AIMS: To evaluate the effects of three ABCG2 variants (Q141K, V12M and Q126X), which are known to have altered transport properties in vitro, on the disposition of lamivudine in healthy subjects. METHODS: To evaluate whether lamivudine is a substrate of ABCG2, intracellular accumulation and vectorial transport of 3H-lamivudine were determined in MDCK-ABCG2 cells. The pharmacokinetic parameters of lamivudine were compared among subjects with four different ABCG2 genotypes, including wild type (seven subjects), K141/K141 (six subjects), Q126/Stop126 (four subjects) and M12/M12 (five subjects) after a single oral dose of 100 mg lamivudine. RESULTS: The intracellular accumulation of lamivudine in MDCK-ABCG2 cells was significantly lower than that in MDCK-mock cells, but fumitremorgin C reversed the intracellular lamivudine concentration to that of MDCK-mock cells. The ABCG2-mediated transport of lamivudine was saturable and the values of Km and Vmax were 216.5 +/- 58 microm and 20.42 +/- 2.9 nmol h(-1) per 10(6) cells, respectively. After lamivudine administration to healthy subjects, the AUC of lamivudine showed no difference among subjects with different ABCG2 genotypes; 2480 +/- 502, 2207 +/- 1019, 2422 +/- 239, 2552 +/- 698 ng h(-1) ml(-1) for wild type, K141/K141, Q126/Stop126 and M12/M12 genotype, respectively (P = 0.85). The estimated 95% confidence intervals for the mean difference between K141/K141, Q126/Stop126, M12/M12 and wild as reference were (-1053, 507), (-555, 439) and (-552, 696), respectively. No other pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated to be significantly different among four different ABCG2 genotypes tested. CONCLUSIONS: Lamivudine appeared to be a substrate of ABCG2 in vitro, but the disposition of lamivudine was not significantly influenced by known in vitro functional variants of ABCG2, Q141K, V12M and Q126X in healthy subjects.
AIMS: To evaluate the effects of three ABCG2 variants (Q141K, V12M and Q126X), which are known to have altered transport properties in vitro, on the disposition of lamivudine in healthy subjects. METHODS: To evaluate whether lamivudine is a substrate of ABCG2, intracellular accumulation and vectorial transport of 3H-lamivudine were determined in MDCK-ABCG2 cells. The pharmacokinetic parameters of lamivudine were compared among subjects with four different ABCG2 genotypes, including wild type (seven subjects), K141/K141 (six subjects), Q126/Stop126 (four subjects) and M12/M12 (five subjects) after a single oral dose of 100 mg lamivudine. RESULTS: The intracellular accumulation of lamivudine in MDCK-ABCG2 cells was significantly lower than that in MDCK-mock cells, but fumitremorgin C reversed the intracellular lamivudine concentration to that of MDCK-mock cells. The ABCG2-mediated transport of lamivudine was saturable and the values of Km and Vmax were 216.5 +/- 58 microm and 20.42 +/- 2.9 nmol h(-1) per 10(6) cells, respectively. After lamivudine administration to healthy subjects, the AUC of lamivudine showed no difference among subjects with different ABCG2 genotypes; 2480 +/- 502, 2207 +/- 1019, 2422 +/- 239, 2552 +/- 698 ng h(-1) ml(-1) for wild type, K141/K141, Q126/Stop126 and M12/M12 genotype, respectively (P = 0.85). The estimated 95% confidence intervals for the mean difference between K141/K141, Q126/Stop126, M12/M12 and wild as reference were (-1053, 507), (-555, 439) and (-552, 696), respectively. No other pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated to be significantly different among four different ABCG2 genotypes tested. CONCLUSIONS:Lamivudine appeared to be a substrate of ABCG2 in vitro, but the disposition of lamivudine was not significantly influenced by known in vitro functional variants of ABCG2, Q141K, V12M and Q126X in healthy subjects.
Authors: K Nakatomi; M Yoshikawa; M Oka; Y Ikegami; S Hayasaka; K Sano; K Shiozawa; S Kawabata; H Soda; T Ishikawa; S Tanabe; S Kohno Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 2001-11-09 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: O Turriziani; J D Schuetz; F Focher; C Scagnolari; J Sampath; M Adachi; F Bambacioni; E Riva; G Antonelli Journal: Biochem J Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 3.857
Authors: Qing Li; Zhi Ye; Peng Zhu; Dong Guo; Hong Yang; Jin Huang; Wei Zhang; James E Polli; Yan Shu Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Martina Ceckova; Josef Reznicek; Zuzana Ptackova; Lukas Cerveny; Fabian Müller; Marian Kacerovsky; Martin F Fromm; Jocelyn D Glazier; Frantisek Staud Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Kimberly K Adkison; Soniya S Vaidya; Daniel Y Lee; Seok Hwee Koo; Linghui Li; Amar A Mehta; Annette S Gross; Joseph W Polli; Yu Lou; Edmund J D Lee Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2008-04-22 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Leyre Pernaute-Lau; Ayola Akim Adegnika; Yitian Zhou; Jeannot F Zinsou; Jose Pedro Gil; Sanjeev Krishna; Peter G Kremsner; Volker M Lauschke; Thirumalaisamy P Velavan Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Peng Zhu; Qian Zhu; Yilei Zhang; Xuejun Ma; Zizhao Li; Jie Li; Jiazhong Chen; Le Luo; Huijun Z Ring; Brian Z Ring; Li Su Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 3.240