PURPOSE: To develop a facile functional assay for quantitative determination of the apparent affinities of compounds that interact with the taxol binding site of P-glcoprotein (P-gp) in Caco-2 cell monolayers. METHODS: A transport inhibition approach was taken to determine the inhibitory effects of compounds on the active transport of [3H]-taxol, a known substrate of P-gp. The apparent affinities (K(I) values) of the compounds were quantitatively determined based on the inhibitory effects of the compounds on the active transport of [3H]-taxol. Intact Caco-2 cell monolayers were utilized for transport inhibition studies. Samples were analyzed by liquid scintillation counting. RESULTS: [3H]-Taxol (0.04 microM) showed polarized transport with the basolateral (BL) to apical (AP) flux rate being about 10-20 times faster than the flux rate in the AP-to-BL direction. This difference in [3H]-taxol flux could be totally abolished by inclusion of (+/-)-verapamil (0.2 mM), a known inhibitor of P-gp, in the incubation medium. However, inclusion of probenecid (1.0 mM), a known inhibitor for the multidrug resistance associated protein (MRP), did not significantly affect the transport of [3H]-taxol under the same conditions. These results suggest that P-gp, not MRP, was involved in taxol transport. Quinidine, daunorubicin, verapamil, taxol, doxorubicin, vinblastine, etoposide, and celiprolol were examined as inhibitors of the BL-to-AP transport of [3H]-taxol with resulting K(I) values of 1.5+/-0.8, 2.5+/-1.0, 3.0+/-0.3, 7.3+/-0.7, 8.5+/-2.8, 36.5+/-1.5, 276+/-69, and 313+/-112 microM, respectively. With the exception of that of quinidine, these K(I) values were comparable with literature values. CONCLUSIONS: This assay allows a facile quantitation of the apparent affinities of compounds to the taxol-binding site in P-gp, however, this assay does not permit the differentiation of substrates and inhibitors. The potential of drug-drug interactions involving the taxol binding site of P-gp can be conveniently estimated using the protocol described in this paper.
PURPOSE: To develop a facile functional assay for quantitative determination of the apparent affinities of compounds that interact with the taxol binding site of P-glcoprotein (P-gp) in Caco-2 cell monolayers. METHODS: A transport inhibition approach was taken to determine the inhibitory effects of compounds on the active transport of [3H]-taxol, a known substrate of P-gp. The apparent affinities (K(I) values) of the compounds were quantitatively determined based on the inhibitory effects of the compounds on the active transport of [3H]-taxol. Intact Caco-2 cell monolayers were utilized for transport inhibition studies. Samples were analyzed by liquid scintillation counting. RESULTS:[3H]-Taxol (0.04 microM) showed polarized transport with the basolateral (BL) to apical (AP) flux rate being about 10-20 times faster than the flux rate in the AP-to-BL direction. This difference in [3H]-taxol flux could be totally abolished by inclusion of (+/-)-verapamil (0.2 mM), a known inhibitor of P-gp, in the incubation medium. However, inclusion of probenecid (1.0 mM), a known inhibitor for the multidrug resistance associated protein (MRP), did not significantly affect the transport of [3H]-taxol under the same conditions. These results suggest that P-gp, not MRP, was involved in taxol transport. Quinidine, daunorubicin, verapamil, taxol, doxorubicin, vinblastine, etoposide, and celiprolol were examined as inhibitors of the BL-to-AP transport of [3H]-taxol with resulting K(I) values of 1.5+/-0.8, 2.5+/-1.0, 3.0+/-0.3, 7.3+/-0.7, 8.5+/-2.8, 36.5+/-1.5, 276+/-69, and 313+/-112 microM, respectively. With the exception of that of quinidine, these K(I) values were comparable with literature values. CONCLUSIONS: This assay allows a facile quantitation of the apparent affinities of compounds to the taxol-binding site in P-gp, however, this assay does not permit the differentiation of substrates and inhibitors. The potential of drug-drug interactions involving the taxol binding site of P-gp can be conveniently estimated using the protocol described in this paper.
Authors: S Döppenschmitt; P Langguth; C G Regårdh; T B Andersson; C Hilgendorf; H Spahn-Langguth Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: B Sarkadi; M Müller; L Homolya; Z Holló; J Seprödi; U A Germann; M M Gottesman; E M Price; R C Boucher Journal: FASEB J Date: 1994-07 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: J W Jonker; E Wagenaar; L van Deemter; R Gottschlich; H M Bender; J Dasenbrock; A H Schinkel Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: H M Faessel; A H Burstein; M D Troutman; S A Willavize; K D Rohrbacher; D J Clark Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2008-07-26 Impact factor: 2.953