Literature DB >> 28254953

Implications for Metabolite Quantification by Mass Spectrometry in the Absence of Authentic Standards.

Panos Hatsis1, Nigel J Waters1, Upendra A Argikar2.   

Abstract

Quantification of metabolites by mass spectrometry in the absence of authentic reference standards or without a radiolabel is often called "semiquantitative," which acknowledges that mass spectrometric responses are not truly quantitative. For many researchers, it is tempting to pursue this practice of semiquantification in early drug discovery and even preclinical development, when radiolabeled absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion studies are being deferred to later stages of drug development. The caveats of quantifying metabolites based on parent drug response are explored in this investigation. A set of 71 clinically relevant drugs/metabolites encompassing common biotransformation pathways was subjected to flow injection analysis coupled with electrospray ionization (ESI) mass spectrometry. The results revealed a large variation in ESI response even for structurally similar parent drug/metabolite pairs. The ESI response of each metabolite was normalized to that of the parent drug to generate an ESI relative response factor. Overall, relative response factors ranged from 0.014 (>70-fold lower response than parent) to 8.6 (8.6-fold higher response than parent). Various two-dimensional molecular descriptors were calculated that describe physicochemical, topological, and structural properties for each drug/metabolite. The molecular descriptors, along with the ESI response factors, were used in univariate analyses as well as a principal components analysis to ascertain which molecular descriptors best account for the observed discrepancies in drug/metabolite ESI response. This investigation has shown that the practice of using parent drug response to quantify metabolites should be used with caution.
Copyright © 2017 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28254953     DOI: 10.1124/dmd.117.075259

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Metab Dispos        ISSN: 0090-9556            Impact factor:   3.922


  5 in total

1.  Case Study 2: Practical Analytical Considerations for Conducting In Vitro Enzyme Kinetic Studies.

Authors:  Upendra A Argikar; Swati Nagar
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

2.  Quantitative non-targeted analysis: Bridging the gap between contaminant discovery and risk characterization.

Authors:  James P McCord; Louis C Groff; Jon R Sobus
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 9.621

3.  New Perspectives on Acyl Glucuronide Risk Assessment in Drug Discovery: Investigation of In vitro Stability, In situ Reactivity, and Bioactivation.

Authors:  Mithat Gunduz; Upendra A Argikar; Amanda L Cirello; Jennifer L Dumouchel
Journal:  Drug Metab Lett       Date:  2018

4.  Significance of Multiple Bioactivation Pathways for Meclofenamate as Revealed through Modeling and Reaction Kinetics.

Authors:  Mary Alexandra Schleiff; Noah R Flynn; Sasin Payakachat; Benjamin Mark Schleiff; Anna O Pinson; Dennis W Province; S Joshua Swamidass; Gunnar Boysen; Grover P Miller
Journal:  Drug Metab Dispos       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 3.922

5.  Significance of Competing Metabolic Pathways for 5F-APINACA Based on Quantitative Kinetics.

Authors:  Anna O Pinson; Dakota L Pouncey; Mary A Schleiff; William E Fantegrossi; Paul L Prather; Anna Radominska-Pandya; Gunnar Boysen; Grover P Miller
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 4.411

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.