Back

Comparing in silico and in vitro methods for classification of BCS II and CYP3A4 and MDR-1 substrate specificity

Fagerholm, U.

2022-12-14 pharmacology and toxicology
10.1101/2022.12.13.520246 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPrevious work has shown considerable laboratory variability of Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) classification, efflux ratio in intestinal cell lines and cytochrome P450 (CYP450)-metabolism pathways. Such variability and inconsistency create uncertainty in predictions of human clinical pharmacokinetics and the pharmacokinetic optimization process and is a problem when developing corresponding in silico methods. Objectives and MethodologyOne objective of the study was to quantify the degree of laboratory inconsistency for BCS II-classing, MDR-1 and CYP3A4 substrate specificity (substrate/non-substrate). Another objective was to predict BCS II-classing, MDR-1 and CYP3A4 substrate specificity using in silico methodology and compare results to laboratory data/classifications. Results and Discussion27 BCS II-classified drugs (with non-contradictory BCS-classing in various sources) were found. 17 (63 %) had an in vivo fraction absorbed (fa) of [≥]90 % and belong to in vivo BCS I. With in silico methodology, 74 % correct BCS-classing was reached for the same set of compounds. The mean prediction error for fa was 1.2-fold. MDR-1 and CYP3A4 substrate specificities were collected for 346 and 808 compounds, respectively. For MDR-1, 143 of the compounds had reported data in at least two studies, and out of these, 49 (34 %) and 18 (13 %) had contradictory (reported as both substate and non-substrate) and uncertain substrate specificities, respectively. For CYP3A4, 42 (9.8 %) out of 427 compounds showed inconsistency between laboratories. With in silico methodology, MDR-1 and CYP3A4 classification predictions were incorrect for 13 and 15 % of compounds. ConclusionThe results show considerable variability/inconsistency for BCS II-classing (63 % inconsistency between BCS II-classing and in vivo fa) and MDR-1 (34 % inconsistency between sources) and CYP3A4 (10 % inconsistency between sources) substrate specificities. Corresponding estimates obtained with in silico methodology are 22, 13 and 15 %, respectively, demonstrating the power and applicability of such technology.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.