• 1.

    Myers MJ, Kawalek JC. Effect of cytokines on drug metabolizing enzymes. In:Myers MJ, Murtaugh MP, eds. Cytokines in animal health and disease. New York: Marcel-Dekker Inc, 1995;235259.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Van Miert AS. Pro-inflammatory cytokines in a ruminant model: pathophysiological, pharmacological, and therapeutic aspects. Vet Q 1995; 17:4150.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Galtier P, Larrieu G, Tufenkji AE, et al. Incidence of experimental fascioliasis on the activity of drug-metabolizing enzymes in lamb liver. Drug Metab Dispos 1986; 14:137141.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Anika SM, Nouws JFM, Vree TB, et al. The efficacy and plasma disposition of chloramphenicol and spiramycin in tick-borne fever-infected dwarf goats. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1986; 9:433435.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    van Gogh H, Watson ADJ, Nouws JFM, et al. Effect of tick-borne fever (Ehrlichia phagocytophila) and trypanosomiasis (Trypanosoma brucei 1066) on the pharmacokinetics of sulfadimidine and its metabolites in goats. Drug Metab Dispos 1989; 17:16.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Monshouwer M, Witkamp RF, Nijmeijer SM, et al. Infection (Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae)-mediated suppression of oxidative hepatic drug metabolism and cytochrome P4503A mRNA levels in pigs. Drug Metab Dispos 1995; 23:4447.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Monshouwer M, Witkamp RF, Nijmeijer SM, et al. A lipopolysaccharide-induced acute phase response in the pig is associated with a decrease in hepatic cytochrome P450-mediated drug metabolism. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1996; 19:382388.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Myers MJ, Farrell DE, Evock-Clover CM, et al. Growth hormone or chromium picolinate alter swine metabolism and inflammatory cytokine production following endotoxin challenge. Pathobiology 1998; 63:283287.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Myers MJ, Farrell DE, Evock-Clover CM, et al. Endotoxin challenge differentially affects cytokine production and metabolic status of growing and finishing swine. Domest Anim Endocrinol 1999; 17:345360.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Myers MJ, Farrell DE, Howard KD, et al. Identification of multiple constitutive and inducible hepatic cytochrome P450 enzymes in market weight swine. Drug Metab Dispos 2001; 29:908915.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Kawalek JC, el Said KR. Maturational development of drug-metabolizing enzymes in sheep. Am J Vet Res 1990; 51:17361741.

  • 12.

    Kawalek JC, el Said KR. Comparison of maturation of drug-metabolizing enzymes in calves with functioning or nonfunctioning rumen. Am J Vet Res 1994; 55:15791586.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Smith PK, Krohn RI, Hermanson GT, et al. Measurement of protein using bicinchoninic acid. Anal Biochem 1985; 150:7685.

  • 14.

    Aitio A. UDP-glucuronyl transferase activity in various rat tissues. Int J Biochem 1974; 5:325330.

  • 15.

    Morgan ET. Suppression of constitutive cytochrome P-450 gene expression in livers of rats undergoing an acute phase response to endotoxin. Mol Pharmacol 1989; 36:699707.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Li-Masters T, Morgan ET. Effects of bacterial lipopolysaccharide on phenobarbital-induced CYP2B expression in mice. Drug Metab Dispos 2001; 29:252257.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Morgan ET. Regulation of cytochrome P450 by inflammatory mediators: why and how? Drug Metab Dispos 2001; 29:207212.

  • 18.

    Morgan ET, Li-Masters T, Cheng PY. Mechanisms of cytochrome P450 regulation by inflammatory mediators. Toxicology 2002; 181–182:207210.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Mitchell SR, Sewer MB, Kardar SS, et al. Characterization of CYP4A induction in rat liver by inflammatory stimuli: dependence on sex, strain, and inflammation-evoked hypophagia. Drug Metab Dispos 2001; 29:1722.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Aitken AE, Morgan ET. Gene-specific effects of inflammatory cytokines on cytochrome P450 2C, 2B6 and 3A4 mRNA levels in human hepatocytes. Drug Metab Dispos 2007; 35:16871693.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Montero R, Serrano L, Davita VM, et al. Infection of rats with Taenia taeniformis metacestodes increases hepatic CYP450, induces the activity of CYP1A1, CYP2B1 and coumarin isoforms and increases the genotoxicity of the procarcinogens benzo(a)pyrene, cyclophosphamide and aflatoxin B1. Mutagenesis 2003; 18:211216.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Monshouwer M, Witkamp RF, Nijmeijer SM, et al. Selective effects of a bacterial infection (Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae) on the hepatic clearances of caffeine, antipyrine, paracetamol, and indocyanine green in the pig. Xenobiotica 1995; 25:491499.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Shields RG Jr, Mahan DC, Graham PL. Changes in swine body composition from birth to 145 kg. J Anim Sci 1983; 57:4354.

  • 24.

    Delaporte E, Cribb AE, Renton KW. Modulation of rat hepatic CYP3A1 induction by the interferon inducer polyinosinic acidpolycytidylic acid (poly ic). Drug Metab Dispos 1993; 21:520523.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Anari MR, Cribb AE, Renton KW. The duration of induction and species influences the downregulation of cytochrome P450 by the interferon inducer polyinosinic acid-polycytidylic acid. Drug Metab Dispos 1995; 23:536541.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Goralski KB, Abdulla D, Sinai CJ, et al. Toll-like receptor-4 regulation of hepatic CYP3A11 metabolism in a mouse model of LPS-induced CNS inflammation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2005;289:G434G443.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Xie W, Barwick JL, Simon CM, et al. Reciprocal activation of xenobiotic response genes by nuclear receptors SXR/PXR and CAR. Genes Dev 2000; 14:30143023.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Wei P, Zhang J, Egan-Hafley M, et al. The nuclear receptor CAR mediates specific xenobiotic induction of drug metabolism. Nature 2000; 407:920923.

  • 29.

    Honkakoski P, Negishi M. Regulation of cytochrome P450 (CYP) genes by nuclear receptors. Biochem J 2000; 347:321337.

  • 30.

    Tanaka E, Hisawa S. Clinical significant pharmacokinetic drug interactions with psychoactive drugs: antidepressants and antipsychotics and the cytochrome P450 system. J Clin Pharm Ther 1999; 24:716.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Effects of intravenous administration of lipopolysaccharide on cytochrome P450 isoforms and hepatic drug metabolizing enzymes in swine

Michael J. MyersDivision of Animal Research, Office of Research, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 8401 Muirkirk Rd, Laurel, MD 20708.

Search for other papers by Michael J. Myers in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
,
Dorothy E. FarrellDivision of Animal Research, Office of Research, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 8401 Muirkirk Rd, Laurel, MD 20708.

Search for other papers by Dorothy E. Farrell in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
,
Karyn D. HowardDivision of Animal Research, Office of Research, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 8401 Muirkirk Rd, Laurel, MD 20708.

Search for other papers by Karyn D. Howard in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
, and
Joseph C. KawalekDivision of Animal Research, Office of Research, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 8401 Muirkirk Rd, Laurel, MD 20708.

Search for other papers by Joseph C. Kawalek in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD

Abstract

Objective—To investigate effects of bacteria-mediated inflammation on hepatic drug metabolizing enzymes (DMEs) in swine via a lipopolysaccharide (LPS) challenge technique.

Animals—22 Poland China–Landrace crossbred barrows.

Procedures—In experiment 1, 10 market-weight swine were treated with LPS (20 μg/kg, IV [n = 5 swine]) or sham-injected (5) 24 hours before slaughter. In experiment 2, 12 growing and finishing swine were treated with LPS at 2 or 20 μg/kg, IV (n = 3 swine/age group/treatment) 24 hours before slaughter. Hepatic DMEs, cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoforms, and CYP-mediated reactions were measured.

Results—In experiment 1, LPS administered at 20 μg/kg decreased most hepatic DME components and inhibited enzymatic activities. In experiment 2, both doses reduced protein content in subcellular fractions and inhibited some DME- and CYP-mediated activities. In growing and finishing swine, CYP2A and CYP2B isoforms were not detected after treatment with LPS; the CYP1A2 isoform was eliminated in growing but not in finishing swine. Lipopolysaccharide also reduced CYP2D6 content in growing and finishing swine but increased CYP2E content. Lipopolysaccharide had no effect on swine CYP2C11, CYP2C13, or CYP3A content. The CYP2B-mediated 7-pentoxyresorufin O-dealkylase activity in growing and finishing swine was totally eliminated, and 7-ethoxyresorufin (indicating CYP1A activity) and aniline (mediated by CYP2E) metabolism was decreased.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Effect of LPS treatment on swine CYPs appeared to be isoform specific; age-related metabolic status of the swine and the LPS dose modified this effect. Lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammation may affect metabolism of drugs and xenobiotics in swine.

Abstract

Objective—To investigate effects of bacteria-mediated inflammation on hepatic drug metabolizing enzymes (DMEs) in swine via a lipopolysaccharide (LPS) challenge technique.

Animals—22 Poland China–Landrace crossbred barrows.

Procedures—In experiment 1, 10 market-weight swine were treated with LPS (20 μg/kg, IV [n = 5 swine]) or sham-injected (5) 24 hours before slaughter. In experiment 2, 12 growing and finishing swine were treated with LPS at 2 or 20 μg/kg, IV (n = 3 swine/age group/treatment) 24 hours before slaughter. Hepatic DMEs, cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoforms, and CYP-mediated reactions were measured.

Results—In experiment 1, LPS administered at 20 μg/kg decreased most hepatic DME components and inhibited enzymatic activities. In experiment 2, both doses reduced protein content in subcellular fractions and inhibited some DME- and CYP-mediated activities. In growing and finishing swine, CYP2A and CYP2B isoforms were not detected after treatment with LPS; the CYP1A2 isoform was eliminated in growing but not in finishing swine. Lipopolysaccharide also reduced CYP2D6 content in growing and finishing swine but increased CYP2E content. Lipopolysaccharide had no effect on swine CYP2C11, CYP2C13, or CYP3A content. The CYP2B-mediated 7-pentoxyresorufin O-dealkylase activity in growing and finishing swine was totally eliminated, and 7-ethoxyresorufin (indicating CYP1A activity) and aniline (mediated by CYP2E) metabolism was decreased.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Effect of LPS treatment on swine CYPs appeared to be isoform specific; age-related metabolic status of the swine and the LPS dose modified this effect. Lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammation may affect metabolism of drugs and xenobiotics in swine.

Studies1 in rodents and observations in humans have revealed that bacterial, parasitic, and viral infections as well as generalized inflammation decrease concentrations of CYPs with a corresponding reduction in xenobiotic metabolism. Because CYPs are key components of the phase 1 drug metabolism system, changes in CYP expression will alter drug activation or drug elimination, leading to changes in drug efficacy or toxic effects. Cytochrome P450s are a family of structurally related enzymes, with each isoform having a (relatively) specific spectrum of substrates it is capable of metabolizing (eg, drugs and environmental toxicants).1

Although a limited number of studies have been performed in domestic food-producing animals, it has been suggested2–6 that infection, vaccination, and other situations that stimulate cytokine production affect CYP-mediated reactions in domestic animals. Changes in drug metabolism in food-producing animals could alter drug efficacy or raise food safety and toxicological concerns in food-producing animals such as swine. During the drug review process, target animal safety and human food safety considerations are based on the pharmacokinetic profiles generated by the use of healthy animals. Human food safety assessments are used to determine a drug withdrawal time, which is the interval between the last dose of a drug and when the animal can be slaughtered for human consumption. Changes in CYP-mediated activities as a consequence of infection or inflammation will potentially alter the core assumptions underlying those safety assessments, especially the drug withdrawal times, because these changes may lead to unacceptable drug residues in edible tissues.

The deciding factor governing whether infection or inflammation will affect CYPs is the production of sufficient amounts of systemic cytokines. Cytokine-mediated reductions in CYP content are the result of a direct action on mRNA to cause a decrease in rates of transcription. Although the number of cytokines elicited during inflammation are extensive, some of the cytokines associated with altered CYP values include IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α, IFN-α, IFN-β, and IFN-γ.1 Cytokine production during infection and inflammation reduces both constitutive and induced CYP expression in rodents.1 A group of investigators reported7 that LPS induced an acute-phase response in pigs associated with a decrease in hepatic CYP-mediated DME activity. In other studies8,9 conducted by our laboratory group, we found that inflammatory cytokine production in swine following endotoxin challenge is affected by several factors, primarily metabolic status (growing vs finishing), which is also related to the age of the swine.

The metabolic associations for CYP molecules in rodents and in humans are not necessarily the same as those for swine.10 This suggests that the manner in which cytokines alter swine CYP concentrations and metabolic activities may differ from that observed in studies in rodents. Accordingly, the study reported here was initiated to determine the effect systemic inflammation would have on swine CYP concentrations and metabolic activities. To this end, swine were exposed to the bacterial endotoxin LPS, a method commonly used for mimicking the systemic inflammation caused by gram-negative bacteria.8,9 In an initial experiment, we administered a high dose of LPS to market-weight swine. Because of a marked effect at that dose, we repeated the experiment with swine at 2 stages of maturation and LPS at 2 doses. If changes in CYP concentrations were related to induction of inflammation-related cytokines, differences in CYP expression, enzymatic activity, or both could be expected.

Materials and Methods

Animals—Poland China–Landrace crossbred barrows were obtained from 2 commercial vendors.a,b Animal husbandry conditions used for the study have been described elsewhere.8,9 The swine in experiment 1 were part of a large group purchased at a body weight of 20 kg and raised to market weight (approx 90 kg); swine were individually housed in pens in our facility, which was accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International. During the finishing stage (60 to 90 kg), swine were fed a corn-soy diet ad libitum at 90% of the calculated energy requirement as determined in accordance with the Agriculture Research Council equation, and dietary amounts were adjusted weekly as previously reported.8 Feed restriction results in a uniform rate of weight gain and minimizes variation in basal metabolic variables, with each pig serving as its own control animal9; water was available ad libitum. The swine in experiment 2 were purchasedb at 35 and 85 kg, which were designated as growing and finishing swine, respectively. They were initially housed in groups (3 swine/pen). Swine were fed a corn-soy diet and had access to water ad libitum. After a 7-day acclimation period, swine were individually housed in pens. Animal study protocols were approved by our institutional animal care and use committee.

Experiments—Two experiments were conducted. In experiment 1, 5 market-weight swine were assigned to each of the 2 treatment groups by use of a randomization procedure8,9 (injected IV with LPSc at 20 μg/kg or sham-injected with sterile saline [0.9% NaCl] solution). Swine were slaughtered 24 hours after treatment. After slaughter, approximately 500 g of liver tissue was collected from various lobes. Tissue specimens were divided into 50-g aliquots and quickly frozen (within 20 minutes after organ removal) at −80°C. The liver weights were recorded at time of slaughter; body weights were recorded prior to LPS treatment.

In experiment 2, 3 growing swine and 3 finishing swine were assigned to each of 2 treatments (treatments were 2 different doses of LPS established on the basis of results from another study9). Each pig received a single IV injection of LPS at 2 or 20 μg/kg and was slaughtered 24 hours after treatment. The liver weights were recorded at time of slaughter; body weights were recorded prior to LPS treatment. Liver samples were collected and processed as described for experiment 1. Livers from 30 untreated, healthy finishing (> 85 kg) swine from several unrelated, unpublished experiments conducted by our laboratory group were used as the control liver samples.

Enzyme assays—Preparation of homogenates and subcellular fractions for determination of hepatic DME activities has been described elsewhere.10–12 Measurements of microsomal protein concentration and the classical DME activities associated with specific forms of the CYP were performed as described elsewhere.10–12 Assays based on spectrophotometric rate determinations (NADPH- and NADH-dependent reductases and GSH-S-transferase) were performed with a UV-visible diode-array spectrophotometerd and the enzyme kinetic program supplied with the instrument. The difference spectra used in the determination of CYP and cytochrome b5 were also obtained by use of this instrument. Protein concentrations of each tissue subfraction (S10, microsomes, and cytosol) were determined with the bicinchoninic acide protein procedure in microtiter plates with BSAf as the standard.13 All CYP-dependent enzymatic assays were conducted with the S10 fractions. Absorbance measurements were performed by use of a microtiter plate reader.g Assays requiring the use of fluorescence measurements were performed via a fluorescence microtiter plate reader.h These included the O-dealkylations of ERF and PRFe that were assayed without modifications from the procedures described elsewhere,10–12 except for the instrument used to measure fluorescence. Other coumarini-based fluorescence assays were performed in accordance with the procedure described in another study,14 but the excitation (360 nm) and emission (485 nm) filters were changed to allow use of the fluorescent microtiter plate reader with the stock filters supplied by the manufacturer.

Western blot analysis—Western blot analysis was performed on swine liver microsomes (10 μg of protein/lane) as described elsewhere.10 Sources of antibody preparations used for western blot analysis of CYP isoforms were also described in another study.10 The primary antibodies were used at final titers of 1:500 or 1:1,000, diluted in Dulbecco PBS solution containing 5% BSA (calcium and magnesium free), in accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations. The secondary alkaline phosphatase–conjugated antibodiesj were used at a concentration of 1:1,000 (diluted in Dulbecco PBS solution supplemented with 5% BSA). Developed western blots were examined by use of densitometric analysis, and relative staining intensities of the western blots were determined with a gel scanner.k Resulting images were quantitated by use of vendor-supplied software.l The raw densitometry analysis results were reported in RAUs. Results of duplicate assays were normalized against results for 1 pig used as an internal control sample, and mean values for the duplicates were calculated. To facilitate comparison of the western blot analyses with the enzyme results, RAUs were normalized to RAUs per milligram of S10 protein.

Data evaluation and statistical analysis—Contents for CYP and cytochrome b5 were reported as nanomoles per milligram of microsomal protein; subcellular fraction protein concentrations were reported as milligrams of protein per milliliter. The GSH-S-transferase and reductase activities were reported as nanomoles of product formed per minute per milligram of protein. Appropriate external standard curves were used to convert absorbance and fluorescence units, which were the units of measure for all assays, to nanomoles of product formed. The nanomoles of product formed per unit of time were normalized by dividing the value by the amount of S10 protein included in the assay mixtures to determine the specific activity. Mean values were calculated for data from appropriate animal replicates. Results are reported as mean ± SD for swine within groups. All data transformations were performed by use of a spreadsheet.m Significance was determined by use of a 1-way ANOVA and the Student-Newman-Keuls multiple range test or Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA on ranks and the Dunn multiple comparison test.n Values were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05.

Results

Experiments 1 and 2—Results of experiment 1 were summarized (Tables 1–3). Results of experiment 2 also were summarized (Tables 4 and 5).

Table 1—

Variables determined for protein concentrations of hepatic subcellular fractions in LPS- or sham-injected (control) market-weight swine in experiment 1.

VariableLPS (μg/kg)Mean ± SD*
S10 protein (mg/mL)029.10 ± 1.21
2020.31 ± 1.00
Microsomal protein (mg/mL)06.25 ± 0.42
205.30 ± 0.89
Cytosol protein (mg/mL)08.96 ± 1.67
205.68 ± 1.12

Represents results for 5 sham-injected (control) swine and 4 LPS-treated swine.

Within a variable, value differs significantly (P < 0.05) from the value for the control group.

Table 2—

Hepatic DME components in LPS- or sham-injected (control) market-weight swine in experiment 1.

VariableLPS (μg/kg)Mean ± SD*
CYP (nmol/mg of microsomal protein)00.21 ± 0.04
200.11 ± 0.09
Cytochrome b5 (nmol/mg of microsomal protein)00.36 ± 0.18
200.38 ± 0.14
CYP reduced (nmol reduced/min/mg of microsomal protein)0153.11 ± 20.92
2045.28 ± 21.98
Cytochrome b5 reduced (μmol reduced/min/mg of microsomal protein)04.39 ± 0.80
201.22 ± 0.25
GSH-S-transferase (nmol of DNCB-GSH conjugate formed/min/mg of cytosolic protein)02,233 ± 436
201,027 ± 472

DNCB = 1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene.

See Table 1 for remainder of key.

Table 3—

Hepatic CYP-dependent DME activities in LPS- or sham-injected (control) market-weight swine in experiment 1.

VariableLPS (μg/kg)Mean ± SD*
Aminopyrine N-demethylase (nmol of formaldehyde/min/mg of S10 protein)00.31 ± 0.08
201.46 ± 1.46
CoH (pmol of umbelliferone/min/mg of S10 protein)024.40 ± 10.80
201.93 ± 2.17
EtOC O-deethylase (pmol of umbelliferone/min/mg of S10 protein)0449.01 ± 204.26
2049.91 ± 38.28
MOMC O-demethylase (pmol of 4-methylumbelliferone/min/mg of S10 protein)08.84 ± 5.37
205.54 ± 6.98
EtOMC O-deethylase (pmol of 4-methylumbelliferone/min/mg of S10 protein)010.46 ± 3.86
201.95 ± 1.62
ERF O-deethylase (pmol of resorufin/min/mg of S10 protein)013.10 ± 4.51
200.84 ± 0.59
PRF O-dealkylase (pmol of resorufin/min/mg of S10 protein)02.94 ± 1.56
200 ± 0

See Table 1 for key.

Table 4—

Mean ± SD results for the effects of LPS dose on hepatic DME activities and CYP isoforms in growing (35 kg) and finishing (85 kg) swine.

VariableControl2 μg of LPS/kg20 μg of LPS/kg
S10 protein (mg/mL)24.69 ± 3.75a21.29 ± 3.23b19.41 ± 2.15b
Microsomal protein (mg/mL)6.15 ± 1.0a4.56 ± 0.7b4.43 ± 0.7b
Cytosol protein (mg/mL)6.88 ± 1.7a6.06 ± 0.7a,b5.63 ± 0.6b
GSH-S-transferase (nmol of DNCB-GSH conjugate formed/min/mg of cytosolic protein)2,272 ± 6672,086 ± 1,0302,434 ± 917
CYP (nmol/mg of microsomal protein)0.23 ± 0.20.30 ± 0.30.27 ± 0.2
CYP/mg of S10 (nmol/mg of S10 protein)0.06 ± 0.030.06 ± 0.070.07 ± 0.07
Cytochrome b5 (nmol/mg of microsomal protein)0.50 ± 0.60.25 ± 0.10.25 ± 0.2
CYP reductase (nmol of cytochrome c reduced/min/mg of microsomal protein)178 ± 140a420.9 ± 87b406.0 ± 92b
Cytochrome b5 reductase (μmol of K3Fe[CN]6 reduced/min/mg of microsomal protein)3.44 ± 1.33.38 ± 0.43.39 ± 0.9
CYP1A2 (RAU/mg of S10 protein)2,895 ± 1,100a1,627 ± 1,998b1,267 ± 1,407b
CYP2A6 (RAU/mg of S10 protein)2,918 ± 2,272a0 ± 0b0 ± 0b
CYP2B (RAU/mg of S10 protein)1,143 ± 804a0 ± 0b0 ± 0b
CYP2C11 (RAU/mg of S10 protein)4,130 ± 2,6864,680 ± 3,5042,284 ± 1,497
CYP2C13 (RAU/mg of S10 protein)4,392 ± 3,7322,601 ± 2,1063,244 ± 2,614
CYP2D6 (RAU/mg of S10 protein)2,467 ± 602a1,909 ± 848b1,580 ± 777b
CYP2E (RAU/mg of S10 protein)7,708 ± 33512,136 ± 4,259b11,429 ± 4,245b
CYP3A1/2 (RAU/mg of S10 protein)13,668 ± 7,45210,139 ± 6,69513,378 ± 2,604
ANH (nmol of 4-aminophenol formed/min/mg of S10 protein)0.44 ± 0.40a0.05 ± 0.01b0.05 ± 0.01b
Aminopyrine N-demethylase (nmol of formaldehyde/min/mg of S10 protein)0.55 ± 0.4a1.17 ± 0.9b1.03 ± 0.7b
CoH (pmol of umbelliferone/min/mg of S10 protein)39.29 ± 64.07.60 ± 6.914.50 ± 14.0
EtOC O-deethylase (pmol of umbelliferone/min/mg of S10 protein)177 ± 184165 ± 86247 ± 75
EtOMC O-deethylase (pmol of 4-methylumbelliferone/min/mg of S10 protein)24.09 ± 1437.82 ± 2539.58 ± 24
MOMC O-demethylase (pmol of 4-methylumbelliferone/min/mg of S10 protein)16.60 ± 1511.91 ± 412.59 ± 10
ERF O-deethylase (pmol of resorufin/min/mg of S10 protein)12.04 ± 10.0a3.28 ± 2.3b1.98 ± 1.0b
PRF O-dealkylase (pmol of resorufin/min/mg of S10 protein)4.69 ± 9.4a0 ± 0b0 ± 0b
PNP-OH (nmol of 4-nitrocatechol formed/min/mg of S10 protein)0.08 ± 0.06a0.13 ± 0.06b0.17 ± 0.09b

Data for uninjected, healthy control swine (n = 30 finishing [approx 90 kg] swine) were pooled from several unrelated studies. There were 6 swine (3 growing and 3 finishing) in each of the LPS treatment groups.

Within a row, values with different superscript letters differ significantly (P < 0.05).

See Tables 1 and 2 for remainder of key.

Table 5—

Mean ± SD values for effects of LPS dose on hepatic DME activities in growing (35 kg) and finishing (approx 85 kg) swine

VariableControl85 kg35 kg
2 μg of LPS/kg20 μg of LPS/kg2 μg of LPS/kg20 μg of LPS/kg
S10 protein (mg/mL)24.69 ± 3.75a24.0 ± 1.60a,b20.7 ± 2.30a,b18.6 ± 1.30a,b18.2 ± 1.30b
Microsomal protein (mg/mL)6.15 ± 1.0a5.0 ± 0.4a,b3.9 ± 0.3b4.1 ± 0.7b5.0 ± 0.4a,b
Cytosol protein (mg/mL)6.88 ± 1.7a6.5 ± 0.7a,b5.2 ± 0.5b5.6 ± 0.4a,b6.0 ± 0.3a,b
GSH-S-transferase (nmol of DNCB-GSH conjugate formed/min/mg of cytosolic protein)2,272 ± 6672,433 ± 1,0762,914 ± 1,0931,738 ± 1,0641,953 ± 463
CYP (nmol/mg of microsomal protein)0.23 ± 0.200.10 ± 0.040.20 ± 0.040.50 ± 0.400.40 ± 0.30
CYP/mg of S10 (nmol/mg of S10 protein)0.06 ± 0.0300.03 ± 0.0040.03 ± 0.0040.10 ± 0.100.10 ± 0.10
Cytochrome b5 (nmol/mg of microsomal protein)0.5 ± 0.620.2 ± 0.080.3 ± 0.040.3 ± 0.100.2 ± 0.20
CYP reductase (nmol of cytochrome c reduced/min/mg of microsomal protein)178 ± 140a381 ± 74a,b387 ± 42a,b461 ± 93b425 ± 134a,b
Cytochrome b5 reductase (μmol of K3Fe[CN]6 reduced/min/mg of microsomal protein)3.4 ± 1.303.4 ± 0.484.1 ± 0.443.3 ± 0.302.6 ± 0.30
CYP1A (RAU/mg of S10 protein)2,895 ± 1,100a3,254 ± 1,427a2,535 ± 362a0 ± 0b0 ± 0b
CYP2A (RAU/mg of S10 protein)2,918 ± 1,100a0 ± 0b0 ± 0b0 ± 0b0 ± 0b
CYP2B (RAU/mg of S10 protein)1,143 ± 804a0 ± 0b0 ± 0b0 ± 0b0 ± 0b
CYP2C11 (RAU/mg of S10 protein)4,130 ± 2,6862,974 ± 3601,978 ± 4286,387 ± 4,6712,591 ± 2,266
CYP2C13 (RAU/mg of S10 protein)4,392 ± 3,7323,813 ± 1,8673,238 ± 1,2491,389 ± 1,7863,250 ± 3,940
CYP2D (RAU/mg of S10 protein)2,467± 602a2,369 ± 861a,b2,158 ± 654a1,448 ± 649a,b1,001 ± 278b
CYP2E (RAU/mg of S10 protein)7,708 ± 3,351a13,971 ± 3,610a,b7,662 ± 1,540a,b10,300 ± 471a,b15,197 ± 310b
CYP3A (RAU/mg of S10 protein)13,668 ± 7,45215,256 ± 3,72112,666 ± 1695,022 ± 4,43414,090 ± 3,924
ANH (nmol of 4-aminophenol formed/min/mg of S10 protein)0.44 ± 0.450a0.05 ± 0.020b0.04 ± 0.010b0.04 ± 0.002b0.06 ± 0.010a,b
Aminopyrine N-demethylase (nmol of formaldehyde/min/mg of S10 protein)0.6 ± 0.41.6 ± 0.91.6 ± 0.50.7 ± 0.70.5 ± 0.3
CoH (pmol of umbelliferone/min/mg of S10 protein)39.3 ± 63.911.4 ± 8.326.5 ± 5.33.8 ± 2.92.4 ± 1.6
EtOC O-deethylase (pmol of umbelliferone/min/mg of S10 protein)177 ± 184186 ± 99276 ± 42145 ± 85219 ± 100
EtOMC O-deethylase (pmol of 4-methylumbelliferone/min/mg of S10 protein)24.1 ± 14.254.8 ± 26.448.5 ± 13.721.0 ± 4.331.0 ± 32.0
MOMC O-demethylase (pmol of 4-methylumbelliferone/min/mg of S10 protein)16.6 ± 14.913.1 ± 6.810.8 ± 3.710.8 ± 0.314.4 ± 15.3
ERF O-deethylase (pmol of resorufin/min/mg of S10 protein)12.0 ± 9.9a5.0 ± 1.9a,b2.7 ± 1.1a,b1.6 ± 1.1b1.3 ± 0.7b
PRF O-dealkylase (pmol of resorufin/min/mg of S10 protein)4.7 ± 9.4a0 ± 0b0 ± 0b0 ± 0b0 ± 0b
PNP-OH (nmol of 4-nitrocatechol formed/min/mg of S10 protein)0.1 ± 0.10a0.2 ± 0.10a,b0.2 ± 0.10b0.1 ± 0.01a,b0.1 ± 0.10a,b

Data for uninjected, healthy control swine (n = 30 finishing [approx 90 kg] swine) were pooled from several unrelated, unpublished experiments conducted by our laboratory group. For LPS-treated growing and finishing swine, there were 3 swine/age group/treatment.

See Tables 1 and 2 for remainder of key.

Liver weights and protein concentrations of hepatic subcellular fractions—Swine in experiment 1 treated with LPS (20 μg/kg) had significantly higher liver weights (1.46 ± 0.05 g [n = 5] vs 1.85 ± 0.14 g [4], respectively) and significantly lower protein concentrations in subcellular fractions than did control swine (Table 1). The administered dose induced such a strong inflammatory response in this treatment group in experiment 1 that 1 pig in the LPS-treated group died. Swine in experiment 2 receiving LPS (2 or 20 μg/kg) had a significant decrease in protein concentrations in the various subcellular fractions (Table 4).

Microsomal DME components and cytosolic GSH-S-transferase activity—In experiment 1, LPS treatment reduced the CYP and cytochrome b5 contents and enzymatic activities of hepatic microsomal DME components in treated swine to less than those of the corresponding control swine. The LPS-treated swine also had lower GSH-S-transferase activities (Table 2). In experiment 2, CYP contents were unchanged in the LPS-treated swine, although cytochrome b5 content typically was reduced after LPS treatment, but this may have been a reflection of the low number of treated swine because these values did not differ significantly (Tables 4 and 5). Administration of LPS in experiment 2 caused a consistent increase (> 2-fold) in cytochrome c reductase activity, whereas the cytochrome b5 reductase activity was unaffected.

CYP-dependent DME activities—After LPS administration in experiment 1, enzymatic activities usually associated with CYP1A (ie, ERF) and CYP2A (ie, CoH and EtOC) were significantly reduced. However, CYP2B-mediated reactions had a range of responses to LPS treatment, as indicated by the fact that EtOMC O-deethylase activity was significantly inhibited, PRF O-dealkylase activity was totally eliminated, MOMC O-demethylase activity was unaffected, and aminopyrine N-demethylase activity was increased almost 5-fold. For the most part, results obtained in experiment 2 were similar to the effects seen in experiment 1. In experiment 2, we included reactions associated with CYP2E (ie, ANH and PNP-OH). As mentioned previously, CYP2B-mediated PRF O-dealkylase activity was eliminated in all LPS-treated swine (Tables 4 and 5). Although CYP1A-associated ERF O-deethylase and CYP2E-dependent ANH activities were significantly reduced when evaluated on the basis of LPS dose (2 or 20 μg/kg) or both dose and age, reactions catalyzed by CYP2A (ie, CoH and EtOC O-deethylase) and CYP2B (MOMC O-demethylase) were not significantly affected. On the other hand, LPS-treated finishing swine had higher amounts of CYP2B-associated aminopyrine N-demethylase activity than did control swine. This result was similar to the effects of LPS seen in experiment 1 (Table 3).

CYP isoforms—The LPS treatment completely eliminated all detectable CYP2A and CYP2B isoforms in liver samples obtained from the growing and finishing swine (Tables 4 and 5); this effect was irrespective of the dose of LPS administered to the swine. In addition, LPS appeared to induce a dose-dependent decrease in CYP2D content when test groups were combined; the results were observed mostly in growing swine. Lipopolysaccharide treatment also completely eliminated detectable CYP1A content in growing swine but had no effect on this isoform in finishing swine. Concentrations of hepatic CYP2E were elevated in growing swine treated with 20 μg of LPS/kg. In contrast to the aforementioned observations, LPS treatment did not affect the relative concentrations of CYP2C11, CYP2C13, and CYP3A in either of the LPS-treated test groups, irrespective of the age of swine.

Discussion

High doses of LPS caused hepatic edema, which resulted in increased liver weight with concomitant depression of protein concentrations in hepatic subcellular fractions. The 20 μg/kg dose of LPS also inhibited hepatic DME activities, which reduced the activity of several CYP-mediated reactions. In fact, CYP2B-mediated PRF O-dealkylase activity was essentially eliminated in these swine. In experiment 1, both reductase activities were inhibited by approximately 70%, whereas in experiment 2, there was a > 2-fold enhancement of cytochrome c reductase activities but cytochrome b5 reductase activities were unaffected. Whether these conflicting results reflected differences in breeding stock between the 2 suppliers or were attributable to physiologic variations in this measure in swine cannot be determined. However, because this is the only measure in which we detected differences in the direction of the response between these 2 experiments, these results support the interpretation that we were measuring physiologic variations.

Studies8,9 conducted by our laboratory group have revealed that LPS treatment of swine generates different cytokines, depending on the age (metabolic state) of the treated swine. In addition to our observations discussed previously, the differential effects of LPS on DME activities in the 20 μg/kg treatment group might suggest that LPS-generated cytokines were targeting expression of specific CYP isoforms and were not universally downregulating all CYP isoforms. The diverse effects on CYP2B-mediated reactions also suggest that cytokine regulation of CYP expression in swine differs from that observed in humans and rodents15–20 because almost all CYPs in these species (except for CYP2B in rodents) are downregulated during an inflammatory response. This is not a universal observation because it appears that even in rats, the impact of infection or inflammation on DME activity is dependent on the route and type of infecting entity.21 Although CYP isoforms are recognized as a type of acute-phase protein whose values decrease during an inflammatory response, this conclusion might not be applicable to swine because of the selective decrease of CYP isoforms following LPS exposure.6,22 Whether this is true for other aggravating causes of cytokine production (eg, vaccinations or infections) remains to be determined.

Analysis of results of the present study revealed that the pattern of swine CYP isoforms affected by LPS treatment differed from that described in studies in rodents. The reduction in swine liver CYP content was isoform specific and dependent on the metabolic status of the swine and not necessarily the dose of LPS. Growing swine have a daily rate of protein deposition that is greater than the daily rate of fat deposition, whereas finishing swine have a higher rate of fat deposition relative to that of protein deposition.23 Comparing these 2 metabolically different groups, only CYP2A and CYP2B values were decreased in both growing and finishing swine whereas the amount of CYP1A was decreased only in growing swine. The underlying reason for the differences in CYP1A values in LPS-treated growing versus finishing swine cannot currently be determined.

In contrast to the results observed in swine, different CYP isoforms are downregulated in rats during an inflammatory process. Endotoxin challenge decreases CYP1A2, CYP2B1, CYP2C11, CYP2C13, and CYP2E1 expression in rats.15–19 Although expression of rat CYP3A1 is not affected by the IFN inducer, polyinosinicpolycytidylic acid, alone, CYP3A1 is decreased in polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid–treated rats when CYP3A production is subsequently induced with pregnenolone-16 α-carbonitrile or troleandomycin.24 This suggests that CYP3A concentrations can be affected by inflammation only under conditions in which there is extensive mRNA production. It was subsequently determined that mice had downregulation of CYP3A expression at all levels of induction, whereas CYP3A inhibition in rats was evident only at low levels of induction.25 In another study,26 investigators found that LPS works through the TLR4 to decrease CYP3A11 concentrations because TLR4-mutant mice do not have loss of CYP3A11 expression. The types of metabolic reactions affected in swine following LPS treatment provide further support for the contention that swine CYPs have a unique spectrum of metabolic activities. Analysis of these results suggests that some changes in CYP expression are attributable to a more direct effect of LPS, rather than being indirectly mediated by inflammatory cytokines.

The observed changes in swine CYP proteins and metabolic reactions following LPS treatment are consistent with our observations that swine CYPs do not catalyze the same reactions as do human and rodent CYPs.10 The LPS treatment eliminated detectable CYP2B1 proteins but did not affect MOMC O-dealkylase or EtOMC O-dealkylase activity and actually increased the amount of aminopyrine N-demethylase activity in finishing swine. Conversely, LPS treatment eliminated detectable PRF O-dealkylase activity usually associated with CYP2B1 isoforms and decreased the metabolism of ANH, although CYP2E1 values were unchanged or increased. Metabolism of another CYP2E substrate, PNP, was increased by LPS exposure.

Minimal information exists on the in vivo half-lives of specific rat or human CYP isoforms. Assessment of the sparse information available indicates that different CYP isoforms have vastly different half-lives.27–30 Because of practical considerations, those studies were conducted in vitro. Differences in the half-lives of swine CYPs could help explain differences in their regulation following endotoxin challenge. If a particular CYP isoform has a relatively long half-life, the relatively short period of inflammation in the study reported here might not have been sufficient to cause an effect on rates of synthesis (or degradation).

Analysis of the results of the present study indicates that the concentrations and metabolic activities of CYP isoforms in LPS-treated swine differ from those reported for LPS-treated rats. These results also provide further evidence for our earlier observations that swine CYPs catalyze reactions other than those that would have been predicted on the basis of results in other species, including rats, mice, and humans.10 A direct consequence of these observations is that swine infected by LPS-generating bacteria would most likely have a markedly reduced ability to metabolize drugs that are in the pathways of the susceptible CYP isoform categories identified here. Drugs metabolized by non-CYP pathways, by CYP3A, or by CYP2C might not be affected. If metabolism of drugs is affected, there would be prolonged clearance of drugs or xenobiotics to which the sick animals are exposed. This could result in unexpected toxic effects, extended drug withdrawal times, or both.

ABBREVIATIONS

ANH

Aniline hydroxylase

BSA

Bovine serum albumin

CoH

Coumarin-7-hydroxylase

CYP

Cytochrome P450

DME

Drug metabolizing enzyme

ERF

7-ethoxyresorufin

EtOC

7-ethoxycoumarin

EtOMC

7-ethoxy-4-methylcoumarin

GSH

Glutathione

IFN

Interferon

IL

Interleukin

LPS

Lipopolysaccharide

MOMC

7-methoxy-4-methylcoumarin

PNP

p-Nitrophenol

PNP-OH

p-Nitrophenol hydroxylase

PRF

7-pentoxyresorufin

RAU

Relative absorbance unit

S10

Supernatant obtained by use of centrifugation at 10,000 × g

TLR4

Toll-like receptor 4

TNF

Tumor necrosis factor

a.

Tom Hartsock, Damascus, Md.

b.

PIC Pigs, Pig Improvement Co Inc, Franklin, Ky.

c.

Difco, Detroit, Mich.

d.

8452A, Agilent Technologies Inc, Rockville, Md.

e.

Pierce Chemical Co, Rockford, Ill.

f.

Sigma Chemical Co, St Louis, Mo.

g.

MR700, Dynatech Laboratories, Sullyfield, Va.

h.

Cytofluor, Millipore Corp, Billerica, Mass.

i.

Aldrich Chemical Co, Milwaukee, Wis.

j.

KPL, Gaithersburg, Md.

k.

Molecular Dynamics Model PD, Sunnyvale, Calif.

l.

ImageQuant, Molecular Dynamics, Sunnyvale, Calif.

m.

Excel, Microsoft Corp, Bothell, Wash.

n.

SigmaStat, version 3.5, SysStat, San Rafael, Calif.

References

  • 1.

    Myers MJ, Kawalek JC. Effect of cytokines on drug metabolizing enzymes. In:Myers MJ, Murtaugh MP, eds. Cytokines in animal health and disease. New York: Marcel-Dekker Inc, 1995;235259.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Van Miert AS. Pro-inflammatory cytokines in a ruminant model: pathophysiological, pharmacological, and therapeutic aspects. Vet Q 1995; 17:4150.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Galtier P, Larrieu G, Tufenkji AE, et al. Incidence of experimental fascioliasis on the activity of drug-metabolizing enzymes in lamb liver. Drug Metab Dispos 1986; 14:137141.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Anika SM, Nouws JFM, Vree TB, et al. The efficacy and plasma disposition of chloramphenicol and spiramycin in tick-borne fever-infected dwarf goats. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1986; 9:433435.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    van Gogh H, Watson ADJ, Nouws JFM, et al. Effect of tick-borne fever (Ehrlichia phagocytophila) and trypanosomiasis (Trypanosoma brucei 1066) on the pharmacokinetics of sulfadimidine and its metabolites in goats. Drug Metab Dispos 1989; 17:16.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Monshouwer M, Witkamp RF, Nijmeijer SM, et al. Infection (Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae)-mediated suppression of oxidative hepatic drug metabolism and cytochrome P4503A mRNA levels in pigs. Drug Metab Dispos 1995; 23:4447.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Monshouwer M, Witkamp RF, Nijmeijer SM, et al. A lipopolysaccharide-induced acute phase response in the pig is associated with a decrease in hepatic cytochrome P450-mediated drug metabolism. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1996; 19:382388.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Myers MJ, Farrell DE, Evock-Clover CM, et al. Growth hormone or chromium picolinate alter swine metabolism and inflammatory cytokine production following endotoxin challenge. Pathobiology 1998; 63:283287.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Myers MJ, Farrell DE, Evock-Clover CM, et al. Endotoxin challenge differentially affects cytokine production and metabolic status of growing and finishing swine. Domest Anim Endocrinol 1999; 17:345360.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Myers MJ, Farrell DE, Howard KD, et al. Identification of multiple constitutive and inducible hepatic cytochrome P450 enzymes in market weight swine. Drug Metab Dispos 2001; 29:908915.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Kawalek JC, el Said KR. Maturational development of drug-metabolizing enzymes in sheep. Am J Vet Res 1990; 51:17361741.

  • 12.

    Kawalek JC, el Said KR. Comparison of maturation of drug-metabolizing enzymes in calves with functioning or nonfunctioning rumen. Am J Vet Res 1994; 55:15791586.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Smith PK, Krohn RI, Hermanson GT, et al. Measurement of protein using bicinchoninic acid. Anal Biochem 1985; 150:7685.

  • 14.

    Aitio A. UDP-glucuronyl transferase activity in various rat tissues. Int J Biochem 1974; 5:325330.

  • 15.

    Morgan ET. Suppression of constitutive cytochrome P-450 gene expression in livers of rats undergoing an acute phase response to endotoxin. Mol Pharmacol 1989; 36:699707.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Li-Masters T, Morgan ET. Effects of bacterial lipopolysaccharide on phenobarbital-induced CYP2B expression in mice. Drug Metab Dispos 2001; 29:252257.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Morgan ET. Regulation of cytochrome P450 by inflammatory mediators: why and how? Drug Metab Dispos 2001; 29:207212.

  • 18.

    Morgan ET, Li-Masters T, Cheng PY. Mechanisms of cytochrome P450 regulation by inflammatory mediators. Toxicology 2002; 181–182:207210.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Mitchell SR, Sewer MB, Kardar SS, et al. Characterization of CYP4A induction in rat liver by inflammatory stimuli: dependence on sex, strain, and inflammation-evoked hypophagia. Drug Metab Dispos 2001; 29:1722.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Aitken AE, Morgan ET. Gene-specific effects of inflammatory cytokines on cytochrome P450 2C, 2B6 and 3A4 mRNA levels in human hepatocytes. Drug Metab Dispos 2007; 35:16871693.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Montero R, Serrano L, Davita VM, et al. Infection of rats with Taenia taeniformis metacestodes increases hepatic CYP450, induces the activity of CYP1A1, CYP2B1 and coumarin isoforms and increases the genotoxicity of the procarcinogens benzo(a)pyrene, cyclophosphamide and aflatoxin B1. Mutagenesis 2003; 18:211216.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Monshouwer M, Witkamp RF, Nijmeijer SM, et al. Selective effects of a bacterial infection (Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae) on the hepatic clearances of caffeine, antipyrine, paracetamol, and indocyanine green in the pig. Xenobiotica 1995; 25:491499.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Shields RG Jr, Mahan DC, Graham PL. Changes in swine body composition from birth to 145 kg. J Anim Sci 1983; 57:4354.

  • 24.

    Delaporte E, Cribb AE, Renton KW. Modulation of rat hepatic CYP3A1 induction by the interferon inducer polyinosinic acidpolycytidylic acid (poly ic). Drug Metab Dispos 1993; 21:520523.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Anari MR, Cribb AE, Renton KW. The duration of induction and species influences the downregulation of cytochrome P450 by the interferon inducer polyinosinic acid-polycytidylic acid. Drug Metab Dispos 1995; 23:536541.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Goralski KB, Abdulla D, Sinai CJ, et al. Toll-like receptor-4 regulation of hepatic CYP3A11 metabolism in a mouse model of LPS-induced CNS inflammation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2005;289:G434G443.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Xie W, Barwick JL, Simon CM, et al. Reciprocal activation of xenobiotic response genes by nuclear receptors SXR/PXR and CAR. Genes Dev 2000; 14:30143023.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Wei P, Zhang J, Egan-Hafley M, et al. The nuclear receptor CAR mediates specific xenobiotic induction of drug metabolism. Nature 2000; 407:920923.

  • 29.

    Honkakoski P, Negishi M. Regulation of cytochrome P450 (CYP) genes by nuclear receptors. Biochem J 2000; 347:321337.

  • 30.

    Tanaka E, Hisawa S. Clinical significant pharmacokinetic drug interactions with psychoactive drugs: antidepressants and antipsychotics and the cytochrome P450 system. J Clin Pharm Ther 1999; 24:716.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Contributor Notes

The authors thank Dr. Norman C. Steele and Christine M. Evock-Clover for technical assistance.

Address correspondence to Dr. Myers (michael.myers@fda.hhs.gov).