Literature DB >> 2837319

Uptake of WR-2721 derivatives by cells in culture: identification of the transported form of the drug.

P M Calabro-Jones1, J A Aguilera, J F Ward, G D Smoluk, R C Fahey.   

Abstract

When V79-171 cells are incubated in medium to which WR-1065 has been added the cells accumulate WR-1065 and disulfides of WR-1065 (WRSS) in a ratio of about 10:1. Analysis of the culture medium showed that it contained primarily WR-1065 but that significant levels of the symmetrical disulfide WR-33278 and of the mixed disulfide of WR-1065 with cysteine were also present. Since incubation of cells with either of the latter disulfides did not lead to uptake it was concluded that WR-1065 is the form of the drug taken up. The uptake rate on a per cell basis was shown to be independent of cell density, to be first order in the WR-1065 concentration in the incubation medium, to increase as [H+]-1.2 at medium pH values from pH 6.8 to 8.0, and to have a Q10 value (rate increase per 10 degrees C temperature increase) of 2.9 +/- 0.3 between 2 and 37 degrees C. Rates of WR-1065 uptake measured for HeLa, HT29/SP-1d, Me-180-VCII, Ovary 2008, and WI-38 cell lines were found to be similar to that measured for V79-171 cells. The results are consistent with uptake by nonmediated, passive diffusion of the uncharged form of WR-1065 across the plasma membrane but uptake mediated by a membrane transport system could not be rigorously excluded. Based upon these results and earlier findings it is postulated that the lower drug uptake seen in tumors as compared with normal tissues in animals treated with WR-2721 results from a combination of (a) slower conversion of WR-2721 to WR-1065 in tumors as a consequence of the lower inherent level of alkaline phosphatase and lower pH in tumors and (b) a decreased uptake rate of the WR-1065 present in tumors as a consequence of their lower pH.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1988        PMID: 2837319

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Res        ISSN: 0008-5472            Impact factor:   12.701


  21 in total

Review 1.  Cisplatin-induced renal toxicity and toxicity-modulating strategies: a review.

Authors:  V Pinzani; F Bressolle; I J Haug; M Galtier; J P Blayac; P Balmès
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.333

2.  Effects of amifostine on cisplatin induced DNA adduct formation and toxicity in malignant glioma and normal tissues in rat.

Authors:  P Bergström; A Johnsson; T Bergenheim; R Henriksson
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 3.  A risk-benefit assessment of amifostine in cytoprotection.

Authors:  M Mabro; S Faivre; E Raymond
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 4.  Cardiotoxicity in childhood cancer survivors: strategies for prevention and management.

Authors:  Danielle Harake; Vivian I Franco; Jacqueline M Henkel; Tracie L Miller; Steven E Lipshultz
Journal:  Future Cardiol       Date:  2012-07

Review 5.  Amifostine: an update on its clinical status as a cytoprotectant in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy and its potential therapeutic application in myelodysplastic syndrome.

Authors:  C R Culy; C M Spencer
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 9.546

6.  Novel Formulation Strategy to Improve the Feasibility of Amifostine Administration.

Authors:  Kavitha Ranganathan; Eric Simon; Jeremy Lynn; Alicia Snider; Yu Zhang; Noah Nelson; Alexis Donneys; Jose Rodriguez; Lauren Buchman; Dawn Reyna; Elke Lipka; Steven R Buchman
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 4.200

7.  Amifostine protects against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in children with average-risk medulloblastoma.

Authors:  Maryam Fouladi; Murali Chintagumpala; David Ashley; Stewart Kellie; Sridharan Gururangan; Tim Hassall; Lindsey Gronewold; Clinton F Stewart; Dana Wallace; Alberto Broniscer; Gregory A Hale; Kimberly A Kasow; Thomas E Merchant; Brannon Morris; Matthew Krasin; Larry E Kun; James M Boyett; Amar Gajjar
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-08-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Low-molecular-weight thiols in streptomycetes and their potential role as antioxidants.

Authors:  G L Newton; R C Fahey; G Cohen; Y Aharonowitz
Journal:  J Bacteriol       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 3.490

9.  Effect of amifostine (Ethyol) on the development of extraembryonic blood vessels in chick embryos.

Authors:  J Höper; A Hanjalic; R Sauer; L Plasswilm
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.621

Review 10.  Amifostine: potential for clinically useful cytoprotection.

Authors:  G T Budd; V Lorenzi; R Ganapathi; D Adelstein; R Pelley; T Olencki; D McLain; R M Bukowski
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 3.603

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.