渗透性文献数据的元分析显示了流行方法的可能性和局限性

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Kateřina Storchmannová, Martin Balouch, Jakub Juračka, František Štěpánek and Karel Berka*, 
{"title":"渗透性文献数据的元分析显示了流行方法的可能性和局限性","authors":"Kateřina Storchmannová,&nbsp;Martin Balouch,&nbsp;Jakub Juračka,&nbsp;František Štěpánek and Karel Berka*,&nbsp;","doi":"10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.4c0097510.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.4c00975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Permeability is an important molecular property in drug discovery, as it co-determines pharmacokinetics whenever a drug crosses the phospholipid bilayer, e.g., into the cell, in the gastrointestinal tract, or across the blood–brain barrier. Many methods for the determination of permeability have been developed, including cell line assays (CACO-2 and MDCK), cell-free model systems like parallel artificial membrane permeability assay (PAMPA) mimicking, e.g., gastrointestinal epithelia or the skin, as well as the black lipid membrane (BLM) and submicrometer liposomes. Furthermore, many in silico approaches have been developed for permeability prediction: meta-analysis of publicly available databases for permeability data (MolMeDB and ChEMBL) was performed to establish their usability. Four experimental and two computational methods were evaluated. It was shown that repeatability of the reported permeability measurement is not great even for the same method. For the PAMPA method, two different permeabilities are reported: intrinsic and apparent. They can vary in degrees of magnitude; thus, we suggest being extra cautious using literature data on permeability. When we compared data for the same molecules using different methods, the best agreement was between cell-based methods and between BLM and computational methods. Existence of unstirred water layer (UWL) permeability limits the data agreement between cell-based methods (and apparent PAMPA) with data that are not limited by UWL permeability (computational methods, BLM, intrinsic PAMPA). Therefore, different methods have different limitations. Cell-based methods provide results only in a small range of permeabilities (−8 to −4 in cm/s), and computational methods can predict a wider range of permeabilities beyond physical limitations, but their precision is therefore limited. BLM with liposomes can be used for both fast and slow permeating molecules, but its usage is more complicated than standard transwell techniques. To sum up, when working with in-house measured or published permeability data, we recommend caution in interpreting and combining them.</p>","PeriodicalId":52,"journal":{"name":"Molecular Pharmaceutics","volume":"22 3","pages":"1293–1304 1293–1304"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.4c00975","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-Analysis of Permeability Literature Data Shows Possibilities and Limitations of Popular Methods\",\"authors\":\"Kateřina Storchmannová,&nbsp;Martin Balouch,&nbsp;Jakub Juračka,&nbsp;František Štěpánek and Karel Berka*,&nbsp;\",\"doi\":\"10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.4c0097510.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.4c00975\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >Permeability is an important molecular property in drug discovery, as it co-determines pharmacokinetics whenever a drug crosses the phospholipid bilayer, e.g., into the cell, in the gastrointestinal tract, or across the blood–brain barrier. Many methods for the determination of permeability have been developed, including cell line assays (CACO-2 and MDCK), cell-free model systems like parallel artificial membrane permeability assay (PAMPA) mimicking, e.g., gastrointestinal epithelia or the skin, as well as the black lipid membrane (BLM) and submicrometer liposomes. Furthermore, many in silico approaches have been developed for permeability prediction: meta-analysis of publicly available databases for permeability data (MolMeDB and ChEMBL) was performed to establish their usability. Four experimental and two computational methods were evaluated. It was shown that repeatability of the reported permeability measurement is not great even for the same method. For the PAMPA method, two different permeabilities are reported: intrinsic and apparent. They can vary in degrees of magnitude; thus, we suggest being extra cautious using literature data on permeability. When we compared data for the same molecules using different methods, the best agreement was between cell-based methods and between BLM and computational methods. Existence of unstirred water layer (UWL) permeability limits the data agreement between cell-based methods (and apparent PAMPA) with data that are not limited by UWL permeability (computational methods, BLM, intrinsic PAMPA). Therefore, different methods have different limitations. Cell-based methods provide results only in a small range of permeabilities (−8 to −4 in cm/s), and computational methods can predict a wider range of permeabilities beyond physical limitations, but their precision is therefore limited. BLM with liposomes can be used for both fast and slow permeating molecules, but its usage is more complicated than standard transwell techniques. To sum up, when working with in-house measured or published permeability data, we recommend caution in interpreting and combining them.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Molecular Pharmaceutics\",\"volume\":\"22 3\",\"pages\":\"1293–1304 1293–1304\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.4c00975\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Molecular Pharmaceutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.4c00975\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Molecular Pharmaceutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.4c00975","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通透性是药物发现过程中一个重要的分子特性,因为它共同决定了药物穿过磷脂双分子层时的药代动力学,例如进入细胞、胃肠道或穿过血脑屏障。已经开发了许多测定渗透性的方法,包括细胞系测定(CACO-2和MDCK),无细胞模型系统,如模拟胃肠道上皮或皮肤的平行人工膜渗透性测定(PAMPA),以及黑色脂质膜(BLM)和亚微米脂质体。此外,已经开发了许多用于渗透率预测的计算机方法:对公开可用的渗透率数据数据库(MolMeDB和ChEMBL)进行荟萃分析,以确定其可用性。对四种实验方法和两种计算方法进行了评价。结果表明,即使采用相同的方法,所报道的渗透率测量结果的重复性也不高。对于PAMPA方法,报告了两种不同的渗透率:内在渗透率和表观渗透率。它们可以在大小上有所不同;因此,我们建议在使用有关渗透率的文献数据时要格外谨慎。当我们用不同的方法比较相同分子的数据时,基于细胞的方法和BLM与计算方法之间的一致性最好。未搅拌水层(UWL)渗透性的存在限制了基于细胞的方法(和表观PAMPA)与不受UWL渗透性(计算方法,BLM,固有PAMPA)限制的数据之间的一致性。因此,不同的方法有不同的局限性。基于细胞的方法只能在很小的渗透率范围内(- 8到- 4 cm/s)提供结果,而计算方法可以预测超出物理限制的更大范围的渗透率,但其精度因此受到限制。带脂质体的BLM可用于快速和慢速渗透分子,但其使用比标准transwell技术更复杂。综上所述,当使用内部测量或发表的渗透率数据时,我们建议在解释和结合这些数据时要谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Meta-Analysis of Permeability Literature Data Shows Possibilities and Limitations of Popular Methods

Permeability is an important molecular property in drug discovery, as it co-determines pharmacokinetics whenever a drug crosses the phospholipid bilayer, e.g., into the cell, in the gastrointestinal tract, or across the blood–brain barrier. Many methods for the determination of permeability have been developed, including cell line assays (CACO-2 and MDCK), cell-free model systems like parallel artificial membrane permeability assay (PAMPA) mimicking, e.g., gastrointestinal epithelia or the skin, as well as the black lipid membrane (BLM) and submicrometer liposomes. Furthermore, many in silico approaches have been developed for permeability prediction: meta-analysis of publicly available databases for permeability data (MolMeDB and ChEMBL) was performed to establish their usability. Four experimental and two computational methods were evaluated. It was shown that repeatability of the reported permeability measurement is not great even for the same method. For the PAMPA method, two different permeabilities are reported: intrinsic and apparent. They can vary in degrees of magnitude; thus, we suggest being extra cautious using literature data on permeability. When we compared data for the same molecules using different methods, the best agreement was between cell-based methods and between BLM and computational methods. Existence of unstirred water layer (UWL) permeability limits the data agreement between cell-based methods (and apparent PAMPA) with data that are not limited by UWL permeability (computational methods, BLM, intrinsic PAMPA). Therefore, different methods have different limitations. Cell-based methods provide results only in a small range of permeabilities (−8 to −4 in cm/s), and computational methods can predict a wider range of permeabilities beyond physical limitations, but their precision is therefore limited. BLM with liposomes can be used for both fast and slow permeating molecules, but its usage is more complicated than standard transwell techniques. To sum up, when working with in-house measured or published permeability data, we recommend caution in interpreting and combining them.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Molecular Pharmaceutics
Molecular Pharmaceutics 医学-药学
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
6.10%
发文量
391
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Molecular Pharmaceutics publishes the results of original research that contributes significantly to the molecular mechanistic understanding of drug delivery and drug delivery systems. The journal encourages contributions describing research at the interface of drug discovery and drug development. Scientific areas within the scope of the journal include physical and pharmaceutical chemistry, biochemistry and biophysics, molecular and cellular biology, and polymer and materials science as they relate to drug and drug delivery system efficacy. Mechanistic Drug Delivery and Drug Targeting research on modulating activity and efficacy of a drug or drug product is within the scope of Molecular Pharmaceutics. Theoretical and experimental peer-reviewed research articles, communications, reviews, and perspectives are welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信