Enantioselective Metabolism of Flufiprole in Rat and Human Liver

Subscriber access provided by The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Article

Enantioselective Metabolism of Flufiprole in Rat and Human Liver Microsomes Chunmian Lin, Yelong Miao, Mingrong Qian, Qiang Wang, and Hu Zhang J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05853 • Publication Date (Web): 03 Mar 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on March 12, 2016

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 21

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

1

Enantioselective Metabolism of Flufiprole in Rat and

2

Human Liver Microsomes

3

Chunmian Lin , Yelong Miao , Mingrong Qian , Qiang Wang , Hu Zhang

†

†

4 5

†

‡

‡

*,‡

College of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Zhejiang University of Technology,

Hangzhou 310014, China ‡

6

Institute of Quality and Standard for Agricultural Products, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural

7

Sciences, Hangzhou 310021, China

8

ABSTRACT: The enantioselective metabolism of flufiprole in rat and human liver

9

microsomes in vitro was investigated in this study. The separation and determination

10

were performed using a liquid chromatography system equipped with a triple

11

quadrupole mass spectrometer and a Lux Cellulose-2 chiral column. The

12

enantioselective metabolism of rac-flufiprole was dramatically different in rat and

13

human liver microsomes in the presence of β-Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide

14

phosphate regenerating system. The half-life (t1/2) of flufiprole in rat and human liver

15

microsomes were 7.22 and 21.00 min, respectively, for R-(+)-flufiprole, while the

16

value were 11.75 and 17.75 min, respectively, for S-(-)-flufiprole. In addition, the Vmax

17

of R-(+)-flufiprole was about 3-fold of S-(-)-flufiprole in rat liver microsomes, while

18

its value in case of S-(-)-flufiprole was about 2-fold of R-(+)-flufiprole in human liver

19

microsomes. The CLint of rac-flufiprole also showed opposite enantioselectivy in rat

20

and human liver microsomes. The different compositions and contents of

21

metabolizing enzyme in the two liver microsomes might be the reasons for the

22

difference in the metabolic behavior of the two enantiomers.

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


23

KEYWORDS:

24

HPLC-MS/MS

flufiprole,

enantioselective

metabolism,


Page 2 of 21

liver

microsomes,

Page 3 of 21


25

INTRODUCTION

26

Phenylpyrazole insecticides are widely used to protect a variety of crops, including

27

rice, fruits and vegetables, from insects such as ants, beetles, ticks and cockroaches1-3.

28

Another common phenylpyrazole insecticide, fipronil, has been banned in China in

29

2009, because of its high toxicity towards aquatic organisms, such as fish and

30

shrimp4-6. Flufiprole (or butene-fipronil), (R,S)-1-[2,6-dichloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)

31

phenyl]

32

sulfinyl]-pyrazole-3-carbonitrile (Figure 1), is a new kind of phenylprazole insecticide

33

introduced in 2002 by Dalian Raiser Pesticides Co., Ltd., China. It is a modified form

34

of fipronil with a similar effect against a broad spectrum of insect pests and has much

35

lower toxicity7-9. Both flufiprole and fipronil have a chiral sulfur atom consisting of

36

two enantiomers. In fact, although enantiomers have exactly the same physical and

37

chemical properties, they behave differently in bioactivity10-11, toxicity10,12 or

38

degradation10,13-14 when exposed to a chiral environment. In recent years, with the

39

intensive study of chiral pesticides all over the world, many papers about the

40

enantioselective degradation of chiral pesticides have been published15-18. For instance,

41

S-fipronil has been shown to degrade faster than R-fipronil in earthworms and natural

42

soil18. To our knowledge, there is no such report about the study on the metabolic

43

behavior of flufiprole at the enantiomer level, which may lead to potential

44

environmental risks.

-5-[N-(methallyl)

amino]-4-[(trifluoro-methyl)

45

Recently, it is popular to use in vitro models in pharmacology, toxicology and

46

toxicokinetic experiments, because there are fewer animals needed, fewer endogenous



47

interfering substrates and much shorter experiment time compared with in vivo

48

studies19-23. Liver is the major organ for the metabolism of many xenobiotics, where

49

the majority of drug metabolic enzymes exist. In previous studies, many researchers

50

have reported the stereoselective degradation of many chiral pesticides in rat, rabbit

51

and human liver microsomes (HLMs), including triazole fungicides24-25, benalaxyl26

52

and fluroxypyr methylheotyl ester27. Taking benalaxyl enantiomers as an example, the

53

t1/2 of R-benalaxyl in rat liver microsomes (RLMs) was about 2-fold of S-benalaxyl.

54

However, R-benalaxyl degraded faster than S-benalaxyl in rabbit liver microsomes, at

55

the same time there was no chiral inversion between R- and S-benalaxyl in both liver

56

microsomes26. To evaluate the environmental risk of flufiprole comprehensively, it is

57

necessary to evaluate the enantioselective metabolism of flufiprole in different liver

58

microsomes.

59

In this study, the metabolic behaviors of rac-flufiprole in RLMs and HLMs were

60

investigated to determine that if similar enantioselectivity occurred. The

61

determination of chiral flufiprole was achieved in high-performance liquid

62

chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) equipped with a Lux

63

Cellulose-2 chiral column. The significant kinetic parameters of the enantiomers, such

64

as half-life (t1/2), maximum velocity of metabolism (Vmax) and Michaelis constant

65

(CLint), were also calculated to explore the enantioselective behaviors of flufiprole.

66

The results might be helpful to understand the risks associated with flufiprole to

67

humans, animals and the environment.

68

MATERIALS AND METHODS


Page 4 of 21

Page 5 of 21


69

Chemicals and Materials. Flufiprole with a purity of 96.6% was obtained from

70

Dalian Raiser Pesticides Co., Ltd (Dalian, China). Two enantiomers of flufiproles

71

with purity ≥98.0% were obtained from Daicel (Shanghai, China). HPLC-grade

72

methanol and acetonitrile were purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). A stock

73

solution of racemic standard was prepared in methanol and stored at 4 °C. Working

74

standard solutions were obtained by dilutions of the stock solution in methanol.

75

Purified water was produced by a Milli-Q water purification system (Millipore

76

Bedford,

77

regenerating system, rat and human liver microsomes (20 mg/mL, 0.5 mL) were

78

purchased from XenoTech (Lenexa, KS). Acetic acid (99.7% purity) was purchased

79

from Sigma-Aldrich. All other chemicals and solvents were of analytical grade and

80

purchased from commercial sources. The chiral analytical column, cellulose tris

81

(3-chloro-4methylphenycarbamate)

82

Phenomenex (Torrance, CA), and the column was sized 150 mm × 2.0 mm i.d. and

83

packed with 3 µm particles.

MA).

β-Nicotinamide

adenine

(Lux

dinucleotide

Cellulose-2),

phosphate

was

(NADPH)

purchased

from

84

Incubation in Liver Microsomes. Substrate-depletion studies in vitro were

85

performed by incubation of rac-flufiprole (10 µM) for rat liver microsomes and

86

rac-flufiprole (5 µM) for human liver microsomes with 0.5 mg of microsomal protein

87

in 50 mM Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4) with 5.0 mM MgCl2. The concentrations of

88

flufiprole were chosen based on pre-experiments. Flufiprole was prepared in methanol

89

and added to the incubation media with the final methanol concentration not

90

exceeding 1.0% v/v. All reaction mixtures were preincubated in a heated water bath at



91

37 °C for 5 min before initiation of the reaction by addition of NADPH at a final

92

reaction concentration of 1.0 mM. Incubation mixtures without NADPH served as

93

controls (with deactivated microsomes). The final total reaction volume was 0.5 mL.

94

After incubation in a water bath (37 °C) for 5-90 min, the reactions were terminated

95

by adding 0.5 mL of ice-cold methanol and the sample was vortexed for 5 min. After

96

centrifugating at 4000 rpm for 5 min, the supernatant was filtered through the

97

membrane (PTFE, 0.22 µm) for enatioselective HPLC-MS/MS analysis. All

98

experiments were performed as three independent trials.

99

Kinetic metabolism Assays. The in vitro metabolic kinetics of flufiprole was

100

studied by adding variable concentrations of flufiprole stock solution to the incubation

101

mixtures. The final substrate concentrations were from 2 to 100 µM and the

102

incubation time was 10 min with liver microsomes (0.5 mg protein/mL). Then, the

103

sample preparation was performed according to the section above. The Vmax and Km

104

values were calculated from nonlinear regression analysis of experimental data

105

according to the Michaelis-Menten equation. Intrinsic clearance (CLint) was calculated

106

as a ratio of the Vmax and to the Km. Nonlinear regression analysis was performed with

107

Origin pro 8.5.

108

Enantioselective HPLC-MS/MS Analysis. The determination of flufiprole was

109

achieved on a Surveyor liquid chromatography (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham,

110

MA, USA) equipped with a triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer. Xcalibur 2.0.7

111

(Thermo Fisher Scientific) software was used to process the quantitative data obtained

112

from calibration standards and samples. Complete chiral separation of flufiprole was


Page 6 of 21

Page 7 of 21


113

achieved on a Lux Cellulose-2 chiral column28. The mobile phase consisted of 65%

114

(v/v) (A) acetonitrile and 35% (v/v) (B) 2 mM ammonium acetate aqueous solution

115

containing 0.1% formic acid. The flow rate was set to 0.3 mL/min, and the injection

116

volume was 5 µL. The ESI-MS/MS interface (electrospray ionization coupled with

117

tandem mass spectrometry) was operated in the negative ion mode. ESI source

118

conditions were as follows: source temperature, 110 °C; desolvation temperature,

119

500 °C; desolvation gas (N2) flow rate, 12 mL/min; cone gas (N2) flow rate, 40 mL/Hr;

120

and collision gas (Ar) flow rate, 0.15 mL/min. Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM)

121

was applied for flufiprole determination; transition m/z 488.9→288 was used for

122

quantification, and m/z 488.9→249.9 was used for confirmation.

123

Method validation. Calibration standards were prepared by adding a series of

124

working standard solution of rac-flufiprole into the blank matrix (BM, the extracts

125

from the bovine serum protein). The preparing and extracting processes were the same

126

as incubation samples. The calibration curves were generated by plotting peak areas

127

of quantification ion transition against the concentration of each enantiomer from 0.1

128

to 50 µM with regression analysis. Linear regression analysis was performed with

129

Microsoft Excel 2007. The precision and accuracy of the method were calculated by

130

analyzing calibration standards at three concentration levels (0.5, 10 and 50 µM for

131

each flufiprole enantiomer) and comparing the predicted concentration (obtained from

132

the calibration curve) to the actual concentration of each enantiomer spiked in the BM.

133

Both intraday and interday precisions are presented as relative standard deviation

134

(RSD [SD/mean] × 100%). Limit of detection LOD (signal-to-noise ratio [S/N]=3)



135

and limit of quantification LOQ (S/N=10) were determined with the method using the

136

matrix-matched standards.

137

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

138

Assay validation. Using m/z 488.9→288 as the quantification transition, linear

139

calibration curves were obtained over the concentration range of 0.1-50 µM in blank

140

matrix for R-flufiprole (y = 6.9227x × 10^4 - 29.9224, R2 = 0.9994) and S-flufiprole (y

141

= 6.9938x × 10^4 – 14.3144, R2 = 0.9996). The RSD was less than 7% at all

142

concentration.

143

The precision and accuracy of intraday and interday, expressed with the RSD and

144

the ratios of predicted concentration to acctural concentration, was shown in Table 1.

145

For both enantiomers, the accuracies obtained were in the acceptable range of 90.3%-

146

98.7% and the RSD ranged from 1.8% to 5.7%. The main recoveries ranged from

147

97.5% to 100.8% with 2.4%-6.9% RSD (Table 2). The LODs for both enantiomers

148

were estimated to be 0.005 µM, while the LOQs were 0.015 µM. In addition, the

149

extraction procedure did not cause epimerize of flufiprole enantiomers as shown in

150

Figure 2 F-G.

151

Data Ananlysis. Under the HPLC-MS/MS condition, the enantiomers of flufiprole

152

were separated completely on a Lux Cellulose-2 column (as shown in Figure 2A), and

153

no endogenous interference peaks eluted at retention times in blank samples (without

154

insecticides). The order elution was confirmed to be S-(-)-flufiprole for peak 1 and

155

R-(+)-flufiprole for peak 2 based on published data28.

156

The enantiomer fraction (EF) was used to measure the enantioselectivity of the


Page 8 of 21

Page 9 of 21


157

flufiprole enantiomers during incubation in the liver microsomes. EF was calculated

158

from the peak areas for the signals, defined by eq. 1. The EF values ranged from 0 to

159

1 with EF=0.5 representing the racemic mixture according to the equation.

160

EF= (S)-(-)-enantiomer / [(R)-(+)-enantiomer + (S)-(-)-enantiomer]

161

The metabolism of rac-flufiprole and its enantiomers was assumed to follow the

162

first-order kinetics model, and the degradation constants (k) were calculated by eq. 2

163

using regression analysis. The half-life (t1/2, min) was estimated from eq. 3. C = C0e-kt

164

t1/2 = ln2/k = 0.693/k

165 166 167

(1)

(2) (3)

C and C0 are the concentrations of the R-(+)- or S-(-)-enantiomer at time t and time 0, respectively.

168

Nonlinear regression of substrate concentration versus reaction velocity curves

169

were analyzed using Origin 8.5 software by fitting the experimental data to the

170

Michaelis-Menten equation. The in vitro kinetic parameters were determined by

171

fitting the data to eq. 4, and the intrinsic metabolic clearance (CLint) was calculated by

172

eq. 5.

173

V=Vmax×S/(Km＋S)

(4)

174

CLint=Vmax/Km

(5)

175 176

V, S, Vmax and Km represent the velocity of metabolism, substrate concentration, maximum velocity of metabolism and Michaelis constant, respectively.

177

Metabolism of Racemic Flufiprole in RLMs and HLMs. The rac-flufiprole was

178

dissipated rapidly in RLMs and HLMs with NADPH, and did not degradate obviously



179

in the absence of NADPH. Typical chromatograms of extracts from the samples after

180

10 min incubation are displayed in Figures 2B-E. The concentrations of two

181

enantiomers were different from each other after incubation in RLMs and HLMs. The

182

R-(+)-flufiprole degraded faster than its antipode in RLMs, in contrast, the

183

S-(-)-flufiprole degraded faster in HLMs.

184

Concentration-time curves of R-(+)- and S-(-)-flufiprole after incubation in RLMs

185

with rac-flufiprole at 10 µM and HLMs with rac-flufiprole at 5 µM were shown in

186

Figure 3. The results demonstrated that the metabolisms of each enantiomer in RLMs

187

and HLMs were in accordance with the first-order kinetics decay model. Rate

188

constants (k), correlation coefficients (R2) and half-lives (t1/2) were calculated (Table

189

3). It was shown that the half-life t1/2 of R-(+)-flufiprole was 7.22 and 21 min in

190

RLMs and HLMs, while the half-life t1/2 of S-(-)-flufiprole was 11.75 and 15.75 min,

191

respectively. Thus, metabolism of R-(+)- and S-(-)-flufiprole was much faster in

192

RLMs, and indicated opposite enantioselectivity in RLMs and HLMs.

193

The enantioselective metabolic behavior could also be conducted by EFs. In the

194

experiment, the EF value of flufiprole increased from the initial 0.50 to 0.71 rapidly in

195

RLMs because R-(+)-flufiprole degradated much faster than S-(-)-flufiprole under the

196

same concentration. Then with the concentration of R-(+)-flufiprole decreasing

197

quickly, the degradation rate of R-(+)-flufiprole also decreased until it became smaller

198

than its value of S-(-)-flufiprole. As a result, the EF value decreased to 0.62

199

(concentration RS) gradually in HLMs, indicating that there


Page 10 of 21

Page 11 of 21


201

was significant enantioselectivity in the two kinds of liver microsomes.

202

Enzyme Kinetics of Flufiprole Enantiomers. The Michaelis-Menten model was

203

applied to different initial concentrations (5-100 µM) of rac-flufiprole using RLMs

204

and HLMs as examples to elucidate the mechanism of stereoselective toxicokinetics

205

of flufiprole. Metabolic rate constants (apparent Km and Vmax) were determined after a

206

10 min incubation period in liver microsomes. The Michalis-Menten plots are shown

207

in Figure 4. By nonlinear regression analysis, the values of Km, Vmax and CLint were

208

calculated and are shown in table 4. The Vmax of R-(+)-flufiprole (3906.3±80.6

209

µM/min/mg) was about 3-fold of S-(-)-flufiprole (1430.6±52.9 µM/min/mg) after

210

incubation for 10 min in RLMs, however, the opposite trendency was found after

211

incubation in HLMs. For the CLint, the ability of an organism to eliminate a particular

212

chemical demonstrated diversity, the CLint of rac-flufiprole also showed opposite

213

enantioselectivy in RLMs and HLMs. Besides, the CLint of R-(+)-flufiprole and

214

S-(-)-flufiprole in RLMs was higher than that in HLMs. These enzyme kinetic results

215

suggested that the rat liver microsomes in vitro had a stronger potency to eliminate

216

flufiprole than the human liver microsomes. Significant differences were found for the

217

stereoselective metabolism of rac-flufiprole in RLMs and HLMs.

218

In conclusion, we investigated the enantioselective metabolism of rac-flufiprole in

219

RLMs and HLMs. The degradation velocity of flufiprole in HLMs was slower than

220

that in RLMs. Moreover, there was significant opposite enantioselective behavior for

221

the metabolism of flufiprole enantiomers in the two liver microsomes. Some

222

studies24-27 verified that other fungicides, such as (2RS,3RS)-paclobutrazol,



223

tebuconazole, benalaxyl and fluroxypyr methylheotyl ester, exhibited stereoselectivity

224

of metabolism in liver microsomes. The reason for the difference in the metabolism

225

behavior of the two enantiomers might be the different compositions and contents of

226

metabolizing enzyme (especially cytochrome P450) in various species liver

227

microsomes26, 29-30. Future studies should be focused on the isoforms of cytochrome

228

P-450 (CYP) that contribute to its stereoselectivy. These data should be important to

229

elucidate the mechanism of stereoselective toxicokinetics of flufiprole in RLMs and

230

HLMs, and contribute to environmental and public health.

231

AUTHOR INFORMATION

232

Corresponding Author *

233

E-mail [email protected]

234

Notes

235

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

236

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

237

We acknowledge financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of

238

China (21207118), the Project of Science and Technology Plan of Zhejiang Province,

239

China (2014C37103), and the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province,

240

China (Y15B070017).

241

REFENENCES

242

(1) Raveton, M.; Aajoud, A.; Willison, J. C.; Aouadi, H.; Tissut, M.; Ravanel, P.

243

Phototransformation of the insecticide fipronil: identification of novel photoproducts and evidence

244

for an alternative pathway of photodegradation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 4151-4157.

245

(2) Kitulagodage, M.; Isanhart, J.; Buttemer, W. A.; Hooper, M. J.; Astheimer, L. B. Fipronil


Page 12 of 21

Page 13 of 21


246

toxicity in northern bobwhite quail Colinus virginianus: Reduced feeding behavior and sulfone

247

metabolite formation. Chemophere 2011, 83, 524-530.

248

(3) Zhang, Q.; Shi, H. H.; Gao, B. B.; Tian, M. M.; Hua, X. D.; Wang, M. H. Enantioseparation

249

and determination of the chiral phenylpyrazole insecticide ethiprole in agricultural and

250

environmental samples and its enantioselective degradation in soil. Sci. Total. Environ. 2016, 542,

251

845-853.

252

(4) Gunasekara, A. S.; Truong, T.; Goh, K. S.; Spurlock, F.; Tjeerdema, S. Environmental fate

253

and toxicology of fipronil. J. Pestic. Sci. 2007, 32, 189-199.

254

(5) Beggel, S.; Werner, I.; Connon, R. E.; Geist, J. P. Impacts of the phenylpyrazole insecticide

255

fipronil on larval fish:Time-series gene transcription responses in fathead minnow (Pimephales

256

promelas) following short-term exposure. Sci. Total. Environ. 2012, 426, 160-165.

257

(6) Wu, J.; Lu, J.; Lu, H.; Lin, Y. J.; Wilson, P. C. Occurrence and ecological risks from fipronil

258

in aquatic environments located within residential landscapes. Sci. Total. Environ. 2015, 519,

259

139-147.

260

(7) Niu, H. T.; Yan, L.; Zhong, J. P.; Wei, S. J.; Luo, W. C. A comparison on toxicity of fipronil

261

and butane-fipronil against diamondback moth larvae in laboratory. Agrochem. Res. App. 2007, 11,

262

28-30.

263

(8) Yu, R. X.; Wang, Y. H.; Wu, C. X.; Cang, T.; Chen, L. P.; Wu, S. G.; Zhao, X. P. Acute

264

toxicity and risk assessment of butane-fipronil to silkworm, bomyx mori. Asian J. Ecotoxicol.

265

2012, 7, 639-645.

266

(9) Arain, M. S.; Hu, X. X.; Li, G. Q. Assessment of toxicity and potential risk of butane-fipronil

267

using Drosophila melanogaster, in comparison to nine conventional insecticides. Bull. Environ.

268

Contam. Toxicol. 2014, 92, 190-195.

269

(10) Zhang, Q.; Hua, X. D.; Shi, H. Y.; Liu, J. S.; Tian, M. M; Wang, H. M. Enantioselective

270

bioactivity, acute toxicity and dissipation in vegetables of the chiral triazole fungicide flutriafol. J.

271

Hazard. Mater. 2015, 284, 65-72.

272

(11) Sun, J. Q.; Zhang, A. P.; Zhang, J.; Xie, X. M.; Liu, W. P. Enantiomeric resolution and

273

growth-retardant activity in rice seedlings of uniconazole. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60,

274

160-164.

275

(12) Lin, K. D.; Liu, W. P.; Li, L.; Gan, J. Single and joint acute toxicity of isocarbophos



276

Enantiomers to Daphnia magna. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 4273-4277.

277

(13) Wang, Y.; Xu, L.; Li, D. Z.; Teng, M. M.; Zhang, R. K.; Zhou, Z. Q.; Zhu, W. T.

278

Enantioselective bioaccumulation of hexaconazole and its toxic effects in adult zebrafish (Danio

279

rerio). Chemosphere 2015, 138, 798-805.

280

(14) Ribeiro, A. R.; Afonso, C. M.; Castro, P. M. L.; Tiritan, M. E. Enantioselective

281

biodegradation of pharmaceuticals, alprenolol and propranolol, by an activated sludge inoculums.

282

Ecotox. Environ. Safe. 2013, 87, 108-114.

283

(15) Tange, S.; Fujimoto, N.; Uramaru, N.; Sugihara, K.; Ohta, S.; Kitamura, S. In vitro

284

metabolism of cis- and trans-permethrin by rat liver microsomes, and its effect on estrogenic and

285

anti-androgenic activities. Environ. Toxicol. Phar. 2014, 37, 996-1005.

286

(16) Xu, Y. X.; Zhang, H.; Zhuang, S. L.; Yu, M.; Xiao, H.; Qian, M. R. Different enantioselective

287

degradation of pyraclofos in soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 4173-4178.

288

(17) Wang, X. Q.; Qi, P. P.; Zhang, H.; Xu, H.; Wang, X. Y.; Li, Z.; Wang, Z. Z.; Wang, Q.

289

Enantioselective analysis and dissipation of triazole fungicide penconazole in vegetables by liquid

290

chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 11047-11053.

291

(18) Qu, H.; Wang, P.; Ma, R. X.; Qiu, X. X.; Xu, P.; Zhou, Z. Q.; Liu, D. H. Enantioselective

292

toxicity, bioaccumulation and degradation of the chiral insecticide fipronil in earthworms (Eisenia

293

feotida). Sci. Total. Environ. 2014, 486, 415-420.

294

(19) Lipscomn, J. C.; Poet, T. S. In vitro measurements of metabolism for application in

295

pharmacokinetic modeling. Pharmacol. Therapeut. 2008, 118, 82-103.

296

(20) Gómez, A. B.; Erratico, C. A.; Eede, N. V. D.; Ionas, A. C.; Leonards, P. E. G.; Covaci, A. In

297

vitro metabolism of 2-ethylhexyldiphenyl phosphate (EHDPHP) by human liver microsomes.

298

Toxicol. Lett. 2015, 232, 203-212.

299

(21) Eede, N. V. D.; Tomy, G.; Tao, F.; Halldorson, T.; Harrad, S.; Neels, H.; Covaci, A. Kinetics

300

of tris (1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCIPP) metabolism in human liver microsomes and serum.

301

Chemosphere 2016, 144, 1299-1305.

302

(22) Di, L.; Keefer, C.; Scott, D. O.; Strelevitz, T. J.; Chang, G.; Bi, Y. A.; Lai, Y. R.; Duckworth,

303

J.; Fenner, K.; Troutman, M. D.; Obach, R. S. Mechanistic insights from comparing intrinsic

304

clearance values between human liver microsomes and hepatocytes to guide drug design. Eur. J.

305

Med. Chem. 2012, 57, 441-448.


Page 14 of 21

Page 15 of 21


306

(23) Zielinski, J.; Mevissen, M. Inhibition of in vitro metabolism of testosterone in human, dog

307

and horse liver microsomes to investigate species differences. Toxicol. In Vitro. 2015, 29, 468-478.

308

(24) Wu, S. C.; Yu, M.; Zhang, H.; Han, J. Z.; Qian, M. R. Enantioselective degradation of (2RS,

309

3RS)-paclobutrazol in rat liver microsomes. Chirality 2015, 27, 344-348.

310

(25) Shen, Z. G.; Zhu, W. T.; Liu, D. H.; Xu, X. Y.; Zhang, P.; Zhou, Z. Q. Stereoselective

311

degradation of tebuconazole in rat liver microsomes. Chirality 2012, 24, 67-71.

312

(26) Zhang, P.; Zhu, W. T.; Dang, Z. H.; Shen, Z. G.; Xu, X. Y.; Huang, L. D.; Zhou, Z. Q.

313

Stereoselective metabolism of benalaxyl in liver microsomes from rat and rabbit. Chirality 2011,

314

23, 93-98.

315

(27) Xu, X. Y.; Jiang, J. Z.; Wang, X. R.; Shen, Z. G.; Li, R. H.; Zhou, Z. Q. Stereoselective

316

metabolism and toxicity of the herbicide fluroxypyr methylheptyl ester in rat hepatocytes.

317

Chirality 2011, 23, 960-866.

318

(28) Tian, M. M.; Zhang, Q.; Shi, H.Y.; Gao, B. B.; Hua, X. D.; Wang, M. H. Simultaneous

319

determination of chiral pesticide flufiprole enantiomers in vegetables, fruits, and soil by

320

high-performance liquid chromatography. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2015, 407, 3499-3507.

321

(29) Narimatsu, S.; Kobayashi, N.; Masubuchi, Y.; Horie, T.; Kakegawa, T.; Kobayashi, H.;

322

Hardwick, J. P.; Gonzalez, F. J.; Shimada, N.; Ohmori, S.; Kitada, M.; Asaoka, K.; Kataoka, H.;

323

Yamamoto, S.; Satoh, T. Species difference in enantioselectivity for the oxidation of propranolol

324

by cytochrome P450 2D enzymes. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2000, 127, 73-90.

325

(30) Arora, S.; Taneja, I.; Challagundla, M.; Raju, K. S. R.; Singh, S. P.; Wahajuddin, M. In vivo

326

prediction of CYP-mediated metabolic interaction potential of formononetin and biochanin A

327

using in vitro human and rat CYP450 inhibition data. Toxicol. Lett. 2015, 239, 1-8.



Page 16 of 21

FIGURE CAPTIONS NC

CN Cl

F 3C

N N HN Cl H3C

O

O S CF3 CH2

S F3C

H2C

N N NH Cl

Cl

CF3

CH3

mirror Figure 1. Chemical structure of flufiprole enantiomers (Asterisk indicated the chiral center).


Page 17 of 21


Figure 2. Representative HPLC-MS/MS chromatograms of (A) standard flufiprole, extract from (B) RLMs with 10 µM rac-flufiprole and (C) HLMs with 5 µM rac-flufiprole after incubation for 10min in the absence of NADPH, extract from (D) RLMs with 10 µM rac-flufiprole and (E) HLMs with 5 µM rac-flufiprole after incubation for 10min with NADPH, extract from RLMs with (F-G) individual flufiprole enantiomer.



Figure 3. Degradation of (A) rac-flufiprole (10 µM) in RLMs, (C) rac-flufiprole (5 µM) in HLMs for 90 min. The changes of EF values in (B) RLMs and (D) HLMs.

Figure 4. Michaelis-Menten kinetic analyses of rac-flufiprole (A) in RLMs and (B) in HLMs after 10min incubation.


Page 18 of 21

Page 19 of 21


TABLE CAPTIONS Table 1．． Accuracy and Precision of Assay Method for Measurement of Flufiprole Enantiomers (n = 6) Intraday Concentration (µM) R-flufiprole 0.1 10 50 S-flufiprole 0.1 10 50

Interday

Accuracy (%)

RSD (%)

Accuracy (%)

RSD (%)

91.9 96.7 97.5

1.8 5.0 5.7

90.3 93.0 95.5

1.4 4.5 4.7

91.9 95.2 97.7

2.7 4.7 3.5

92.6 94.9 98.7

2.3 5.4 4.9

Table 2．． Method Recovery for Meassurement of Flufiprole Enantiomers (n = 3) R-flufiprole

S-flufiprole

Concentration (µM)

Accuracy (%)

RSD (%)

Accuracy (%)

RSD (%)

0.1 10 50

100.4 97.5 100.8

2.4 2.6 3.1

99.1 97.7 100.7

2.7 6.9 2.5

Table 3 ． Degradation Rate Constant (k), Half-Life (t1/2) and Correlation Coefficients (R2) Values for the Metabolism of rac-Flufiprole in Liver Microsomes Liver microsomes

spiked compd

RLMs

rac-flufiprole

HLMs

rac-flufiprole

detected compd

k (min-1)

t1/2(min)

R2

R-(＋)-flufiprole S-(－)-flufiprole R-(＋)-flufiprole S-(－)-flufiprole

0.096 0.059 0.033 0.044

7.22 11.75 21.00 15.75

0.885 0.889 0.991 0.915



Page 20 of 21

Table 4．． Metabolic Parameters of rac-Flufiprole Incubated in RLMs and HLMs Sample RLMs R-(＋)-flufiprole S-(－)-flufiprole HLMs R-(＋)-flufiprole S-(－)-flufiprole

Vmax (µM/min/mg)

Km (µM)

CLint (mL/min/mg protein)

R2

3906.3±80.6 1430.6±52.9

43.12±1.53 17.22±0.84

90.58 83.06

0.99 0.99

961.5±52.7 1785.7±86.3

27.12±2.49 35.18±2.34

35.45 50.76

0.98 0.99


Page 21 of 21


ABSTRACT GRAPHICS


Enantioselective Metabolism of Flufiprole in Rat and Human Liver

Recommend Documents