The DOI matches its Crossref record; 126 of the 126 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Classification Analysis of P-Glycoprotein Substrate Specificity
Abstract
Prediction of P-glycoprotein substrate specificity (S(PGP)) can be viewed as a constituent part of a compound's "pharmaceutical profiling" in drug design. This task is difficult to achieve due to several factors that raised many contradictory opinions: (i) the disparity between the S(PGP) values obtained in different assays, (ii) the confusion between Pgp substrates and inhibitors, (iii) the confusion between lipophilicity and amphiphilicity of Pgp substrates, and (iv) the dilemma of describing class-specific relationships when Pgp has no binding sites of high ligand specificity. In this work, we compiled S(PGP) data for 1000 compounds. All data were represented in a binary format, assigning S(PGP) = 1 for substrates and S(PGP) = 0 for non-substrates. Each value was ranked according to the reliability of experimental assay. Two data sets were considered. Set 1 included 220 compounds with S(PGP) from polarized transport across MDR1 transfected cell monolayers. Set 2 included the entire list of 1000 compounds, with S(PGP) values of generally lower reliability. Both sets were analysed using a stepwise classification structure-activity relationship (C-SAR) method, leading to derivation of simple rules for crude estimation of S(PGP) values. The obtained rules are based on the following factors: (i) compound's size expressed through molar weight or volume, (ii) H-accepting given by the Abraham's beta (that can be crudely approximated by the sum of O and N atoms), and (iii) ionization given by the acid and base pKa values. Very roughly, S(PGP) can be estimated by the "rule of fours". Compounds with (N + O) > or = 8, MW > 400 and acid pKa > 4 are likely to be Pgp substrates, whereas compounds with (N + O) < or = 4, MW < 400 and base pKa < 8 are likely to be non-substrates. The obtained results support the view that Pgp functioning can be compared to a complex "mini-pharmacokinetic" system with fuzzy specificity. This system can be described by a probabilistic version of Abraham's solvation equation, suggesting a certain similarity between Pgp transport and chromatographic retention. The chromatographic model does not work in the case of "marginal" compounds with properties close to the "global" physicochemical cut-offs. In the latter case various class-specific rules must be considered. These can be associated with the "amphiphilicity" and "biological similarity" of compounds. The definition of class-specific effects entails construction of the knowledge base that can be very useful in ADME profiling of new drugs.
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
Cites
Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates
Veber, D. F., Johnson, S. R., Cheng, H.-Y., Smith, B. R., Ward, K. W., & Kopple, K. D. (2002) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm020017n · Cited by 8,420
Multidrug resistance in cancer: role of ATP–dependent transporters
Gottesman, M. M., Fojo, T., & Bates, S. E. (2002) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc706 · Cited by 5,536
Ertl, P., Rohde, B., & Selzer, P. (2000) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm000942e · Cited by 3,084
Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry
Horn, A., & Lanig, H. (1999) · Journal of Molecular Modeling · doi:10.1007/s0089490050141 · Cited by 2,511
Schinkel, A. H., Smit, J. J. M., van Tellingen, O., Beijnen, J. H., Wagenaar, E., van Deemter, L., Mol, C. A. A. M., van der Valk, M. A., Robanus-Maandag, E. C., te Riele, H. P. J., et al. (1994) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(94)90212-7 · Cited by 2,281
BIOCHEMICAL, CELLULAR, AND PHARMACOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE MULTIDRUG TRANSPORTER
Ambudkar, S. V., Dey, S., Hrycyna, C. A., Ramachandra, M., Pastan, I., & Gottesman, M. M. (1999) · Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology · doi:10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.39.1.361 · Cited by 2,059
Abraham, M. H. (1993) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/cs9932200073 · Cited by 1,968
ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise?
van de Waterbeemd, H., & Gifford, E. (2003) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd1032 · Cited by 1,863
Mammalian drug efflux transporters of the ATP binding cassette (ABC) family: an overview
Schinkel, A. H., & Jonker, J. W. (2003) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0169-409x(02)00169-2 · Cited by 1,386
Schinkel, A. H., Wagenaar, E., Mol, C. A., & van Deemter, L. (1996) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci118699 · Cited by 1,264
Cited by
Li, W., Zhang, H., Assaraf, Y. G., Zhao, K., Xu, X., Xie, J., Yang, D.-H., & Chen, Z.-S. (2016) · Drug Resistance Updates · doi:10.1016/j.drup.2016.05.001 · Cited by 673
The significance of acid/base properties in drug discovery
Manallack, D. T., Prankerd, R. J., Yuriev, E., Oprea, T. I., & Chalmers, D. K. (2013) · Chem. Soc. Rev. · doi:10.1039/c2cs35348b · Cited by 329
Blood–brain barrier P-glycoprotein function in Alzheimer's disease
van Assema, D. M. E., Lubberink, M., Bauer, M., van der Flier, W. M., Schuit, R. C., Windhorst, A. D., Comans, E. F. I., Hoetjes, N. J., Tolboom, N., Langer, O., et al. (2012) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awr298 · Cited by 318
Pluronics and MDR reversal: an update
Alakhova, D. Y., & Kabanov, A. V. (2014) · Molecular Pharmaceutics · doi:10.1021/mp500298q · Cited by 224
Abbott, N. J. (2004) · Drug Discovery Today: Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.ddtec.2004.11.014 · Cited by 181
Metadata
- Authors
- Didziapetris, R., Japertas, P., Avdeef, A., & Petrauskas, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Drug Targeting
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-08
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 391-406
- ISSN
- 1026-7158 (ISSN-L)
- 1061-186X
- 1029-2330
- OpenAlex
- W1976867680
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 126
- FWCI
- 2.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Classification Analysis of P-Glycoprotein Substrate Specificity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10611860310001648248
- The paper
- Didziapetris, R., Japertas, P., Avdeef, A., & Petrauskas, A. (2003). Classification Analysis of P-Glycoprotein Substrate Specificity. Journal of Drug Targeting. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611860310001648248
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.