Cited by 1,478Pharmacogenetics and Drug MetabolismDrug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and ProtectionDrug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms

Species differences between mouse, rat, dog, monkey and human CYP-mediated drug metabolism, inhibition and induction

Martignoni, Marcella, Groothuis, Geny M M, de Kanter, Ruben·2006·Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology

Abstract

Animal models are commonly used in the preclinical development of new drugs to predict the metabolic behaviour of new compounds in humans. It is, however, important to realise that humans differ from animals with regards to isoform composition, expression and catalytic activities of drug-metabolising enzymes. In this review the authors describe similarities and differences in this respect among the different species, including man. This may be helpful for drug researchers to choose the most relevant animal species in which the metabolism of a compound can be studied for extrapolating the results to humans. The authors focus on CYPs, which are the main enzymes involved in numerous oxidative reactions and often play a critical role in the metabolism and pharmacokinetics of xenobiotics. In addition, induction and inhibition of CYPs are compared among species. The authors conclude that CYP2E1 shows no large differences between species, and extrapolation between species appears to hold quite well. In contrast, the species-specific isoforms of CYP1A, -2C, -2D and -3A show appreciable interspecies differences in terms of catalytic activity and some caution should be applied when extrapolating metabolism data from animal models to humans.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1517/17425255.2.6.875

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martignoni, M., Groothuis, G. M. M., & de Kanter, R.
Affiliations
  • Nerviano Medical Sciences (IT)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
Venue
Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology
Published
2006-11-24
Volume
2
Issue
6
Pages
875-894
ISSN
  • 1742-5255 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-7607
OpenAlex
W2096565553
Cited by
1,478
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 95 · 2025: 108 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 99 · 2021: 126 · 2020: 122 · 2019: 87 · 2018: 93 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 103 · 2015: 83 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 54 · 2012: 68
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Drug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
Keywords
cytochrome P450, species differences, drug metabolism, cytochrome P450 induction, cytochrome P450 inhibition, animal models, CYP2E1, CYP1A, CYP2C, CYP2D, CYP3A, xenobiotic metabolism, pharmacokinetics
MeSH terms
Animals, Haplorhini, Cytochrome P-450 Enzyme System, Dogs, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Humans, Isoenzymes, Inactivation, Metabolic, Species Specificity, Mice, Rats

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