PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the binding of the diastereomers of Val-Val to the apical oligopeptide transporter(s) could be correlated with their cellular uptake and transepithelial transport. METHODS: The Caco-2 cell culture system was used for all experiments. The binding of the diastereomers of Val-Val was evaluated by determining their ability to inhibit [3H]cephalexin uptake. The stability of the diastereomers was determined in a homogenate of Caco-2 cells and in the apical bathing solution over Caco-2 cell monolayers. The cellular uptake and transepithelial transport properties of the individual diastereomers were studied using Caco-2 cell monolayers. RESULTS: 10 mM concentrations of L-Val-L-Val, L-Val-D-Val, D-Val-L-Val and D-Val-D-Val inhibited cellular uptake of [3H]cephalexin (0.1 mM) by 92%, 37%, 70%, and 18%, respectively. When the cellular uptake of Val-Val diastereomers (1 mM) were evaluated, the intracellular concentrations of L-Val-D-Val and D-Val-L-Val were 15 and 50 times higher, respectively, than that of D-Val-D-Val. The cellular uptake of L-Val-D-Val and D-Val-L-Val was inhibited by Gly-Pro (10 mM) ( > 95%), whereas Gly-Pro had no effect on the cellular uptake of D-Val-D-Val. L-Val-L-Val was not detected in the Caco-2 cells, probably due to its metabolic lability. When the transepithelial transport of the Val-Val diastereomers (1 mM) was determined, L-Val-D-Val, D-Val-L-Val and D-Val-D-Val transport rates were similar. The transepithelial transport of L-Val-D-Val and D-Val-L-Val was inhibited by Gly-Pro (10 mM) 36% and 30%, respectively, while Gly-Pro inhibited carnosine (1 mM) transepithelial transport by 65%. Gly-Pro had no effect on the transepithelial transport of D-Val-D-Val. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the major transepithelial transport route of L-Val-D-Val, D-Val-L-Val and D-Val-D-Val is passive diffusion via the paracellular route. The binding of Val-Val diastereomers to the oligopeptide transporter(s) is a good predictor of their cellular uptake, however, the binding is not a good predictor of their transepithelial transport. It appears that the stereochemical requirements for the transporter that mediates efflux of the peptide across the basolateral membrane may be different from the requirements for the apical transporter that mediates cellular uptake.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the binding of the diastereomers of Val-Val to the apical oligopeptide transporter(s) could be correlated with their cellular uptake and transepithelial transport. METHODS: The Caco-2 cell culture system was used for all experiments. The binding of the diastereomers of Val-Val was evaluated by determining their ability to inhibit [3H]cephalexin uptake. The stability of the diastereomers was determined in a homogenate of Caco-2 cells and in the apical bathing solution over Caco-2 cell monolayers. The cellular uptake and transepithelial transport properties of the individual diastereomers were studied using Caco-2 cell monolayers. RESULTS: 10 mM concentrations of L-Val-L-Val, L-Val-D-Val, D-Val-L-Val and D-Val-D-Val inhibited cellular uptake of [3H]cephalexin (0.1 mM) by 92%, 37%, 70%, and 18%, respectively. When the cellular uptake of Val-Val diastereomers (1 mM) were evaluated, the intracellular concentrations of L-Val-D-Val and D-Val-L-Val were 15 and 50 times higher, respectively, than that of D-Val-D-Val. The cellular uptake of L-Val-D-Val and D-Val-L-Val was inhibited by Gly-Pro (10 mM) ( > 95%), whereas Gly-Pro had no effect on the cellular uptake of D-Val-D-Val. L-Val-L-Val was not detected in the Caco-2 cells, probably due to its metabolic lability. When the transepithelial transport of the Val-Val diastereomers (1 mM) was determined, L-Val-D-Val, D-Val-L-Val and D-Val-D-Val transport rates were similar. The transepithelial transport of L-Val-D-Val and D-Val-L-Val was inhibited by Gly-Pro (10 mM) 36% and 30%, respectively, while Gly-Pro inhibited carnosine (1 mM) transepithelial transport by 65%. Gly-Pro had no effect on the transepithelial transport of D-Val-D-Val. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the major transepithelial transport route of L-Val-D-Val, D-Val-L-Val and D-Val-D-Val is passive diffusion via the paracellular route. The binding of Val-Val diastereomers to the oligopeptide transporter(s) is a good predictor of their cellular uptake, however, the binding is not a good predictor of their transepithelial transport. It appears that the stereochemical requirements for the transporter that mediates efflux of the peptide across the basolateral membrane may be different from the requirements for the apical transporter that mediates cellular uptake.
Authors: N J Snyder; L B Tabas; D M Berry; D C Duckworth; D O Spry; A H Dantzig Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Yasuhiro Tsume; Balvinder S Vig; Jing Sun; Christopher P Landowski; John M Hilfinger; Chandrasekharan Ramachandran; Gordon L Amidon Journal: Molecules Date: 2008-06-28 Impact factor: 4.411