Article

Doping test results dependent on genotype of uridine diphospho-glucuronosyl transferase 2B17, the major enzyme for testosterone glucuronidation

Clinical Pharmacology C1:68, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &amp Metabolism (Impact Factor: 6.31). 08/2008; 93(7):2500-6. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2008-0218
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Testosterone abuse is conventionally assessed by the urinary testosterone/epitestosterone (T/E) ratio, levels above 4.0 being considered suspicious. The large variation in testosterone glucuronide (TG) excretion and its strong association with a deletion polymorphism in the uridine diphospho-glucuronosyl transferase (UGT) 2B17 gene challenge the accuracy of the T/E ratio test.
Our objective was to investigate whether genotype-based cutoff values will improve the sensitivity and specificity of the test.
This was an open three-armed comparative study.
A total of 55 healthy male volunteers with either two, one, or no allele [insertion/insertion, insertion/deletion, or deletion/deletion (del/del)] of the UGT2B17 gene was included in the study. Intervention: A single im dose of 500 mg testosterone enanthate was administered.
Urinary excretion of TG after dose and the T/E ratio during 15 d were calculated.
The degree and rate of increase in the TG excretion rate were highly dependent on the UGT2B17 genotype with a 20-fold higher average maximum increase in the insertion/insertion group compared with the del/del group. Of the del/del subjects, 40% never reached the T/E ratio of 4.0 on any of the 15 d after the dose. When differentiated cutoff levels for the del/del (1.0) and the other genotypes (6.0) were applied, the sensitivity increased substantially for the del/del group, and false positives in the other genotypes were eliminated.
Consideration of the genetic variation in disposition of androgens will improve the sensitivity and specificity of the testosterone doping test. This is of interest not only for combating androgen doping in sports, but also for detecting and preventing androgen abuse in society.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Jenny J Schulze, Jul 03, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
120 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The legally defensible proof of the abuse of endogenous steroids in sports is currently based on carbon isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS), i.e. a comparison between (13) C/(12) C ratios of diagnostic precursors and metabolites of testosterone. The application of this technique requires a chromatographic baseline separation of respective steroids prior to IRMS detection and hence laborious sample pre-processing of the urinary steroid extracts including clean up by solid-phase extraction and/or liquid chromatography. Consequently, an efficient pre-selection of suspicious control urine samples is essential for appropriate follow up confirmation by IRMS and effective doping control. Two single transdermal administration studies of testosterone (50 mg Testogel® and Testopatch® at 3.8 mg in 16 h, respectively) were conducted and resulting profiles of salivary testosterone and urinary steroid profiles and corresponding carbon isotope ratios were determined. Conventional doping control markers (testosterone/epitestosterone ratio, threshold concentrations of androsterone, etiocholanolone, or androstanediols) did not approach or exceed critical thresholds. In contrast to these moderate variations, the testosterone concentration in oral fluid increased from basal values (30-142 pg/mg) to peak concentrations above 1000 pg/mg. It is likely that this significant increase in oral fluid is due to a pulsatile elevation of free (protein unbound) circulating testosterone after transdermal administration and may be assumed to represent a more diagnostic marker for transdermal testosterone administration. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Drug Testing and Analysis 11/2013; 5(11-12). DOI:10.1002/dta.1536 · 2.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The analysis of urinary metabolites of testosterone-related steroids through the measurement of their carbon isotopic signature (δ(13) C) by gas chromatography/combustion/mass spectrometry (GC/C/IRMS) is a confirmation method employed in doping control analyses. Stringent analytical conditions are essential to an accurate and precise analysis as well as the proper selection of the metabolites, which forms the basis of the refined method presented in this paper. In a simplified approach, following enzymatic hydrolysis and extraction from a relatively low volume of urine sample, a one-step high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) purification was developed for seven diagnostic urinary metabolites (TS) including testosterone itself, dehydroepiandrosterone, 5α- and 5β-androstanediol, epitestosterone, androsterone, etiocholanolone and two endogenous reference compounds (ERC), 5β-pregnanediol and 5α-androst-16-en-3β-ol. These steroids were pooled in three fractions and analyzed as such. With regards to the GC/C/IRMS analysis, a multi-level isotopic calibration using the 'identical treatment' principle was created. The proposed isotopic calibration yielded results for purified reference steroids with a precision ≤0.15 and accuracy of ≤0.30 ‰ (between-assay, n = 26). Compared to other common endogenous reference compounds, those selected in this study had δ(13) C values close to the target metabolites which, along with the proposed isotopic calibration, produced narrow reference intervals within ± 3‰ for most diagnostic TS-ERC pairs, in compliance with the requirements of the World Anti-Doping Agency. These carefully controlled analytical conditions are compatible with routine operations, affording accurate and precise results for the more diagnostically relevant metabolites such as testosterone itself and the 5α- and 5β-androstanediols. The values of the TS-ERC pairs measured in reference populations are described and the results from the routine testing of several hundreds of athletes' samples are discussed. Robust, this technique permitted the detection of adverse findings that would have been missed had these low level metabolites not been analyzed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 08/2013; 27(15):1739-1750. DOI:10.1002/rcm.6620 · 2.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Doping with anabolic agents is regulated within a number of sports. Testosterone and its functional analogs are popular compounds for increasing muscle mass, physical performance, recovery, and reducing body fat. While routine tests for anabolic drugs exist (e.g. hair, urine, and blood analysis), the aim of the present study is to determine specific gene expression profiles (induced by testosterone and exercise) which may be used as effective biomarkers to determine the use of anabolic drugs. In this study, whole blood samples of 19 male volunteers were analyzed by semi-quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for gene expression profiles in the context of exercise and transdermal testosterone application (1.5 mg/kg body weight). The hormone application was monitored by urine and saliva analysis for testosterone. Both urinary and saliva levels indicate that transdermal testosterone application leads to an increase of testosterone, especially after exercise. RT-PCR results showed a clear variation in the expression of target genes as well as established housekeeping genes. Only one of the nine common housekeeping genes, cyclophilin b (PPIB), appears to be independent of both exercise and testosterone. Out of 14 candidate genes, five are unregulated; all others were more or less influenced by the mentioned variables. Only interleukin-6 appeared to be exclusively dependent on long-term testosterone application. This study indicates that many genes are not influenced by testosterone alone while exercise modulates gene expression in whole blood samples. As such, exercise must be considered when validating gene expression techniques for doping analysis.
    Drug Testing and Analysis 10/2011; 3(10):652-60. DOI:10.1002/dta.360 · 2.82 Impact Factor