Skip to main content

In Vitro Methodologies to Assess Potential for Transporter-Mediated Drug–Drug Interactions

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Quantitative Analysis of Cellular Drug Transport, Disposition, and Delivery

Part of the book series: Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology ((MIPT))

  • 1000 Accesses

Abstract

The importance of membrane transporters and drug-metabolizing enzymes on drug absorption and disposition is widely known. Our current understanding of transporters and enzymes has been achieved largely through the development and utilization of in vitro techniques to study drug transport and metabolism processes. As a result of the increasing sophistication and reliability of these techniques, the FDA has issued guidance documents outlining the type of in vitro tests that can be used to assess whether drug candidates are substrates and/or inhibitors of transporters and/or enzymes. These studies are conducted under the premise that if a drug is a substrate or inhibitor of a transporter, it may interact with other drugs that interact with the same transporter(s). Ultimately, for in vitro drug–drug interactions to be predictive of potential interactions in vivo, in vitro experiments must take into account the drug concentrations expected in vivo. As in vitro tests can be used to waive the conduct of clinical drug–drug interaction studies, they could have a major impact in drug development times and costs and spare healthy individuals from exposure to the unavoidable risks associated with clinical drug–drug interaction studies. Further, since the type and quality of data obtained from in vitro experiments is dependent on the study design used, it is very important for pharmaceutical scientists working in this field to rely on sound and robust experimental protocols to generate reliable and reproducible data. However, the various conditions used for the conduct of these assays in different laboratories have resulted in large interlaboratory variabilities that create much uncertainty regarding published data and the best experimental approaches. In fact, interlaboratory variability may not only reflect the quantitative differences inherent to the repeated performance of biological assays but also differences in the experimental design or strategies used by different laboratories. For example, in running a test to assess whether a compound is a P-gp substrate, some laboratories may use Caco-2 cells while others may use MDR1-MDCK cells. In addition, while two laboratories may use the same cell line (e.g., MDR1-MDCK) to run this test, one laboratory may make the assessment based on the efflux ratio of the substrate drug while another may utilize unidirectional (B-to-A) transport with and without a known inhibitor of P-gp. This chapter will present protocols that have been extensively used for the conduct of in vitro studies; some of which have enabled decision-making on drug–drug interaction studies and thus impacted drug development programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AP:

Apical

AP-to-BL:

Apical-to-basolateral

BCRP:

Breast cancer resistance protein

BL:

Basolateral

BL-to-AP:

Basolateral to apical

DDI:

Drug–drug interaction

DPBS:

Dulbecco’s phosphate-buffered saline

EMA:

European Medicines Agency

FDA:

US Food and Drug Administration

FTC:

Fumitremorgin C

HEK:

Human embryonic kidney 293 cells

HPLC:

High performance liquid chromatography

IC50:

Inhibitor concentration at 50% inhibition

LC-MS/MS:

Liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry

MATE:

Multidrug and toxin extrusion protein

MPP+:

1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium

N :

Cell number

OAT:

Organic anion transporter

OATP:

Organic anion transporting polypeptide

OCT:

Organic cation transporter

PAH:

Para-aminohippurate

P-gp:

P-glycoprotein

VC:

Vector control

References

  1. Zhang W, Li J, Allen SM, Weiskircher EA, Huang Y, George RA, Fong RG, Owen A, Hidalgo IJ (2009) Silencing the breast cancer resistance protein expression and function in Caco-2 cells using lentiviral vector-based short hairpin RNA. Drug Metab Dispos 37:737–744

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sampson KE, Brinker A, Pratt J, Venkatraman N, Xiao Y, Blasberg J, Steiner T, Bourner M, Thompson DC (2014) Zinc finger nuclease-mediated gene knockout results in loss of transport activity for P-glycoprotein, BCRP and MRP2 in Caco-2 cells. Drug Metab Dispos 43:199–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahlin G, Hilgendorf C, Karlsson J, Szigyarto CA, Uhlén M, Artursson P (2009) Endogenous gene and protein expression of drug-transporting proteins in cell lines routinely used in drug discovery programs. Drug Metab Dispos 37:2275–2283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cummins CL, Jacobsen W, Christians U, Benet LZ (2004) CYP3A4-transfected Caco-2 cells as a tool for understanding biochemical absorption barriers: studies with sirolimus and midazolam. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 308:143–155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Harwood MD, Achour B, Neuhoff S, Russell MR, Carlson G, Warhurst G, Rostami-Hodjegan A (2016) In vitro-in vivo extrapolation scaling factors for intestinal p-glycoprotein and breast cancer resistance protein: part II. The impact of cross-laboratory variations on intestinal transporter relative expression factors on predicted drug disposition. Drug Metab Dispos 44:476–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bentz J, O’Connor MP, Bednarczyk D, Coleman J, Lee C, Palm J, Pak YA, Perloff ES, Reyner E, Balimane P, Brännström M, Chu X, Funk C, Guo A, Hanna I, Herédi-Szabó K, Hillgren K, Li L, Hollnack-Pusch E, Jamei M, Lin X, Mason AK, Neuhoff S, Patel A, Podila L, Plise E, Rajaraman G, Salphati L, Sands E, Taub ME, Taur J-S, Weitz D, Wortelboer HM, Xia CQ, Xiao G, Yabut J, Yamagata T, Zhang L, Ellens H (2013) Variability in p-glycoprotein inhibitory potency (IC50) using various in vitro experimental systems: implications for universal digoxin drug-drug interaction risk assessment decision criteria. Drug Metab Dispos 41:1347–1366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaudhry A, Chung G, Lynn A, Yalvigi A, Brown C, Ellens H, O’Connor M, Lee C, Bentz J (2018) Derivation of a system-independent Ki for P-glycoprotein mediated digoxin transport from system-dependent IC50 data. Drug Metab Dispos 46:279–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bowman CM, Benet LZ (2019) Interlaboratory variability in human hepatocyte intrinsic clearance values and trends with physicochemical properties. Pharm Res 36:113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) (2000) Guidance for industry. Waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms based on a biopharmaceutics classification system. Rockville, MD

    Google Scholar 

  10. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) (2006) Draft guidance/guidance for industry. Drug-drug interaction studies-study design, data analysis, and implications for dosing and labeling recommendations. Rockville, MD

    Google Scholar 

  11. European Medicines Agency (2012) Guideline on the investigation of drug interactions

    Google Scholar 

  12. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) (2020) In vitro drug interaction studies — cytochrome P450 enzyme- and transporter-mediated drug interactions guidance for industry. Rockville, MD

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ismael J. Hidalgo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this protocol

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this protocol

Li, J., Wang, Q., Hidalgo, I.J. (2021). In Vitro Methodologies to Assess Potential for Transporter-Mediated Drug–Drug Interactions. In: Rosania, G.R., Thurber, G.M. (eds) Quantitative Analysis of Cellular Drug Transport, Disposition, and Delivery. Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1250-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1250-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-1249-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-1250-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics