| Literature DB >> 34885738 |
Laura Schioppa1, Fanta Fall1, Sergio Ortiz1, Jacques H Poupaert2, Joelle Quetin-Leclercq1.
Abstract
Pentacyclic triterpenes (PTs) are commonly found in medicinal plants with well-known antiparasitic effects. Previous research on C-3 and C-27 triterpenic esters showed effective and selective in vitro antiparasitic activities and in vivo effectiveness by parenteral routes. The aim of this study was to determine triterpenic esters' stability in different biological-like media and the main microsomal degradation products. An HPLC-PDA method was developed and validated to simultaneously analyze and quantify bioactive triterpenic esters in methanol (LOQ: 2.5 and 1.25-100 µg/mL) and plasma (LOQ: 5-125 µg/mL). Overall, both triterpenic esters showed a stable profile in aqueous and buffered solutions as well as in entire plasma, suggesting gaining access to the ester function is difficult for plasma enzymes. Conversely, after 1 h, 30% esters degradation in acidic media was observed with potential different hydrolysis mechanisms. C-3 (15 and 150 µM) and C-27 esters (150 µM) showed a relatively low hepatic microsomal metabolism (<23%) after 1 h, which was significantly higher in the lowest concentration of C-27 esters (15 µM) (>40% degradation). Metabolic HPLC-PDA-HRMS studies suggested hydrolysis, hydroxylation, dehydration, O-methylation, hydroxylation and/or the reduction of hydrolyzed derivatives, depending on the concentration and the position of the ester link. Further permeability and absorption studies are required to better define triterpenic esters pharmacokinetic and specific formulations designed to increase their oral bioavailability.Entities:
Keywords: HPLC-PDA/MS; in vitro stability; metabolomics; parasitic infections; stability; triterpenes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34885738 PMCID: PMC8659078 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26237154
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Validation results obtained for the quantification method of UA-3-O-PP and 8TTE in MeOH.
| Valid. Criteria | Concentration Levels (µg/mL) for Methanolic Samples | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UA-3- | 8TTE | |||||||||
| 2.5 | 10 | 37.5 | 100 | 1.25 | 2.5 | 37.5 | 75 | 100 | ||
| Response function | Linear regression | |||||||||
| Calib. range | 4 points | 5 points | ||||||||
| µg/mL | 2.5–100 | 1.25–100 | ||||||||
| Trueness | Relative Bias (%) | −1.87 | 5.05 | 0.06 | 0.51 | 7.24 | −2.80 | −4.14 | −2.38 | −1.58 |
| Precision | Repeatability (RSD 1 %) | 2.18 | 1.66 | 1.72 | 1.19 | 4.78 | 4.72 | 4.55 | 2.17 | 4.08 |
| Intermediate precision (RSD 1 %) | 3.84 | 2.88 | 2.71 | 2.46 | 4.41 | 4.16 | 3.81 | 2.99 | 4.23 | |
| Accuracy | (lower and uppertol. Limits %) | −15.59 | −5.26 | −8.34 | −8.35 | −3.27 | −12.63 | −13.23 | −11.54 | −12.18 |
| 11.84 | 15.35 | 8.45 | 9.37 | 17.76 | 7.02 | 4.95 | 6.79 | 9.03 | ||
| Linearity | Slope | 1.003 | 0.982 | |||||||
| Int.pt | 0.122 | −0.201 | ||||||||
| R2 | 0.999 | 0.997 | ||||||||
1 RSD: Relative Standard Deviation.
Validation results obtained for the quantification method of UA-3-O-PP and 8TTE in spiked plasma.
| Valid. Criteria | Concentration Levels 1 (µg/mL) for Plasma Samples | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UA-3- | 8TTE | ||||||||
| 5 | 25 | 50 | 100 | 5 | 25 | 50 | 100 | ||
| Response function | Linear regression | ||||||||
| Calib. range | 5 points | 6 points | |||||||
| µg/mL | 5–125 | 2.5–125 | |||||||
| Trueness | Relative Bias (%) | −13.03 | −0.57 | −2.25 | −0.57 | 15.47 | 7.18 | −0.94 | 1.61 |
| Precision | Repeatability (RSD 2 %) | 2.89 | 2.70 | 1.57 | 1.79 | 1.81 | 2.66 | 1.05 | 1.52 |
| Intermediate precision (RSD 2 %) | 2.65 | 3.25 | 3.19 | 3.72 | 1.48 | 2.47 | 2.49 | 1.83 | |
| Accuracy | (lower and uppertol. limits %) | −19.35 | −9.67 | −13.74 | −13.97 | 11.85 | 1.28 | −9.97 | −3.26 |
| −6.71 | 8.52 | 9.23 | 12.83 | 19.09 | 13.09 | 8.07 | 6.48 | ||
| Linearity | Slope | 0.998 | 1.004 | ||||||
| Int.pt | −0.551 | 0.755 | |||||||
| R2 | 0.998 | 0.999 | |||||||
1 Spiked Concentration; 2 RSD: Relative Standard Deviation.
Validation results obtained for the quantification method of UA-3-O-PP and 8TTE in MeOH.
| Concentration | Uncertainty | Expanded Uncertainty | Relative Expanded Uncertainty | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (µg/mL) | UA-3- | 8TTE | UA-3- | 8TTE | UA-3- | 8TTE |
| Methanolic sample method | ||||||
| 1.25 | - | 0.061 | - | 0.122 | - | 9.780 |
| 2.5 | 0.106 | 0.104 | 0.211 | 0.207 | 8.460 | 8.285 |
| 10 | 0.340 | - | 0.680 | - | 6.801 | - |
| 37.5 | 1.135 | 1.382 | 0.586 | 2.764 | 6.052 | 7.371 |
| 75 | - | 2.417 | - | 4.834 | - | 6.445 |
| 100 | 2.979 | 4.414 | 5.595 | 8.828 | 5.595 | 8.828 |
| Plasma sample method | ||||||
| 5 1 | 0.119 | 0.085 | 0.239 | 0.171 | 4.765 | 3.419 |
| 25 1 | 0.879 | 0.686 | 1.759 | 1.373 | 7.034 | 5.491 |
| 50 1 | 1.763 | 1.402 | 3.527 | 2.805 | 7.054 | 5.610 |
| 100 1 | 4.186 | 2.022 | 8.371 | 4.045 | 8.371 | 4.045 |
1 Spiked Concentration.
Figure 18TTE, UA-3-O-PP and positive controls stability profiles in different simulated physiologic conditions at two different concentrations (15 µM–150 µM): (a) water; (b) phosphate Buffer 0.1 M pH 7.4; (c) entire plasma; (d) HCl pH 1.2; (e) pooled male mouse microsomes. Non-parametric ANOVA analysis: p < 0.05 (Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn’s tests).
Figure 2Heatmaps of molecular ions intensity in function of the tested timepoints for 8TTE and UA-3-O-PP. Each column represents an average of three samples (n = 3), and the rows represent a corresponding m/z. (red color = more expressed; blue color = less expressed): (a) 8TTE 15 µM; (b) 8TTE = 150 µM; (c) UA-3-O-PP 15 µM; (d) UA-3-O-PP 150 µM (T1 = 0 min, T2 = 30 min; T3 = 60 min). Analysis was performed using Euclidian distance method with ward clustering algorithm after normalization to sample median and Pareto scaling.
Elimination rate constant, half-life (min), in vitro intrinsic clearance (µL min−1 mg−1 protein) calculated for tested triterpenic esters and diclofenac.
| Kloss (min−1) | t1/2 (min) | Cl Int (µg/min/mg) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8TTE | 0.009 | 76.82 | 18.04 |
| UA-3- | 0.003 | 264.30 | 5.24 |
| Diclofenac | 0.004 | 153.25 | 9.04 |
Identification, prediction level and metabolic reactions involved of the detected metabolites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 150 µM | 1005.73 | [M − 1]− | C30H46O3 | 453.3361 | 453.3374 | −2.8 | 2 | Hydrolysis + | |
| 884.76 | [M − 1]− | C30H46O4 | 469.3323 | 469.3323 | 0 | 2 | Hydrolysis + | ||
| 15 µM | 884.76 | [M − 1]− | C30H46O4 | 469.3323 | 469.3323 | 0 | 2 | Hydrolysis + Reduction | |
| 860.19 | [M − 1]− | C31H50O4 | 485.3625 | 485.3631 | −1.2 | 2 | Hydrolysis + | ||
|
| 150 µM | 951.46 | [M − 1]− | C30H48O3 | 455.3518 | 455.3530 | 2.6 | 2 | Hydrolysis |
| 869.94 | [M − 1]− | C30H46O4 | 469.3324 | 469.3323 | 0.2 | 2 | Hydrolysis + | ||
| 717.12 | [M − 1]− | C30H48O4 | 471.3479 | 471.3479 | 0 | 2 | Hydrolysis + | ||
| 983.24 | [M − 1]− | C39H56O5 | 603.4034 | 603.4055 | −3.5 | 2 | Hydroxylation | ||
| 15 µM | 951.46 | [M − 1]− | C30H48O3 | 455.3518 | 455.3530 | 2.6 | 2 | Hydrolysis | |
| 869.94 | [M − 1]− | C30H46O4 | 469.3324 | 469.3323 | 0.2 | 2 | Hydrolysis + | ||
| 717.12 | [M − 1]− | C30H48O4 | 471.3479 | 471.3479 | 0 | 2 | Hydrolysis + Hydroxylation |