Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Häufige urologisch-sexualmedizinische Themen in der Praxis sind das Thema des MMW-Webinars am 5. Juni von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. Konkret geht es um die Frage, wann bei Harnwegsinfektionen auf Antibiotika verzichtet werden kann, und um ein Update zur Therapie von Libido- und Potenzstörungen des Mannes. Der dritte Vortrag behandelt sexuell übertragbare Krankheiten. Stellen Sie Ihre Fragen an die Experten und sammeln Sie 2 CME-Punkte. Jetzt gleich anmelden!
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics
Erschienen in: European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics 4/2023

02.06.2023 | Original Research Article

Development of a 2D-QSAR Model for Tissue-to-Plasma Partition Coefficient Value with High Accuracy Using Machine Learning Method, Minimum Required Experimental Values, and Physicochemical Descriptors

verfasst von: Koichi Handa, Seishiro Sakamoto, Michiharu Kageyama, Takeshi Iijima

Erschienen in: European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics | Ausgabe 4/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

The demand for physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model is increasing currently. New drug application (NDA) of many compounds is submitted with PBPK models for efficient drug development. Tissue-to-plasma partition coefficient (Kp) is a key parameter for the PBPK model to describe differential equations. However, it is difficult to obtain the Kp value experimentally because the measurement of drug concentration in the tissue is much harder than that in plasma.

Objective

Instead of experiments, many researchers have sought in silico methods. Today, most of the models for Kp prediction are using in vitro and in vivo parameters as explanatory variables. We thought of physicochemical descriptors that could improve the predictability. Therefore, we aimed to develop the two-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship (2D-QSAR) model for Kp using physicochemical descriptors instead of in vivo experimental data as explanatory variables.

Methods

We compared our model with the conventional models using 20-fold cross-validation according to the published method (Yun et al. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 41:1–14, 2014). We used random forest algorithm, which is known to be one of the best predictors for the 2D-QSAR model. Finally, we combined minimum in vitro experimental values and physiochemical descriptors. Thus, the prediction method for Kp value using a few in vitro parameters and physicochemical descriptors was developed; this is a multimodal model.

Results

Its accuracy was found to be superior to that of the conventional models. Results of this research suggest that multimodality is useful for the 2D-QSAR model [RMSE and % of two-fold error: 0.66 and 42.2% (Berezohkovsky), 0.52 and 52.2% (Rodgers), 0.65 and 34.6% (Schmitt), 0.44 and 61.1% (published model), 0.41 and 62.1% (traditional model), 0.39 and 64.5% (multimodal model)].

Conclusion

We could develop a 2D-QSAR model for Kp value with the highest accuracy using a few in vitro experimental data and physicochemical descriptors.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
PMDA. Guidelines for Non-Clinical Pharmacokinetic Studies. No 469. 1998.
2.
3.
US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Analyses—Format and Content Guidance for Industry. 2019.
4.
5.
Shebley M, Sandhu P, Emami Riedmaier A, Jamei M, Narayanan R, Patel A, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model qualification and reporting procedures for regulatory submissions: a consortium perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;104(1):88–110.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Perry C, Davis G, Conner TM, Zhang T. Utilization of physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics: an overview. Curr Pharmacol reports. 2020;6(3):71–84.CrossRef
7.
Jones H, Rowland-Yeo K. Basic concepts in physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling in drug discovery and development. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2013;2(8): e63.CrossRef
8.
9.
Poulin P, Theil FP. A priori prediction of tissue:plasma partition coefficients of drugs to facilitate the use of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models in drug discovery. J Pharm Sci. 2000;89(1):16–35.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Poulin P, Schoenlein K, Theil FP. Prediction of adipose tissue: plasma partition coefficients for structurally unrelated drugs. J Pharm Sci. 2001;90(4):436–47.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Poulin P, Krishnan K. A biologically-based algorithm for predicting human tissue: blood partition coefficients of organic chemicals. Hum Exp Toxicol. 1995;14(3):273–80.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Berezhkovskiy LM. Volume of distribution at steady state for a linear pharmacokinetic system with peripheral elimination. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93(6):1628–40.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Rodgers T, Rowland M. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling 2: predicting the tissue distribution of acids, very weak bases, neutrals and zwitterions. J Pharm Sci. 2006;95(6):1238–57.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Schmitt W. General approach for the calculation of tissue to plasma partition coefficients. Toxicol In Vitro. 2008;22(2):457–67.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Björkman S. Reduction and lumping of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models: prediction of the disposition of fentanyl and pethidine in humans by successively simplified models. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2003;30(4):285–307.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Lusher SJ, McGuire R, van Schaik RC, Nicholson CD, de Vlieg J. Data-driven medicinal chemistry in the era of big data. Drug Discov Today. 2014;19(7):859–68.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Yun YE, Cotton CA, Edginton AN. Development of a decision tree to classify the most accurate tissue-specific tissue to plasma partition coefficient algorithm for a given compound. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2014;41(1):1–14.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Russell WMS, Burch RL. The principles of humane experimental technique. Wheathampstead: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare; 1959.
19.
20.
Srivastava N, Salakhutdinov RR. Multimodal learning with deep Boltzmann machines. J Mach Learn Res. 2014;15:2949–80.
21.
Hofmann-Apitius M, Ball G, Gebel S, Bagewadi S, de Bono B, Schneider R, et al. Bioinformatics mining and modeling methods for the identification of disease mechanisms in neurodegenerative disorders. Int J Mol Sci. 2015;16(12):29179–206.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
23.
Wajima T, Fukumura K, Yano Y, Oguma T. Prediction of human clearance from animal data and molecular structural parameters using multivariate regression analysis. J Pharm Sci. 2002;91(12):2489–99.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Iwata H, Matsuo T, Mamada H, Motomura T, Matsushita M, Fujiwara T, et al. Prediction of total drug clearance in humans using animal data: proposal of a multimodal learning method based on deep learning. J Pharm Sci. 2021;110(4):1834–41.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Schneckener S, Grimbs S, Hey J, Menz S, Osmers M, Schaper S, Hillisch A, Göller AH. Prediction of oral bioavailability in rats: transferring insights from in vitro correlations to (Deep) machine learning models using in silico model outputs and chemical structure parameters. J Chem Inf Model. 2019;59(11):4893–905.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Kosugi Y, Hosea N. Prediction of oral pharmacokinetics using a combination of in silico descriptors and in vitro ADME properties. Mol Pharm. 2021;18(3):1071–9.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Obrezanova O, Martinsson A, Whitehead T, Mahmoud S, Bender A, Miljković F, Grabowski P, Irwin B, Oprisiu I, Conduit G, Segall M, Smith GF, Williamson B, Winiwarter S, Greene N. Prediction of in vivo pharmacokinetic parameters and time-exposure curves in rats using machine learning from the chemical structure. Mol Pharm. 2022;19(5):1488–504.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Iwata H, Matsuo T, Mamada H, Motomura T, Matsushita M, Fujiwara T, Maeda K, Handa K. Predicting total drug clearance and volumes of distribution using the machine learning-mediated multimodal method through the imputation of various nonclinical data. J Chem Inf Model. 2022;62(17):4057–65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
30.
31.
32.
Clark RD, Morris DN, Chinigo G, Lawless MS, Prudhomme J, et al. Design and tests of prospective property predictions for novel antimalarial 2-aminopropylaminoquinolones. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2020;34(11):1117–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
34.
Daga PR, Bolger MB, Haworth IS, Clark RD, Martin EJ. Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling in Lead Optimization. 2. Rational Bioavailability Design by Global Sensitivity Analysis To Identify Properties Affecting Bioavailability. Mol Pharm. 2018;15(3):831–39.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Eertink JJ, Heymans MW, Zwezerijnen GJC, Zijlstra JM, de Vet HCW, Boellaard R. External validation: a simulation study to compare cross-validation versus holdout or external testing to assess the performance of clinical prediction models using PET data from DLBCL patients. EJNMMI Res. 2022;12(1):58.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Isbell J, Yuan D, Torrao L, Gatlik E, Hoffmann L, Wipfli P. Plasma protein binding of highly bound drugs determined with equilibrium gel filtration of nonradiolabeled compounds and LC-MS/MS detection. J Pharm Sci. 2019;108(2):1053–60.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Chen C, Zhou H, Guan C, Zhang H, Li Y, Jiang X, Dong Z, Tao Y, Du J, Wang S, Zhang T, Du N, Guo J, Wu Y, Song Z, Luan H, Wang Y, Du H, Zhang S, Li C, Chang H, Wang T. Applicability of free drug hypothesis to drugs with good membrane permeability that are not efflux transporter substrates: a microdialysis study in rats. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2020;8(2): e00575.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
42.
43.
Riccardi K, Cawley S, Yates PD, Chang C, Funk C, Niosi M, Lin J, Di L. Plasma protein binding of challenging compounds. J Pharm Sci. 2015;104(8):2627–36.PubMedCrossRef
44.
45.
46.
47.
César-Razquin A, Snijder B, Frappier-Brinton T, Isserlin R, Gyimesi G, Bai X, et al. A call for systematic research on solute carriers. Cell. 2015;162(3):478–87.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Mikkaichi T, Nakai D, Yoshigae Y, Imaoka T, Okudaira N, Izumi T. Liver-selective distribution in rats supports the importance of active uptake into the liver via organic anion transporting polypeptides (OATPs) in humans. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2015;30(5):334–40.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Kawai R, Lemaire M, Steimer JL, Bruelisauer A, Niederberger W, Rowland M. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic study on a cyclosporin derivative, SDZ IMM 125. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1994;22(5):327–65.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Orozco CC, Atkinson K, Ryu S, Chang G, Keefer C, Lin J, et al. Structural attributes influencing unbound tissue distribution. Eur J Med Chem. 2020;185: 111813.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Tiwari R, Jaimini M, Mohan S, Sharma S. Transdermal drug delivery system: a review. Int J Ther Appl. 2013;14:22–8.
52.
Baba H, Ueno Y, Hashida M, Yamashita F. Quantitative prediction of ionization effect on human skin permeability. Int J Pharm. 2017;522(1–2):222–33.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Baba H, Takahara J, Mamitsuka H. In silico predictions of human skin permeability using nonlinear quantitative structure-property relationship models. Pharm Res. 2015;32(7):2360–71.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Baba H, Takahara J, Yamashita F, Hashida M. Modeling and prediction of solvent effect on human skin permeability using support vector regression and random forest. Pharm Res. 2015;32(11):3604–17.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Sahigara F, Mansouri K, Ballabio D, Mauri A, Consonni V, Todeschini R. Comparison of different approaches to define the applicability domain of QSAR models. Molecules. 2012;17(5):4791–810.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Development of a 2D-QSAR Model for Tissue-to-Plasma Partition Coefficient Value with High Accuracy Using Machine Learning Method, Minimum Required Experimental Values, and Physicochemical Descriptors
verfasst von
Koichi Handa
Seishiro Sakamoto
Michiharu Kageyama
Takeshi Iijima
Publikationsdatum
02.06.2023
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics / Ausgabe 4/2023
Print ISSN: 0378-7966
Elektronische ISSN: 2107-0180
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13318-023-00832-w

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2023

European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics 4/2023 Zur Ausgabe

Original Research Article

Monitoring Salivary Concentrations of Tedizolid and Linezolid Using Rats

Original Research Article

Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Commercially Available Cannabidiol Isolate, Broad-Spectrum, and Full-Spectrum Products

Original Research Article

Pharmacokinetics and Drug–Drug Interaction of Ocedurenone (KBP-5074) in vitro and in vivo

Original Research Article

Pharmacokinetic Study of 14C-Radiolabeled p-Boronophenylalanine (BPA) in Sorbitol Solution and the Treatment Outcome of BPA-Based Boron Neutron Capture Therapy on a Tumor-Bearing Mouse Model

Original Research Article

Management of Drug Interactions with Inducers: Onset and Disappearance of Induction on Cytochrome P450 3A4 and Uridine Diphosphate Glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 Substrates

Research Letter

In Vitro Assessment of the Metabolic Stability of Two Novel Endomorphin-2 Analogs, CYX-5 and CYX-6, in Rat Liver Microsomes