Cited by 26Poisoning and overdose treatmentsVeterinary Medicine and SurgeryAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects

Inhibition of canine and feline alcohol dehydrogenase activity by fomepizole

Open access
Connally, Heather E., Hamar, Dwayne W., Thrall, Mary Anna·2000·American Journal of Veterinary Research

Abstract

Objective—To determine and compare substrate specificity and kinetic rate constants of feline and canine alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) with ethanol (EtOH) and ethylene glycol (EG) as substrates in vitro, with and without fomepizole. Sample Population—Livers from 3 dogs and 3 cats. Procedure—Canine and feline ADH activity, in cytosolic fractions of homogenized liver, was determined by use of various concentrations of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), EtOH, or EG as substrates. Initial reaction velocities were calculated, and kinetic inhibition rate constants (K i) for fomepizole were determined. Results—Substrate specificity of canine and feline ADH for EtOH or EG was not significantly different. A 2-fold difference was detected in the maximal velocity of canine, compared with feline, ADH, using either substrate. Fomepizole K i in feline hepatic homogenates was significantly greater than K i in canine hepatic homogenates when either EtOH or EG was used as substrate (10- and 30-fold, respectively). A 6-fold increase in the concentration of fomepizole was required to achieve ADH inhibition, with feline homogenates equivalent to those of canine homogenates. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Feline ADH has lower enzymatic capacity for turnover or is less concentrated in liver than canine ADH with regard to EtOH and EG catalysis. Canine ADH was more effectively inhibited by fomepizole than feline ADH. Results suggest that higher dosages of fomepizole may be more effective to treat cats with EG intoxication than dosages reported to treat dogs. (Am J Vet Res 2000;61:450–455)

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2460/ajvr.2000.61.450

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 42 · Cited by 26

Authors
Connally, H. E., Hamar, D. W., & Thrall, M. A.
Affiliations
Colorado State University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Veterinary Research
Published
2000-04-01
Volume
61
Issue
4
Pages
450-455
ISSN
0002-9645 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2021969535
Cited by
26
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Veterinary Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Poisoning and overdose treatments
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Medicine and Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Keywords
fomepizole, alcohol dehydrogenase, ethylene glycol poisoning, ethanol, substrate specificity, enzyme kinetics, inhibition constant, canine liver, comparative pharmacology
MeSH terms
Fomepizole, Alcohol Dehydrogenase, Animals, Antidotes, Cats, Dogs, Kinetics, Liver, Pyrazoles, Substrate Specificity

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