Transporter-mediated Efflux Influences CNS Side Effects: ABCB1, from Antitarget to Target.

Laboratory for Chemometrics, Department of Chemistry, University of Perugia, Via Elce di Soto 10, 06100 Perugia, Italy.
Molecular informatics 01/2010; 29(1-2):16-26. DOI: 10.1002/minf.200900075
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

We examined the relationship between sedation and orthostatic hypotension, two central side effects and ABCB1 transporter-mediated efflux for a set of 64 launched drugs that are documented as histamine H1 receptor antagonists. This relationship was placed in the context of passive diffusion (estimated using LogP, the octanol/water partition coefficient), receptor affinity, and the adjusted therapeutic daily dose, in order to account for side effect variability. Within this set, CNS permeability was not dependent on passive diffusion, as no significant differences were found for LogP and its pH-corrected equivalent, LogD(74). Sedation and orthostatic hypotension can be explained within the framework of ABCB1-mediated efflux and adjusted dose, while target potency has less influence. ABCB1, an antitarget for anti-cancer agents, acts in fact as a drug target for non-sedating antihistamines. An empirical set of rules, based on the incidence of these two side-effects, target affinity and dose was used to predict efflux effects for a number of drugs. Among them, azelastine and mizolastine are predicted to be effluxed via ABCB1-mediated transport, whereas aripiprazole, clozapine, cyproheptadine, iloperidone, olanzapine, and ziprasidone are likely to be non-effluxed.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Fabio Broccatelli, Jul 09, 2014
  • Source
    • "In the absence of an ideal in vitro model of the BBB, surrogate screening tools have become very popular in industry which allows addressing two of the most critical BBB features, the ability of a compound to permeate across a very tight monolayer of cells and the ability to be recognised by efflux pumps, for instance P-glycoprotein (P-gp). P-gp is very highly active at the BBB and efficiently functions to keep many drugs out of the brain (Löscher and Potschka 2005; Broccatelli et al. 2010). MDCK-MDR1 cells have become the most widely used in vitro model screen compounds for their (i) permeability, and (ii) susceptibility to efflux by P-gp. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This chapter summarizes the key processes that control the drug concentrations at the site of the central nervous system (CNS) target, in particular the pharmacokinetics of CNS penetration and distribution. It looks at the pharmacokinetics in the CNS versus plasma and the factors which control the dynamics of the concentration–time profile, that is, NeuroPK. The chapter focuses on those pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters and equations which are most critical for the understanding and optimization of CNS penetration and distribution of compounds in a drug discovery setting. The characterization of primary NeuroPK parameters, as described in the chapter, allows the understanding and prediction of the processes which govern the CNS penetration and distribution. The NeuroPK concept more stringent examination of the mechanism(s) of action of novel targets and the type of target exposure needed to modulate the target, in order to have the desired impact on the course of the disease.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2015
  • Source
    • "After some other hypotheses, affinity for P-glycoprotein-mediated drug efflux at the level of the BBB has been identified as main reason why 2 nd generation antihistamines show little CNS side effects (Chishty et al. 2001; Obradovic et al. 2007). While this protecting mechanism was discovered only later on in the case of the antihistamines, it is now becoming a rational element in optimising the separation between the peripheral and the central activity of compounds in drug discovery projects aiming at a very low/no central activity to avoid CNS side effects (Broccatelli et al. 2010; Cole et al. 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Assessing CNS penetration in drug discovery and development is important for both CNS projects and non-CNS projects that aim to improve desired or to avoid unwanted central effects of their drug candidates. After a brief reasoning on the flawed old concept of maximising total brain levels, the chapter describes the key principles of the new paradigm of examining CNS penetration and distribution by integrating those parameters and processes that are crucial in controlling unbound brain concentrations as surrogate for the pharmacologically active drug concentration in brain. As a consequence, Kp,uu,brain is about to replace the total brain/plasma ratio Kp,brain as measure of the extent of brain penetration. The chapter outlines strategies, methods and approaches both for the optimisation of CNS penetration as well as for avoiding it, including exemplary lead optimisation screening trees of CNS and non-CNS projects. A comprehensive framework is given linking the pharmacokinetics of a compound in the body’s periphery to its central (unbound) exposure and subsequent PKPD relation in animal models of efficacy, including considerations for the translation of the PKPD relationships from rodents to larger animals and human. The chapter furthermore summarises current knowledge of drug–transporter interactions at the level of the BBB, and outlines the potential of the new concept for refueling the fading interest in CNS drug discovery and development as a result of too many clinical trial failures and an insufficient understanding of the reasons.
    Full-text · Chapter · Jan 2014
  • Source
    • "Another anti-target is the drug efflux pump, ATP-binding cassette, sub-family B (MDR/TAP) member 1, ABCB1 [Swiss-Prot P08183] ranked at 313. However, a recent analysis suggests that, while an anti-target for anticancer agents, it can also be classified as a drug target for non-sedating antihistamines [26]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the classic Hopkins and Groom druggable genome review in 2002, there have been a number of publications updating both the hypothetical and successful human drug target statistics. However, listings of research targets that define the area between these two extremes are sparse because of the challenges of collating published information at the necessary scale. We have addressed this by interrogating databases, populated by expert curation, of bioactivity data extracted from patents and journal papers over the last 30 years. From a subset of just over 27,000 documents we have extracted a set of compound-to-target relationships for biochemical in vitro binding-type assay data for 1,736 human proteins and 1,654 gene identifiers. These are linked to 1,671,951 compound records derived from 823,179 unique chemical structures. The distribution showed a compounds-per-target average of 964 with a maximum of 42,869 (Factor Xa). The list includes non-targets, failed targets and cross-screening targets. The top-278 most actively pursued targets cover 90% of the compounds. We further investigated target ranking by determining the number of molecular frameworks and scaffolds. These were compared to the compound counts as alternative measures of chemical diversity on a per-target basis. The compounds-per-protein listing generated in this work (provided as a supplementary file) represents the major proportion of the human drug target landscape defined by published data. We supplemented the simple ranking by the number of compounds assayed with additional rankings by molecular topology. These showed significant differences and provide complementary assessments of chemical tractability.
    Full-text · Article · May 2011 · Journal of Cheminformatics
Show more