter pharmacogenetics in medical practice. This is very well exemplified by the case of P-glycoprotein (MDR1, ABCB1). The challenge is now to develop pharmacogenetic models with sufficient predictive power to allow for translation into drug therapy. This will require a combination of pharmacogenetics of drug transporters, drug metabolism and pharmacodynamics of the respective drugs.
    Pharmacogenomics 05/2011; 12(5):611-31. · 3.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent years, the issue of herbal medicine-drug interactions has generated significant concern. Such interactions can increase the risk for an individual patient, especially with regard to drugs with a narrow therapeutic index (e.g. warfarin, ciclosporin and digoxin). The present article summarizes herbal medicine-drug interactions involving mainly inhibition or induction of cytochrome P450 enzymes and/or drug transporters. An increasing number of in vitro and animal studies, case reports and clinical trials evaluating such interactions have been reported, and the majority of the interactions may be difficult to predict. Potential pharmacodynamic and/or pharmacokinetic interactions of commonly used herbal medicines (black cohosh, garlic, Ginkgo, goldenseal, kava, milk thistle, Panax ginseng, Panax quinquefolius, saw palmetto and St John's wort) with conventional drugs are presented, and sometimes the results are contradictory. Clinical implications of herbal medicine-drug interactions depend on a variety of factors, such as the co-administered drugs, the patient characteristics, the origin of the herbal medicines, the composition of their constituents and the applied dosage regimens. To optimize the use of herbal medicines, further controlled studies are urgently needed to explore their potential for interactions with conventional drugs and to delineate the underlying mechanisms.
    Clinical Pharmacokinetics 02/2012; 51(2):77-104. · 5.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ATP-binding cassette transporters affect drug pharmacokinetics, and are associated with inherited human diseases and impaired chemotherapeutic treatment of cancers and microbial infections. Current alternating access models for ATP-binding cassette exporter activity suggest that ATP binding at the two cytosolic nucleotide-binding domains provides a power stroke for the conformational switch of the two membrane domains from the inward-facing conformation to the outward-facing conformation. In outward-facing crystal structures of the bacterial homodimeric ATP-binding cassette transporters MsbA from gram-negative bacteria and Sav1866 from Staphylococcus aureus, two transmembrane helices (3 & 4) in the membrane domains have their cytoplasmic extensions in close proximity, forming a tetrahelix bundle interface. In biochemical experiments on MsbA from Escherichia coli, we show for the first time that a robust network of inter-monomer interactions in the tetrahelix bundle is crucial for the transmission of nucleotide-dependent conformational changes to the extracellular side of the membrane domains. Our observations are the first to suggest that modulation of tetrahelix bundle interactions in ATP-binding cassette exporters might offer a potent strategy to alter their transport activity.
    Journal of Biological Chemistry 01/2013; · 4.65 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
9 Downloads
Available from