| Literature DB >> 26635233 |
Haifeng Zhang1, Na Gao1, Xin Tian1, Tingting Liu1, Yan Fang1, Jun Zhou1, Qiang Wen1, Binbin Xu1, Bing Qi1, Jie Gao1, Hongmeng Li1, Linjing Jia1, Hailing Qiao1.
Abstract
The lack of information concerning individual variation in content and activity of human liver microsomal protein is one of the most important obstacles for designing personalized medicines. We demonstrated that the mean value of microsomal protein per gram of liver (MPPGL) was 39.46 mg/g in 128 human livers and up to 19-fold individual variations existed. Meanwhile, the metabolic activities of 10 cytochrome P450 (CYPs) were detected in microsomes and liver tissues, respectively, which showed huge individual variations (200-fold). Compared with microsomes, the activities of liver tissues were much suitable to express the individual variations of CYP activities. Furthermore, individual variations in the in vivo clearance of tolbutamide were successfully predicted with the individual parameter values. In conclusion, we offer the values for MPPGL contents in normal liver tissues and build a new method to assess the in vitro CYP activities. In addition, large individual variations exist in predicted hepatic clearance of tolbutamide. These findings provide important physiological parameters for physiologically-based pharmacokinetics models and thus, establish a solid foundation for future development of personalized medicines.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26635233 PMCID: PMC4669488 DOI: 10.1038/srep17671
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Frequency distribution of microsomal protein per gram of liver in 128 human livers.
Donor characteristics of human liver samples and MPPGL content in donor subgroups (n = 128).
| Variables | Group | Number | Percentage(%) | MPPGLcontent (mg/g)(Mean ± SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 40 | 31.3 | 41.50 ± 21.21 |
| Female | 88 | 68.8 | 38.53 ± 21.79 | |
| Age (years) | 20–45 | 51 | 39.8 | 37.71 ± 21.31 |
| 46–60 | 63 | 49.2 | 40.59 ± 22.06 | |
| 61–75 | 14 | 10.9 | 40.69 ± 21.45 | |
| Smoking | Non-smoking | 115 | 89.8 | 39.10 ± 21.86 |
| Smoking | 13 | 10.2 | 42.58 ± 19.30 | |
| Drinking | Non-drinking | 115 | 89.8 | 39.13 ± 21.93 |
| Drinking | 13 | 10.2 | 42.36 ± 18.64 | |
| Medical diagnosis | Hepatic cavernous hemangioma | 93 | 72.7 | 38.25 ± 21.93 |
| Metastatic carcinoma | 10 | 7.8 | 40.79 ± 19.07 | |
| Cholelithiasis | 9 | 7.0 | 41.03 ± 28.73 | |
| Gallbladder cancer | 5 | 3.9 | 50.91 ± 21.95 | |
| Hepatic cholangiocarcinoma | 7 | 5.5 | 45.42 ± 15.45 | |
| Hepatocellular carcinoma | 4 | 3.1 | 35.99 ± 12.68 |
Metabolic activities of the individual CYP enzymes in human livers (n = 78).
| Probe drug (Metabolite) | VM (pmol/min/mg protein) | VL (nmol/min/g liver) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CYP1A2 | phenacetin (paracetamol) | Median | 677.94 | 22.12 |
| Range | 97.37–2368.14 | 3.16–119.91 | ||
| 95% PI | 169.20–1344.69 | 4.77–71.38 | ||
| CYP2A6 | coumarin (7-OH-coumarin) | Median | 267.92 | 8.19 |
| Range | 7.20–788.56 | 0.22–47.08 | ||
| 95% PI | 12.19–689.73 | 0.35–42.83 | ||
| CYP2B6 | bupropion (4-OH-bupropion). | Median | 46.67 | 1.68 |
| Range | 11.75–290.89 | 0.28–17.63 | ||
| 95% PI | 12.16–151.14 | 0.31–11.31 | ||
| CYP2C8 | paclitaxel (6-OH- Paclitaxel) | Median | 31.50 | 0.96 |
| Range | 2.74–87.23 | 0.12–7.71 | ||
| 95% PI | 4.34–74.27 | 0.17–4.81 | ||
| CYP2C9 | tolbutamide.(4-OH-tolbutamide) | Median | 222.70 | 7.29 |
| Range | 70.00–461.07 | 1.51–37.61 | ||
| 95% PI | 76.17–391.49 | 1.96–34.92 | ||
| CYP2C19 | omeprazole (4-OH-omeprazole) | Median | 97.62 | 3.64 |
| Range | 1.40–325.03 | 0.14–19.58 | ||
| 95% PI | 9.98–274.83 | 0.51–17.62 | ||
| CYP2D6 | dextromethorphan (3-methoxymorphinan) | Median | 68.16 | 2.11 |
| Range | 4.93–222.34 | 0.19–14.49 | ||
| 95% PI | 9.06–190.03 | 0.30–14.15 | ||
| CYP2E1 | chlorzoxazone (6-OH-chlorzoxazone) | Median | 486.92 | 16.03 |
| Range | 140.81–1604.44 | 3.28–74.52 | ||
| 95% PI | 198.24–1061.97 | 4.60–69.28 | ||
| CYP3A4/5 | midazolam (1-OH-midazolam) | Median | 836.56 | 29.05 |
| Range | 57.24–4144.93 | 2.93–251.26 | ||
| 95% PI | 178.15–2967.83 | 3.55–217.79 |
VM: metabolic rate of the individual CYP enzyme based on per mg microsomal protein; VL: metabolic rate of the individual CYP enzyme based on per gram liver tissue; PI: percentile interval.
Figure 2Fold-change of CYP metabolic activity based on microsomes (VM) or liver tissues (VL).
The individual fold-change is expressed as the ratio between the maximal and minimal values of CYP metabolic rate (a) or between the 97.5th and the 2.5th percentiles of the observed CYP metabolic rate (b).
Figure 3Percentage of rank change of individual VL compared with corresponding VM in 10 CYPs of 78 liver samples.
78 samples were ranked in ascending order according to the value of VM or VL for each CYP isoform, respectively. The rank change for each CYP isoform of each individual was the absolute difference value between the rank of VM and the rank of corresponding VL. The percentage of rank change was calculated by the total samples of 78 divided by rank change absolute value of each individual and every change of 10% as a group (such as 0%-10%, 10%-20%). The percentage of the samples in each group to total samples was also calculated. Rank change of less than 10% was considered as tiny change, between 10% and 20% as moderate change, between 20% and 50% as obvious change and exceeding 50% as dramatic change.
Figure 4Influences of demographic factors on CYP activities.
Effects of sex on the metabolic activity of CYP1A2 (a), effects of age on the metabolic activity of CYP2C8 (b) and CYP2C9 (c) in liver microsomes. Data are shown as box plots representing medians with minimal and maximal values.
Values for hepatic clearance of tolbutamide 4-hydroxylation and their variations.
| n | Range | Fold change (Max/Min) | Mean ± SD | 95% PI | Fold change (95% PI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted CLH (ml/min/kg) | ||||||
| Method A | 78 | 0.011–0.559 | 50.8 | 0.113 ± 0.095 | 0.012–0.365 | 30.4 |
| Method B | 78 | 0.027–0.341 | 12.6 | 0.113 ± 0.065 | 0.038–0.311 | 8.2 |
| Method C | 78 | 0.018–0.353 | 19.6 | 0.113 ± 0.064 | 0.026–0.268 | 10.3 |
| Method D | 78 | 0.093–0.142 | 1.5 | 0.113 ± 0.011 | 0.095–0.139 | 1.5 |
| Method E | 78 | 0.1128–0.1130 | 1.0 | 0.113 ± 0.000 | 0.1128–0.1130 | 1.0 |
| Method F | 78 | 0.079–0.161 | 2.0 | 0.116 ± 0.019 | 0.082–0.155 | 1.9 |
| Method G | 78 | — | — | 0.113 | — | — |
| Observed CLH (ml/min/kg) | ||||||
| Back | 7 | 0.260 ± 0.100 | ||||
| Back | 6 | 0.226 ± 0.024 | ||||
| Back | 6 | 0.239 ± 0.050 | ||||
| Miners | 6 | 0.171 | ||||
| Wilner | 6 | 0.147 ± 0.013 | ||||
| Wing | 7 | 0.159 | ||||
Method A used the individual values for each parameter (MPPGL, CLint, in vitro, LW, QH and BW) for 78 livers. Method B used the individual MPPGL value and the mean values for the remaining four parameters. Similar to method B, method C, D, E and F used the individual CLint, , LW, QH or BW value, respectively, and the mean values for the remaining four parameters. Method G used the mean value of the five parameters for that particular liver.
aNo SD is available. PI: percentile interval.
Comparing the accuracy of predictions using different methods.
| Method | AFE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Range | 95% PI | % within of 2-fold error | |
| A | 0.58 ± 0.48 | 0.057–2.86 | 0.062–1.86 | 42 |
| B | 0.58 ± 0.33 | 0.14–1.74 | 0.20–1.59 | 46 |
| C | 0.58 ± 0.33 | 0.09–1.80 | 0.13–1.37 | 54 |
| D | 0.58 ± 0.06 | 0.47–0.72 | 0.48–0.71 | 92 |
| E | 0.58 ± 0.00 | 0.577–0.578 | 0.5767–0.5776 | 100 |
| F | 0.59 ± 0.10 | 0.40–0.82 | 0.42–0.79 | 82 |
| G | 0.58 | − | − | 100 |
AFE (average fold-error) was used to assess the accuracy of predictions while a two-fold precision limit corresponds to 0.5–2 of AFE values. Method A used individual values for each parameter (MPPGL, CLint, , LW, QH and BW) for 78 livers. Method B considered the individual MPPGL value and the mean values for the remaining four parameters. Similar to method B, methods C, D, E and F used the individual CLint, , LW, QH or BW value, respectively, and the mean value for the remaining four parameters. Method G used mean values for the five parameters for that particular liver. PI: percentile interval.