ArticleFrontiers in chemistry2019
Quantitation of a Novel Engineered Anti-infective Host Defense Peptide, ARV-1502: Pharmacokinetic Study of Different Doses in Rats and Dogs.
Article in Frontiers in chemistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-yield, plant-based production of an antimicrobial peptide with potent activity in a mouse model.Plant biotechnology journal · 2024Article
- In Vitro Properties and Pharmacokinetics of Temporarily PEGylated Onc72 Prodrugs.Advanced healthcare materials · 2023Article
- Evaluation of proline-rich antimicrobial peptides as potential lead structures for novel antimycotics againstFrontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- The Use of Peptides in Veterinary Serodiagnosis of Infectious Diseases: A Review.Veterinary sciences · 2022Review
- Functional Effects of ARV-1502 Analogs Against Bacterial Hsp70 and Implications for Antimicrobial Activity.Frontiers in chemistry · 2022Article
- Strategies in Translating the Therapeutic Potentials of Host Defense Peptides.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The designer proline-rich antimicrobial peptide (PrAMP) Chex1-Arg20 amide (ARV-1502) is active against Gram-negative and Gram-positive pathogens in different murine infection models when administered parenterally and possesses a wide therapeutic index. Here we studied the pharmacokinetics of ARV-1502 for the first time when administered intramuscularly or intravenously (IV) in Sprague Dawley rats and Beagle dogs. First, a specific and robust quantitation method relying on parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) using a high-resolution hybrid quadrupole-Orbitrap mass spectrometer coupled on-line to reversed-phase uHPLC was established and validated. The limit of detection was 2 ng/mL and the limit of quantitation was 4 ng/mL when spiked to pooled rat and dog plasma. When ARV-1502 was administered IV at doses of 75 and 250 μg/kg in dogs and rats, the plasma concentrations were 0.7 and 3.4 μg/mL 2 min post-administration, respectively. ARV-1502 plasma concentrations declined exponentially reaching levels between 2 and 4 ng/mL after 2 h. Intramuscular administration of 0.75 mg/kg in dogs and 2.5 mg/kg in rats resulted in a different pharmacokinetics profile. The plasma concentrations peaked at 15 min post-injection at 1 μg/mL (dogs) and 12 μg/mL (rats) and decreased exponentially within 3 h to 4 and 16 ng/mL, respectively. The initial plasma concentrations of ARV-1502 and the decay timing afterwards indicated that the peptide circulated in the blood stream for several hours, at some point above the minimal inhibitory concentration against multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, with blood concentrations sufficient to suppress bacterial growth and to modulate the immune system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.