Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32759367›Full record

ArticleDrug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals2020

Seeking Nonspecific Binding: Assessing the Reliability of Tissue Dilutions for Calculating Fraction Unbound.

William J Jusko, Emilie A G Molins, Vivaswath S Ayyar

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Process and System Clearances in Pharmacokinetic Models: Our Basic Clearance Concepts Are Correct.Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals · 2023
    Review
  5. Absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of [Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  6. Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

William J JuskoDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo New York wjjusko@buffalo.edu.
Emilie A G MolinsDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo New York.
Vivaswath S AyyarDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo New York.
University at Buffalo, State University of New York · US

Funding

Mechanistic Pharmacokinetics and PharmacodynamicsR35GM131800 · NIGMS · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI JUSKO, WILLIAM J. · 2019 to 2023
$2.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM131800
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has become commonplace (270+ article citations to date) to measure the fraction unbound (FrUn) of drugs in tissue homogenates and diluted plasma and then use a Correction Factor Equation (CFE) to extrapolate to the undiluted state. The CFE is based on assumptions of nonspecific binding with experimental use of very low drug concentrations. There are several possible determinants of apparent nonspecific binding as measured by methods such as equilibrium dialysis: true macromolecule binding and lipid partitioning along with receptor, enzyme, and transporter interactions. Theoretical calculations based on nonlinear protein binding indicate that the CFE will be most reliable to obtain FrUn when added drug concentration is small, binding constants are weak, protein concentrations are relatively high, and tissue dilution is minimal. When lipid partitioning is the sole factor determining apparent tissue binding, the CFE should be perfectly accurate. Use of very low drug concentrations, however, makes it more likely that specific binding to receptors and other targets may occur, and thus FrUn may reflect some binding to such components. Inclusion of trapped blood can clearly cause minor to marked discrepancies from purely tissue binding alone, which can be corrected. Furthermore, assessment of the occurrence of ionization/pH shifts, drug instability, and tissue metabolism may be necessary. Caution is needed in the use and interpretation of results from tissue dilution studies and other assessments of nonspecific binding, particularly for very strongly bound drugs with very small FrUn values and in tissues with metabolic enzymes, receptors, and trapped blood. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The use of tissue, plasma, and cell preparations to help obtain fraction unbound and tissue-to-plasma partition coefficients in pharmacokinetics has grown commonplace, especially for brain. This report examines theoretical, physiological, and experimental issues that need consideration before trusting such measurements and calculations.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimalsDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalFemaleLiverMaleRatsReproducibility of ResultsTissue Distribution

Identifiers

PMID32759367
PMCPMC7497620
OpenAlexW3047170485

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.