Interrogating the relationship between rat in vivo tissue distribution and drug property data for >200 structurally unrelated molecules

Pharmacology Research and Perspectives

Volumn 3, Issue 5, 2015, Pages

  Harrell, Andrew W ^a   Sychterz, Caroline ^b   Ho, May Y ^b   Weber, Andrew ^b   Valko, Klara ^a   Negash, Kitaw ^b  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^b GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ionization; lipophilicity; QWBA; tissue distribution; transporters

Indexed keywords

CARBON 14; PHOSPHOLIPID; TRITIUM;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TISSUE; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL MEMBRANE; COMPUTER MODEL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG ACTIVITY; DRUG DISTRIBUTION; HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; HYDROPHOBICITY; IN VIVO STUDY; IONIZATION; LIPOPHILICITY; LIQUID SCINTILLATION COUNTING; METABOLISM; NONHUMAN; PARTITION COEFFICIENT; PH; PKA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BINDING; RADIOACTIVITY; RAT; TISSUE BY ORGAN; TISSUE DISTRIBUTION; WHOLE BODY AUTORADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 85017906201     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20521707     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prp2.173     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Castellino S, Groseclose MR, Wagner D (2011). MALDI imaging mass spectrometry: bridging biology and chemistry in drug development. Bioanalysis 3: 2427–2441.
2. Gleeson MP (2008). Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. J Med Chem 51: 817–834.
3. Liu X, Wright M, Hop CECA (2014). Rational use of plasma and tissue binding data in drug design. J Med Chem 57: 8238–8248.
4. Murakami T, Yumoto R (2011). Role of phosphatidylserine binding in tissue distribution of amine-containing basic compounds. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 7: 353–364.
5. Richter WF, Volkmar S, Whitby B (2006). The distribution pattern of radioactivity across different tissues in quantitative whole-body autoradiography studies. Eur J Pharm Sci 28: 155–165.
6. Rodgers T, Rowland M (2006). Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling 2: predicting the tissue distribution of acids, very weak bases, neutrals and zwitterions. J Pharm Sci 95: 1238–1257.
7. Rodgers T, Leahy D, Rowland M (2005). Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling 1: predicting the tissue distribution of moderate to strong bases. J Pharm Sci 94: 1259–1276.
8. Smith DA, Di L, Kerns E (2010). The effect of plasma protein binding on in vivo efficacy: misconceptions in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9: 929–939.
9. Solon E (2012). Use of radioactive compounds and autoradiography to determine drug tissue distribution. Chem Res Toxicol 25: 543–555.
10. Trainor G (2007). The importance of plasma protein binding in drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2: 51–64.
11. Valko K (2014). Models for distribution (Chapter 10). Pp. 242–302 in K Valko, ed. Physicochemical and biomimetic properties in drug discovery. J Wiley & Sons Publishers, Hoboken, NJ.
12. Valko K, Du CM, Bevan CD, Reynolds DP, Abraham MH (2000). Rapid-gradient HPLC method for measuring drug interactions with immobilized artificial membrane: comparison with other lipophilicity measures. J Pharm Sci 89: 1085–1096.
13. Wang L, Hong H, Zhang D (2012). Application of quantitative whole body autoradiography (QWBA) in drug discovery and development in ADME. Pp. 419–434 in D. Zhang and S. Surapanemi, eds. Enabling technologies in drug design and development. J Wiley & Sons Publishers, Hoboken, NJ.
14. Xia B, Heimbach T, Lin TH, He H, Wang Y, Tan E (2012). Novel physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling of patupilone for human pharmacokinetic predictions. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 69: 1567–1582.
15. Yata N, Toyoda T, Murakami T, Nishiura A, Higashi Y (1990). Phosphatidylserine as a determinant for the tissue distribution of weakly basic drugs in rats. Pharm Res 7: 1019–1025.
16. Young RJ, Green DV, Luscombe CN, Hill AP (2011). Getting physical in drug discovery II: the impact of chromatographic hydrophobicity measurements and aromaticity. Drug Discovery Today 16: 822–830.