Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Pharmacokinetics
Published in: Clinical Pharmacokinetics 2/2016

01-02-2016 | Review Article

Reliability of In Vitro and In Vivo Methods for Predicting the Effect of P-Glycoprotein on the Delivery of Antidepressants to the Brain

Authors: Yi Zheng, Xijing Chen, Leslie Z. Benet

Published in: Clinical Pharmacokinetics | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

As the effect of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transport on antidepressant delivery has been extensively evaluated using in vitro cellular and in vivo rodent models, an increasing number of publications have addressed the effect of P-gp in limiting brain penetration of antidepressants and causing treatment-resistant depression in current clinical therapies. However, contradictory results have been observed in different systems. It is of vital importance to understand the potential for drug interactions related to P-gp at the blood–brain barrier (BBB), and whether coadministration of a P-gp inhibitor together with an antidepressant is a good clinical strategy for dosing of patients with treatment-resistant depression. In this review, the complicated construction of the BBB, the transport mechanisms for compounds that cross the BBB, and the basic characteristics of antidepressants are illustrated. Further, the reliability of different systems related to antidepressant brain delivery, including in vitro bidirectional transport cell lines, in vivo Mdr1 knockout mice, and chemical inhibition studies in rodents are analyzed, supporting a low possibility that P-gp affects currently marketed antidepressants when these results are extrapolated to the human BBB. These findings can also be applied to other central nervous system drugs.
Literature
1.
Levav I, Rutz W. The WHO World Health Report 2001 new understanding–new hope. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 2002;39:50–6.PubMed
2.
3.
Uhr M, Grauer MT. abcb1ab P-glycoprotein is involved in the uptake of citalopram and trimipramine into the brain of mice. J Psychiatr Res. 2003;37:179–85.PubMedCrossRef
4.
O’Brien FE, Dinan TG, Griffin BT, Cryan JF. Interactions between antidepressants and P-glycoprotein at the blood–brain barrier: clinical significance of in vitro and in vivo findings. Br J Pharmacol. 2012;165:289–312.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
5.
Doran A, Obach RS, Smith BJ, Hosea NA, Becker S, Callegari E, et al. The impact of P-glycoprotein on the disposition of drugs targeted for indications of the central nervous system: evaluation using the MDR1A/1B knockout mouse model. Drug Metab Dispos. 2005;33:165–74.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Peters EJ, Reus V, Hamilton SP. The ABCB1 transporter gene and antidepressant response. F1000 Biol Rep. 2009;1:23.
7.
Nestler EJ, Barrot M, DiLeone RJ, Eisch AJ, Gold SJ, Monteggia LM. Neurobiology of depression. Neuron. 2002;34:13–25.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Faron-Gorecka A, Kusmider M, Solich J, Kolasa M, Szafran K, Zurawek D, et al. Involvement of prolactin and somatostatin in depression and the mechanism of action of antidepressant drugs. Pharmacol Rep. 2013;65:1640–6.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Huot KL, Lutfiyya MN, Akers MF, Amaro ML, Swanoski MT, Schweiss SK. A population-based cross-sectional study of health service deficits among US adults with depressive symptoms. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:160.
10.
Yıldız A, Gonul AS, Tamam L. Mechanism of actions of antidepressants: beyond the receptors. Bull Clin Psychopharmacogn. 2002;12:194–200.
11.
Fava M. Diagnosis and definition of treatment-resistant depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2003;53:649–59.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Nemeroff CB, Mayberg HS, Krahl SE, McNamara J, Frazer A, Henry TR, et al. VNS therapy in treatment-resistant depression: clinical evidence and putative neurobiological mechanisms. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31:1345–55.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Shelton RC, Osuntokun O, Heinloth AN, Corya SA. Therapeutic options for treatment-resistant depression. CNS Drugs. 2010;24:131–61.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Rouillon F, Serrurier D, Miller HD, Gerard MJ. Prophylactic efficacy of maprotiline on unipolar depression relapse. J Clin Psychiatry. 1991;52:423–31.PubMed
15.
Reynolds CF 3rd, Perel JM, Frank E, Cornes C, Miller MD, Houck PR, et al. Three-year outcomes of maintenance nortriptyline treatment in late-life depression: a study of two fixed plasma levels. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156:1177–81.PubMed
16.
O’Brien FE, Clarke G, Fitzgerald P, Dinan TG, Griffin BT, Cryan JF. Inhibition of P-glycoprotein enhances transport of imipramine across the blood–brain barrier: microdialysis studies in conscious freely moving rats. Br J Pharmacol. 2012;166:1333–43.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
17.
Hiemke C, Hartter S. Pharmacokinetics of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Pharmacol Ther. 2000;85:11–28.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Spina E, Trifiro G, Caraci F. Clinically significant drug interactions with newer antidepressants. CNS Drugs. 2012;26:39–67.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Atkinson JH, Patel SM, Meyer JM, Slater MA, Zisook S, Capparelli E. Is there a therapeutic window with some antidepressants for analgesic response? Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2009;13:93–9.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Ballabh P, Braun A, Nedergaard M. The blood–brain barrier: an overview: structure, regulation, and clinical implications. Neurobiol Dis. 2004;16:1–13.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Abbott NJ, Patabendige AA, Dolman DE, Yusof SR, Begley DJ. Structure and function of the blood–brain barrier. Neurobiol Dis. 2010;37:13–25.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Luissint AC, Artus C, Glacial F, Ganeshamoorthy K, Couraud PO. Tight junctions at the blood brain barrier: physiological architecture and disease-associated dysregulation. Fluids Barriers CNS. 2012;9:23.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
23.
24.
Fishman JB, Rubin JB, Handrahan JV, Connor JR, Fine RE. Receptor-mediated transcytosis of transferrin across the blood–brain barrier. J Neurosci Res. 1987;18:299–304.PubMedCrossRef
25.
King GL, Johnson SM. Receptor-mediated transport of insulin across endothelial cells. Science. 1985;227:1583–6.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Chen Y, Liu L. Modern methods for delivery of drugs across the blood–brain barrier. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2012;64:640–65.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Scherrmann JM. Drug delivery to brain via the blood–brain barrier. Vasc Pharmacol. 2002;38:349–54.CrossRef
28.
29.
Mikitsh JL, Chacko AM. Pathways for small molecule delivery to the central nervous system across the blood–brain barrier. Perspect Med Chem. 2014;6:11–24.
30.
Shimomura K, Okura T, Kato S, Couraud PO, Schermann JM, Terasaki T, et al. Functional expression of a proton-coupled organic cation (H+/OC) antiporter in human brain capillary endothelial cell line hCMEC/D3, a human blood–brain barrier model. Fluids Barriers CNS. 2013;10:8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
31.
Levin VA. Relationship of octanol/water partition coefficient and molecular weight to rat brain capillary permeability. J Med Chem. 1980;23:682–4.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Begley DJ. Delivery of therapeutic agents to the central nervous system: the problems and the possibilities. Pharmacol Ther. 2004;104:29–45.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Tsuji A, Tamai II. Carrier-mediated or specialized transport of drugs across the blood–brain barrier. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1999;36:277–90.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Di L, Kerns EH, Carter GT. Strategies to assess blood–brain barrier penetration. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2008;3:677–87.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Pardridge WM. Log(BB), PS products and in silico models of drug brain penetration. Drug Discov Today. 2004;9:392–3.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Di L, Kerns EH, Bezar IF, Petusky SL, Huang Y. Comparison of blood–brain barrier permeability assays: in situ brain perfusion, MDR1-MDCKII and PAMPA-BBB. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98:1980–91.PubMedCrossRef
37.
38.
Kalvass JC, Maurer TS, Pollack GM. Use of plasma and brain unbound fractions to assess the extent of brain distribution of 34 drugs: comparison of unbound concentration ratios to in vivo p-glycoprotein efflux ratios. Drug Metab Dispos. 2007;35:660–6.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Smith DA, Di L, Kerns EH. The effect of plasma protein binding on in vivo efficacy: misconceptions in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:929–39.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Kikuchi R, de Morais SM, Kalvass JC. In vitro P-glycoprotein efflux ratio can predict the in vivo brain penetration regardless of biopharmaceutics drug disposition classification system class. Drug Metab Dispos. 2013;41:2012–7.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Tunblad K, Hammarlund-Udenaes M, Jonsson EN. An integrated model for the analysis of pharmacokinetic data from microdialysis experiments. Pharm Res. 2004;21:1698–707.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Fridén M, Gupta A, Antonsson M, Bredberg U, Hammarlund-Udenaes M. In vitro methods for estimating unbound drug concentrations in the brain interstitial and intracellular fluids. Drug Metab Dispos. 2007;35:1711–9.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Kalvass JC, Maurer TS. Influence of nonspecific brain and plasma binding on CNS exposure: implications for rational drug discovery. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2002;23:327–38.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Fridén M, Ducrozet F, Middleton B, Antonsson M, Bredberg U, Hammarlund-Udenaes M. Development of a high-throughput brain slice method for studying drug distribution in the central nervous system. Drug Metab Dispos. 2009;37:1226–33.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Rowland LP. Blood–brain barrier, cerebrospinal fluid, brain edema, and hydrocephalus. In: Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, editors. Principles of Neural Science. 2nd ed. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing; 1985. p. 837–44.
46.
Westerhout J, Smeets J, Danhof M, de Lange EC. The impact of P-gp functionality on non-steady state relationships between CSF and brain extracellular fluid. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2013;40:327–42.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
47.
48.
de Lange EC, Danhof M. Considerations in the use of cerebrospinal fluid pharmacokinetics to predict brain target concentrations in the clinical setting: implications of the barriers between blood and brain. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2002;41:691–703.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Shen DD, Artru AA, Adkison KK. Principles and applicability of CSF sampling for the assessment of CNS drug delivery and pharmacodynamics. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2004;56:1825–57.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Fridén M, Winiwarter S, Jerndal G, Bengtsson O, Wan H, Bredberg U, et al. Structure-brain exposure relationships in rat and human using a novel data set of unbound drug concentrations in brain interstitial and cerebrospinal fluids. J Med Chem. 2009;52:6233–43.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Wu CY, Benet LZ. Predicting drug disposition via application of BCS: transport/absorption/ elimination interplay and development of a biopharmaceutics drug disposition classification system. Pharm Res. 2005;22:11–23.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Custodio JM, Wu CY, Benet LZ. Predicting drug disposition, absorption/elimination/transporter interplay and the role of food on drug absorption. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2008;60:717–33.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
53.
Benet LZ. Predicting drug disposition via application of a Biopharmaceutics Drug Disposition Classification System. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2010;106:162–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
54.
Broccatelli F, Larregieu CA, Cruciani G, Oprea TI, Benet LZ. Improving the prediction of the brain disposition for orally administered drugs using BDDCS. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2012;64:95–109.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
55.
Cummins CL, Jacobsen W, Benet LZ. Unmasking the dynamic interplay between intestinal P-glycoprotein and CYP3A4. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2002;300:1036–45.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Sasongko L, Link JM, Muzi M, Mankoff DA, Yang X, Collier AC, et al. Imaging P-glycoprotein transport activity at the human blood–brain barrier with positron emission tomography. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005;77:503–14.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Li H, Yap CW, Ung CY, Xue Y, Cao ZW, Chen YZ. Effect of selection of molecular descriptors on the prediction of blood–brain barrier penetrating and nonpenetrating agents by statistical learning methods. J Chem Inf Model. 2005;45:1376–84.PubMedCrossRef
58.
59.
Poirier A, Cascais AC, Bader U, Portmann R, Brun ME, Walter I, et al. Calibration of in vitro MDR1 substrate and inhibition assays as a basis to support the prediction of clinically relevant interactions in vivo. Drug Metab Dispos. 2014;42:1411–22.PubMedCrossRef
60.
61.
Letendre SL, Capparelli EV, Ellis RJ, McCutchan JA. Indinavir population pharmacokinetics in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid. The HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center Group. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44:2173–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
62.
Benet LZ, Cummins CL, Wu CY. Unmasking the dynamic interplay between efflux transporters and metabolic enzymes. Int J Pharm. 2004;277:3–9.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Dutheil F, Beaune P, Loriot MA. Xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes in the central nervous system: Contribution of cytochrome P450 enzymes in normal and pathological human brain. Biochimie. 2008;90:426–36.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Young RC, Mitchell RC, Brown TH, Ganellin CR, Griffiths R, Jones M, et al. Development of a new physicochemical model for brain penetration and its application to the design of centrally acting H2 receptor histamine antagonists. J Med Chem. 1988;31:656–71.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Calder JA, Ganellin CR. Predicting the brain-penetrating capability of histaminergic compounds. Drug Des Discov. 1994;11:259–68.PubMed
66.
Norinder U, Haeberlein M. Computational approaches to the prediction of the blood–brain distribution. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2002;54:291–313.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Liu X, Tu M, Kelly RS, Chen C, Smith BJ. Development of a computational approach to predict blood–brain barrier permeability. Drug Metab Dispos. 2004;32:132–9.PubMedCrossRef
68.
69.
70.
Nicolazzo JA, Charman SA, Charman WN. Methods to assess drug permeability across the blood–brain barrier. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2006;58:281–93.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Kansy M, Senner F, Gubernator K. Physicochemical high throughput screening: parallel artificial membrane permeation assay in the description of passive absorption processes. J Med Chem. 1998;41:1007–10.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Di L, Kerns EH, Fan K, McConnell OJ, Carter GT. High throughput artificial membrane permeability assay for blood–brain barrier. Eur J Med Chem. 2003;38:223–32.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Mensch J, Jaroskova L, Sanderson W, Melis A, Mackie C, Verreck G, et al. Application of PAMPA-models to predict BBB permeability including efflux ratio, plasma protein binding and physicochemical parameters. Int J Pharm. 2010;395:182–97.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Feng B, Mills JB, Davidson RE, Mireles RJ, Janiszewski JS, Troutman MD, et al. In vitro P-glycoprotein assays to predict the in vivo interactions of P-glycoprotein with drugs in the central nervous system. Drug Metab Dispos. 2008;36:268–75.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Jhala DD, Chettiar SS, Singh JK. Optimization and validation of an in vitro blood brain barrier permeability assay using artificial lipid membrane. J Bioequiv Bioavail. 2012;14(Spec Issue):1–6. doi:10.​4172/​jbb.​S14-009.
76.
Summerfield SG, Read K, Begley DJ, Obradovic T, Hidalgo IJ, Coggon S, et al. Central nervous system drug disposition: the relationship between in situ brain permeability and brain free fraction. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2007;322:205–13.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Wang Q, Rager JD, Weinstein K, Kardos PS, Dobson GL, Li J, et al. Evaluation of the MDR-MDCK cell line as a permeability screen for the blood–brain barrier. Int J Pharm. 2005;288:349–59.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Mahar Doan KM, Humphreys JE, Webster LO, Wring SA, Shampine LJ, Serabjit-Singh CJ, et al. Passive permeability and P-glycoprotein-mediated efflux differentiate central nervous system (CNS) and non-CNS marketed drugs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2002;303:1029–37.PubMedCrossRef
79.
Wager TT, Chandrasekaran RY, Hou X, Troutman MD, Verhoest PR, Villalobos A, et al. Defining desirable central nervous system drug space through the alignment of molecular properties, in vitro ADME, and safety attributes. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2010;1:420–34.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
80.
Carrara S, Reali V, Misiano P, Dondio G, Bigogno C. Evaluation of in vitro brain penetration: optimized PAMPA and MDCKII-MDR1 assay comparison. Int J Pharm. 2007;345:125–33.PubMedCrossRef
81.
O’Brien FE, O’Connor RM, Clarke G, Dinan TG, Griffin BT, Cryan JF. P-glycoprotein inhibition increases the brain distribution and antidepressant-like activity of escitalopram in rodents. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013;38:2209–19.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
82.
O’Brien FE, Clarke G, Dinan TG, Cryan JF, Griffin BT. Human P-glycoprotein differentially affects antidepressant drug transport: relevance to blood–brain barrier permeability. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2013;16:2259–72.PubMedCrossRef
83.
Polli JW, Wring SA, Humphreys JE, Huang L, Morgan JB, Webster LO, et al. Rational use of in vitro P-glycoprotein assays in drug discovery. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2001;299:620–8.PubMed
84.
Schinkel AH, Smit JJ, van Tellingen O, Beijnen JH, Wagenaar E, van Deemter L, et al. Disruption of the mouse mdr1a P-glycoprotein gene leads to a deficiency in the blood–brain barrier and to increased sensitivity to drugs. Cell. 1994;77:491–502.PubMedCrossRef
85.
Uhr M, Grauer MT, Holsboer F. Differential enhancement of antidepressant penetration into the brain in mice with abcb1ab (mdr1ab) P-glycoprotein gene disruption. Biol Psychiatry. 2003;54(8):840–6.PubMedCrossRef
86.
Grauer MT, Uhr M. P-glycoprotein reduces the ability of amitriptyline metabolites to cross the blood brain barrier in mice after a 10-day administration of amitriptyline. J Psychopharmacol. 2004;18:66–74.PubMedCrossRef
87.
Uhr M, Tontsch A, Namendorf C, Ripke S, Lucae S, Ising M, et al. Polymorphisms in the drug transporter gene ABCB1 predict antidepressant treatment response in depression. Neuron. 2008;57:203–9.PubMedCrossRef
88.
Uhr M, Grauer MT, Yassouridis A, Ebinger M. Blood–brain barrier penetration and pharmacokinetics of amitriptyline and its metabolites in p-glycoprotein (abcb1ab) knock-out mice and controls. J Psychiatr Res. 2007;41:179–88.PubMedCrossRef
89.
Liu X, Cheong J, Ding X, Deshmukh G. Use of cassette dosing approach to examine the effects of P-glycoprotein on the brain and cerebrospinal fluid concentrations in wild-type and P-glycoprotein knockout rats. Drug Metab Dispos. 2014;42:482–91.PubMedCrossRef
90.
Lombardo F, Obach RS, Shalaeva MY, Gao F. Prediction of human volume of distribution values for neutral and basic drugs. 2. Extended data set and leave-class-out statistics. J Med Chem. 2004;47:1242–50.PubMedCrossRef
91.
Mateus A, Matsson P, Artursson P. A high-throughput cell-based method to predict the unbound drug fraction in the brain. J Med Chem. 2014;57:3005–10.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
92.
Maurer TS, Debartolo DB, Tess DA, Scott DO. Relationship between exposure and nonspecific binding of thirty-three central nervous system drugs in mice. Drug Metab Dispos. 2005;33:175–81.PubMedCrossRef
93.
Potter WZ, Muscettola G, Goodwin FK. Binding of imipramine to plasma protein and to brain tissue: relationship to CSF tricyclic levels in man. Psychopharmacology. 1979;63:187–92.PubMedCrossRef
94.
Cisternino S, Mercier C, Bourasset F, Roux F, Scherrmann JM. Expression, up-regulation, and transport activity of the multidrug-resistance protein Abcg2 at the mouse blood–brain barrier. Cancer Res. 2004;64:3296–301.PubMedCrossRef
95.
Agarwal S, Uchida Y, Mittapalli RK, Sane R, Terasaki T, Elmquist WF. Quantitative proteomics of transporter expression in brain capillary endothelial cells isolated from P-glycoprotein (P-gp), breast cancer resistance protein (Bcrp), and P-gp/Bcrp knockout mice. Drug Metab Dispos. 2012;40:1164–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
96.
Giacomini KM, Huang SM, Tweedie DJ, Benet LZ, Brouwer KL, et al. Membrane transporters in drug development. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:215–36.PubMedCrossRef
97.
Lee JY, Lee SY, Lee K, Oh SJ, Kim SK. Determination of species-difference in microsomal metabolism of amitriptyline using a predictive MRM-IDA-EPI method. Chem Biol Interact. 2015;229:109–18.PubMedCrossRef
98.
Hsiao P, Sasongko L, Link JM, Mankoff DA, Muzi M, Collier AC, et al. Verapamil P-glycoprotein transport across the rat blood–brain barrier: cyclosporine, a concentration inhibition analysis, and comparison with human data. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2006;317:704–10.PubMedCrossRef
99.
Wulkersdorfer B, Wanek T, Bauer M, Zeitlinger M, Muller M, Langer O. Using positron emission tomography to study transporter-mediated drug–drug interactions in tissues. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;96:206–13.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
100.
Clarke G, O’Mahony SM, Cryan JF, Dinan TG. Verapamil in treatment resistant depression: a role for the P-glycoprotein transporter? Hum Psychopharmacol. 2009;24:217–23.PubMed
101.
Ejsing TB, Linnet K. Influence of P-glycoprotein inhibition on the distribution of the tricyclic antidepressant nortriptyline over the blood–brain barrier. Hum Psychopharmacol. 2005;20:149–53.PubMedCrossRef
102.
Kamiie J, Ohtsuki S, Iwase R, Ohmine K, Katsukura Y, Yanai K, et al. Quantitative atlas of membrane transporter proteins: development and application of a highly sensitive simultaneous LC/MS/MS method combined with novel in-silico peptide selection criteria. Pharm Res. 2008;25:1469–83.PubMedCrossRef
103.
Uchida Y, Ohtsuki S, Kamiie J, Terasaki T. Blood–brain barrier (BBB) pharmacoproteomics: reconstruction of in vivo brain distribution of 11 P-glycoprotein substrates based on the BBB transporter protein concentration, in vitro intrinsic transport activity, and unbound fraction in plasma and brain in mice. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2011;339:579–88.PubMedCrossRef
104.
Di L, Umland JP, Chang G, Huang Y, Lin Z, Scott DO, et al. Species independence in brain tissue binding using brain homogenates. Drug Metab Dispos. 2011;39:1270–7.PubMedCrossRef
105.
Cutler L, Howes C, Deeks NJ, Buck TL, Jeffrey P. Development of a P-glycoprotein knockout model in rodents to define species differences in its functional effect at the blood–brain barrier. J Pharm Sci. 2006;95:1944–53.PubMedCrossRef
106.
Suzuyama N, Katoh M, Takeuchi T, Yoshitomi S, Higuchi T, Asashi S, et al. Species differences of inhibitory effects on P-glycoprotein-mediated drug transport. J Pharm Sci. 2007;96:1609–18.PubMedCrossRef
107.
Karlsson L, Green H, Zackrisson AL, Bengtsson F, Jakobsen Falk I, Carlsson B, et al. ABCB1 gene polymorphisms are associated with fatal intoxications involving venlafaxine but not citalopram. Int J Legal Med. 2013;127:579–86.PubMedCrossRef
108.
Kato M, Fukuda T, Serretti A, Wakeno M, Okugawa G, Ikenaga Y, et al. ABCB1 (MDR1) gene polymorphisms are associated with the clinical response to paroxetine in patients with major depressive disorder. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2008;32:398–404.PubMedCrossRef
109.
Gex-Fabry M, Eap CB, Oneda B, Gervasoni N, Aubry JM, Bondolfi G, et al. CYP2D6 and ABCB1 genetic variability: influence on paroxetine plasma level and therapeutic response. Ther Drug Monit. 2008;30:474–82.PubMed
110.
Roberts RL, Joyce PR, Mulder RT, Begg EJ, Kennedy MA. A common P-glycoprotein polymorphism is associated with nortriptyline-induced postural hypotension in patients treated for major depression. Pharmacogenomics J. 2002;2:191–6.PubMedCrossRef
111.
Sjostedt N, Kortejarvi H, Kidron H, Vellonen KS, Urtti A, Yliperttula M. Challenges of using in vitro data for modeling P-glycoprotein efflux in the blood–brain barrier. Pharm Res. 2014;31:1–19.PubMedCrossRef
112.
Di L, Whitney-Pickett C, Umland JP, Zhang H, Zhang X, Gebhard DF, et al. Development of a new permeability assay using low-efflux MDCKII cells. J Pharm Sci. 2011;100:4974–85.PubMedCrossRef
113.
de Souza J, Benet LZ, Huang Y, Storpirtis S. Comparison of bidirectional lamivudine and zidovudine transport using MDCK, MDCK-MDR1, and Caco-2 cell monolayers. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98:4413–9.PubMedCrossRef
114.
Bart J, Willemsen AT, Groen HJ, van der Graaf WT, Wegman TD, Vaalburg W, et al. Quantitative assessment of P-glycoprotein function in the rat blood–brain barrier by distribution volume of [11C]verapamil measured with PET. NeuroImage. 2003;20:1775–82.PubMedCrossRef
115.
Hendrikse NH, Schinkel AH, de Vries EG, Fluks E, Van der Graaf WT, Willemsen AT, et al. Complete in vivo reversal of P-glycoprotein pump function in the blood–brain barrier visualized with positron emission tomography. Br J Pharmacol. 1998;124:1413–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
116.
Kalvass JC, Polli JW, Bourdet DL, Feng B, Huang SM, Liu X, et al. Why clinical modulation of efflux transport at the human blood–brain barrier is unlikely: the ITC evidence-based position. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;94:80–94.PubMedCrossRef
117.
Sugimoto H, Matsumoto S, Tachibana M, Niwa S, Hirabayashi H, Amano N, et al. Establishment of in vitro P-glycoprotein inhibition assay and its exclusion criteria to assess the risk of drug–drug interaction at the drug discovery stage. J Pharm Sci. 2011;100:4013–23.PubMedCrossRef
118.
Sugano K, Kansy M, Artursson P, Avdeef A, Bendels S, Di L, et al. Coexistence of passive and carrier-mediated processes in drug transport. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:597–614.PubMedCrossRef
119.
Summerfield SG, Stevens AJ, Cutler L, del Carmen Osuna M, Hammond B, Tang SP, et al. Improving the in vitro prediction of in vivo central nervous system penetration: integrating permeability, P-glycoprotein efflux, and free fractions in blood and brain. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2006;316:1282–90.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Reliability of In Vitro and In Vivo Methods for Predicting the Effect of P-Glycoprotein on the Delivery of Antidepressants to the Brain
Authors
Yi Zheng
Xijing Chen
Leslie Z. Benet
Publication date
01-02-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Clinical Pharmacokinetics / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0312-5963
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1926
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-015-0310-2

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Clinical Pharmacokinetics 2/2016 Go to the issue

Review Article

Drug–Drug Interactions with the NS3/4A Protease Inhibitor Simeprevir

Review Article

Alternative Sampling Strategies for Cytochrome P450 Phenotyping

Original Research Article

Effects of Cytochrome P450 3A4 Inhibitors—Ketoconazole and Erythromycin—on Bitopertin Pharmacokinetics and Comparison with Physiologically Based Modelling Predictions

Review Article

Challenges Associated with Route of Administration in Neonatal Drug Delivery

Original Research Article

Augmentation of Endoxifen Exposure in Tamoxifen-Treated Women Following SSRI Switch

Original Research Article

Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Canagliflozin in Healthy Volunteers and Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus