The DOI matches its Crossref record.
CYP3A4 drug interactions: correlation of 10 in vitro probe substrates
Open accessAbstract
Aims Many substrates of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 are used for in vitro investigations of drug metabolism and potential drug–drug interactions. The aim of the present study was to determine the relationship between 10 commonly used CYP3A4 probes using modifiers with a range of inhibitory potency. Methods The effects of 34 compounds on CYP3A4‐mediated metabolism were investigated in a recombinant CYP3A4 expression system. Inhibition of erythromycin, dextromethorphan and diazepam N‐demethylation, testosterone 6β‐hydroxylation, midazolam 1‐hydroxylation, triazolam 4‐hydroxylation, nifedipine oxidation, cyclosporin oxidation, terfenadine C‐hydroxylation and N‐dealkylation and benzyloxyresorufin O‐dealkylation was evaluated at the apparent K m or S 50 (for substrates showing sigmoidicity) value for each substrate and at an inhibitor concentration of 30 μm. Results While all CYP3A4 probe substrates demonstrate some degree of similarity, examination of the coefficients of determination, together with difference and cluster analysis highlighted that seven substrates can be categorized into two distinct substrate groups. Erythromycin, cyclosporin and testosterone form the most closely related group and dextromethorphan, diazepam, midazolam and triazolam form a second group. Terfenadine can be equally well placed in either group, while nifedipine shows a distinctly different relationship. Benzyloxyresorufin shows the weakest correlation with all the other CYP3A4 probes. Modifiers that caused negligible inhibition or potent inhibition are generally comparable in all assays, however, the greatest variability is apparent with compounds causing, on average, intermediate inhibition. Modifiers of this type may cause substantial inhibition, no effect or even activation depending on the substrate employed. Conclusions It is recommended that multiple CYP3A4 probes, representing each substrate group, are used for the in vitro assessment of CYP3A4‐mediated drug interactions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Comparative metabolic capabilities of CYP3A4, CYP3A5, and CYP3A7
Williams, J. A., Ring, B. J., Cantrell, V. E., Jones, D. R., Eckstein, J., Ruterbories, K., Hamman, M. A., Hall, S. D., & Wrighton, S. A. (2002) · Drug Metabolism and Disposition · doi:10.1124/dmd.30.8.883 · Cited by 471
Metadata
- Authors
- Kenworthy, Bloomer, Clarke, & Houston
- Venue
- British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-11
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 716-727
- ISSN
- 0306-5251 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2125
- OpenAlex
- W1508691659
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.