The Influence of Nonspecific Microsomal Binding on Apparent Intrinsic Clearance, and Its Prediction from Physicochemical Properties
Abstract
The apparent intrinsic clearance of 13 drugs has been determined using rat liver microsomes at three different concentrations of microsomal protein. The kinetics was studied using the in vitro half-life method. The nonspecific binding of these drugs to the microsomes was also studied under the same conditions, except for cofactor removal, using equilibrium dialysis. The intrinsic clearances are shown to be dependent on the microsomal concentration, but are approximately constant when corrected for the extent of nonspecific binding to the microsomes. The large difference between observed intrinsic clearance and unbound intrinsic clearance that exists for some compounds, particularly lipophilic bases, is highlighted. A simple model has been developed for understanding the binding of compounds to microsomes and is demonstrated to accurately predict the extent of microsomal binding at one concentration of microsomes from measurement at another. The binding of a further 25 drugs to rat liver microsomes at a microsomal concentration of 1 mg/ml was also studied, along with measurements of lipophilicity using octanol-water partition coefficients. It is shown that the extent of microsomal binding is correlated with lipophilicity, but that basic compounds show a different behavior to acidic and neutral compounds. Microsomal binding is shown to be best predicted using a model where log P is used for basic compounds, and log D(7.4) is used for acidic and neutral compounds. This model has been developed further so that the extent of binding to microsomes of any given concentration can be estimated purely from a knowledge of lipophilicity and ionization.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Austin et al. found that CLint was dependent on microsomal concentration, but this relationship can be ignored when fu,mic is considered.
“Their results showed that the CLint was dependent on microsomal concentration. However, this relationship can be ignored when fu,mic is considered.”
From Interpretation of Non-Clinical Data for Prediction of Human Pharmacokinetic Parameters: In Vitro-In Vivo Extrapolation and Allometric Scaling (2019) · cites this paper as [63]
Austin et al. found that fu,mic was correlated with lipophilicity and formulated an equation for calculation of fu,mic based on physicochemical properties of drugs.
“The authors also found that fu,mic was correlated with lipophilicity. Based on these results, the authors formulated an equation for the calculation of fu,mic based on the physicochemical properties of drugs.”
From Interpretation of Non-Clinical Data for Prediction of Human Pharmacokinetic Parameters: In Vitro-In Vivo Extrapolation and Allometric Scaling (2019) · cites this paper as [63]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetics in Drug Development and Regulatory Science
Rowland, M., Peck, C., & Tucker, G. (2011) · Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology · doi:10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010510-100540 · Cited by 662 · see citing works
A Novel Strategy for Physiologically Based Predictions of Human Pharmacokinetics
Jones, H. M., Parrott, N., Jorga, K., & Lav??, T. (2006) · Clinical Pharmacokinetics · doi:10.2165/00003088-200645050-00006 · Cited by 352 · see citing works
De Buck, S. S., Sinha, V. K., Fenu, L. A., Nijsen, M. J., Mackie, C. E., & Gilissen, R. A. H. J. (2007) · Drug Metabolism and Disposition · doi:10.1124/dmd.107.015644 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Guidance Document on Good In Vitro Method Practices (GIVIMP)
OECD (2018) · OECD Series on Testing and Assessment · doi:10.1787/9789264304796-en · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Weaver, R., Graham, K. S., Beattie, I. G., & Riley, R. J. (2003) · Drug Metabolism and Disposition · doi:10.1124/dmd.31.7.955 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Self-citationChoi, G.-W., Lee, Y.-B., & Cho, H.-Y. (2019) · Pharmaceutics · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics11040168 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Margolskee, A., Darwich, A. S., Pepin, X., Aarons, L., Galetin, A., Rostami-Hodjegan, A., Carlert, S., Hammarberg, M., Hilgendorf, C., Johansson, P., et al. (2017) · European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ejps.2016.10.036 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Sayama, H., Komura, H., Kogayu, M., & Iwaki, M. (2013) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · doi:10.1002/jps.23726 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Austin, R. P., Barton, P., Cockroft, S. L., Wenlock, M. C., & Riley, R. J.
- Affiliations
- AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Venue
- Drug Metabolism and Disposition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1497-1503
- ISSN
- 0090-9556 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2137442330
- Cited by
- 413
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 6.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Drug Metabolism and Disposition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Drug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Interaction Studies and Fluorescence Analysis
- Keywords
- intrinsic clearance, rat liver microsomes, drug binding prediction, lipophilicity, octanol-water partition coefficient, ionization, physicochemical properties, binding model, drug metabolism
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Chemistry, Physical, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Male, Metabolic Clearance Rate, Microsomes, Liver, Models, Chemical, Predictive Value of Tests, Protein Binding, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Rats, Chemical Phenomena
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