Methoxyresorufin: an inappropriate substrate for cyp1a2 in the mouse
Hepatic microsomes derived from Cyp1 a2(−/−) knockout (KO) and parental strains of mice, C57BL/6N and 129Sv, were used to examine the specificity of methoxyresorufin and acetanilide as substrates for CYP1A2 activity. In addition, animals from each group were exposed to CYP1-inducing compounds. As ex...
Saved in:
Published in | Biochemical pharmacology Vol. 56; no. 12; pp. 1657 - 1660 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
New York, NY
Elsevier Inc
15.12.1998
Elsevier Science |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 0006-2952 1873-2968 |
DOI | 10.1016/S0006-2952(98)00241-X |
Cover
Summary: | Hepatic microsomes derived from
Cyp1
a2(−/−) knockout (KO) and parental strains of mice, C57BL/6N and 129Sv, were used to examine the specificity of methoxyresorufin and acetanilide as substrates for CYP1A2 activity. In addition, animals from each group were exposed to CYP1-inducing compounds. As expected, microsomes from untreated 1
a2 KO mice did not have immunodetectable CYP1A2 protein; however, methoxyresorufin-
O-demethylase (MROD, 25.5 ± 6.1 pmol/min/mg protein) and acetanilide-4-hydroxylation (ACOH, 0.64 ± 0.04 nmol/min/mg protein) activities were still present. Furthermore, induction of ethoxyresorufin-
O-deethylase (EROD) by 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (TCDD) in 1
a2 KO mice was accompanied by a greater than 70-fold increase in MROD activity. In contrast, ACOH was only induced 2-fold by TCDD. As with 1
a2 KO mice, the parental strains exposed to TCDD or 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (4-PeCDF) showed substantial EROD and MROD induction, whereas ACOH activity was induced to a lesser degree. PCB153 (2,2′,4,4′,5,5′-hexachlorobiphenyl) resulted in low levels of both EROD and MROD induction. Results indicate that both substrates are subject to metabolism by non-CYP1A2 sources, and the apparent contribution of CYP1A1 activity to methoxyresorufin metabolism makes MROD unsuitable for differentiating CYP1A1 and CYP1A2 activities in the mouse. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0006-2952 1873-2968 |
DOI: | 10.1016/S0006-2952(98)00241-X |