Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31348666›Full record

ArticleMolecular pharmaceutics2019

Distribution of Small Molecular Weight Drugs into the Porcine Lens: Studies on Imaging Mass Spectrometry, Partition Coefficients, and Implications in Ocular Pharmacokinetics.

Emma M Heikkinen, Seppo Auriola, Veli-Pekka Ranta, Nicholas J Demarais, Angus C Grey, Eva M Del Amo, Elisa Toropainen, Kati-Sisko Vellonen, Arto Urtti, Marika Ruponen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular pharmaceutics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pharmacokinetic model for drug delivery by Ozurdex.Drug delivery and translational research · 2026
    Article
  2. Mathematical Models of Ocular Drug Delivery.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Seppo Auriola
Veli-Pekka Ranta
Nicholas J DemaraisSchool of Biological Sciences , University of Auckland , Private Bag 92019 , Auckland 1142 , New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-0666-9405
Angus C GreyUniversity of Auckland , School of Medical Sciences, Department of Physiology , Private Bag 92019 , Auckland 1142 , New Zealand.
Eva M Del AmoSchool of Health Sciences, Division of Pharmacy & Optometry , University of Manchester , Oxford Road , Manchester M13 9PL , U.K.
Elisa Toropainen
Kati-Sisko Vellonen
Arto UrttiFaculty of Pharmacy, Division of Pharmaceutical Biosciences , University of Helsinki , Viikinkaari, Helsinki 00014 , Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-6064-3102
Marika Ruponen
University of Eastern Finland · FIUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lens is the avascular tissue in the eye between the aqueous humor and vitreous. Drug binding to the lens might affect ocular pharmacokinetics, and the binding may also have a pharmacological role in drug-induced cataract and cataract treatment. Drug distribution in the lens has been studied in vitro with many compounds; however, the experimental methods vary, no detailed information on distribution between the lens sublayers exist, and the partition coefficients are reported rarely. Therefore, our objectives were to clarify drug localization in the lens layers and establish partition coefficients for a wide range of molecules. Furthermore, we aimed to illustrate the effect of lenticular drug binding on overall ocular drug pharmacokinetics. We studied the distribution of 16 drugs and three fluorescent dyes in whole porcine lenses in vitro with imaging mass spectrometry and fluorescence microscopy techniques. Furthermore, we determined lens/buffer partition coefficients with the same experimental setup for 28 drugs with mass spectrometry. Finally, the effect of lenticular binding of drugs on aqueous humor drug exposure was explored with pharmacokinetic simulations. After 4 h, the drugs and the dyes distributed only to the outermost lens layers (capsule and cortex). The lens/buffer partition coefficients for the drugs were low, ranging from 0.05 to 0.8. On the basis of the pharmacokinetic simulations, a high lens-aqueous humor partition coefficient increases drug exposure in the lens but does not significantly alter the pharmacokinetics in the aqueous humor. To conclude, the lens seems to act mainly as a physical barrier for drug distribution in the eye, and drug binding to the lens affects mainly the drug pharmacokinetics in the lens.

Indexed as

AnimalsAqueous HumorArea Under CurveBuffersFluorescent DyesLens, CrystallineMicroscopy, FluorescenceMolecular WeightOcular AbsorptionOsmolar ConcentrationPharmaceutical PreparationsSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationSwineTissue DistributionVitreous BodyBuffersFluorescent DyesPharmaceutical Preparationsdrug distributionimaging mass spectrometrylensMALDI-IMSocularpharmacokinetics

Identifiers

PMID31348666
PMCPMC6748671
OpenAlexW2965262648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.