ArticlePharmaceutical research2024
Comparison of Relative Activity versus Relative Expression Factors (RAF versus REF) in Predicting Glucuronidation Mediated Drug Clearance Using Recombinant UGTs.
Article in Pharmaceutical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of Relative Activity Factors to Determine Fraction Glucuronidation and Clearance of Icenticaftor in Humans.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePredicting the quantitative fraction of glucuronidation (f
methodsREF scalars were derived from a previous in-house proteomics study for eleven UGT enzymes (UGT1A1, UGT1A3, UGT1A4, UGT1A6, UGT1A9, UGT1A10, UGT2B4, UGT2B7, UGT2B10, UGT2B15, and UGT2B17), whereas RAF was calculated by measuring activities in rUGTs to microsomes of selective UGT probe substrates. Protein-normalized activity factor (pnAF) values were generated after correcting activity of individual UGTs to their corresponding protein abundance. The utility of REF and RAF in predicting f
resultsThe REF values ranged from 0.02 to 1.75, RAF based on activity obtained in rUGTs to HLM/HIM were from 0.1 to 274. pnAF values were ~ 5 to 80-fold, except for UGT2B4 and UGT2B15, where pnAF was ~ 180 and > 1000, respectively. The results revealed confounding effect of differential specific activities (per pmol) of rUGTs in f
conclusionThe data suggest that the activity of UGT enzymes was significantly lower when compared to their activity in microsomes at the same absolute protein amount (pmol). Collectively, results of this study demonstrate poor and variable specific activity of different rUGTs (per pmol protein), as determined by pnAF values, which should be considered in f
Indexed as
Identifiers
39107514What 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.