Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Growth kinetics of L1210 leukemic cells exposed to different concentration courses of methotrexate in vitro

  • 40 Accesses

  • 1 Citations

Abstract

At present, pharmacokinetic aspects in existing in vitro assays for cytotoxic drug screening are considered only insufficiently. Using a new microperfusion assay, we integrated the peak plasma concentration (Cmax), the time of peak concentration (t max), the absorption rate, and the elimination rate following methotrexate (MTX) treatment of L1210 leukemic cells in vitro. The effects of different MTX concentration courses with constant exposure doses (area under the concentration-time curve) were checked by combining the microperfusion assay with the clonogenic assay in agar-containing glass capillaries. We found that the concentration profiles obtained in the ultrafiltration-flat chamber (an essential part of the microperfusion system) can be described by the Bateman function. Thus, the flat chamber might be comprehended as a one-compartmental system with first-order absorption kinetics. We found that the colony-inhibition kinetics of L1210 cells obviously depended on the MTX exposure profile. Continuous cell-growth inhibition was obtained by one concentration profile that offered a compromise between all pharmacokinetic parameters. Our results correlated with the known pharmacodynamic activities of MTX and showed the relevance of different concentration courses to the cytotoxic effect of the drug. We suppose that the growth-inhibition kinetics of unknown, potential anticancer drugs can be also interpreted in similar ways.

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

References

  1. 1.

    Adams DJ (1989) In vitro pharmacodynamic assay for cancer drug development: application to Crisnatol, a new DNA intercalator. Cancer Res 49: 6615–6620

  2. 2.

    Cohen M, Bender RA, Donehower R, Myers CE, Chabner BA (1978) Reversibility of high-affinity binding of methotrexate in L1210 murine leukemia cells. Cancer Res 38: 2866–2870

  3. 3.

    Derendorf H, Garrett ER (1987) Pharmakokinetik. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart

  4. 4.

    Ellner PD, Neu HC (1981) The inhibitory quotient: a method for interpreting minimum inhibitory concentration data. JAMA 246: 1575–1578

  5. 5.

    Gimmel S, Maurer HR (1994) Concentration- and time-dependent cytostatic effects of methotrexate and etoposide on L1210 leukemia cells in vitro demonstrated by a new microperfusion method. Anticancer Res (in press)

  6. 6.

    Gimmel S, Kinawi A, Maurer HR (1993) A new microperfusion system for the cultivation of tumor cells in vitro: approach to integrate pharmacokinetic parameters in screening assays for cytostatic drugs. Int J Oncol 2: 39–46

  7. 7.

    Goldman ID (1975) Analysis of the cytotoxic determinants for methotrexate (NSC-740): a role for free intracellular drug. Cancer Chemother Rep 6: 51–61

  8. 8.

    Henderson GB, Zevely EM (1984) Transport routes utilized by L1210 cells for the influx and efflux of methotrexate. J Biol Chem 259: 1526–1531

  9. 9.

    Kinawi A, M-Ali H (1990) Modifizierung der Flachkammer-Methode für die Bestimmung der Bindung von Pharmaka an Humanserumalbumin. Arch Pharm 323: 523–524

  10. 10.

    Kinawi A, Teller C (1979) Zur Bestimmung der Pharmaka-Albuminbindung in Pufferlösung mit Hilfe eines modifizierten Ultrafiltrationsverfahrens. Arzneimittelforschung 29: 1495–1500

  11. 11.

    Liliemark J, Peterson C (1991) Pharmacokinetic optimization of anticancer therapy. Clin Pharmacokinet 21: 213–231

  12. 12.

    Maurer HR, Echarti C (1990) Clonogenic assays for hematopoietic and tumor cells using agar-containing capillaries. In: Pollard JW, Walker JM (eds) Methods in molecular biology, vol 5. Animal cell culture. Humana, Clifton, pp 379–394

  13. 13.

    Moore RD, Lietman PS, Smith CR (1987) Clinical response to aminoglycoside therapy: importance of the ratio of peak concentration to minimal inhibitory concentration. J Infect Dis 155: 93–99

  14. 14.

    Roper PR, Drewinko B (1976) Comparison of in vitro methods to determine drug-induced cell lethality. Cancer Res 36: 2182–2188

  15. 15.

    Schentag JJ, Nix DE, Adelman MH (1991) Mathematical examination of dual individualization principles. I. Relationships between AUC above MIC and area under the inhibitory curve for cefmenoxime, ciprofloxacine, and tobramycine. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 25: 1050–1057

  16. 16.

    Schlemmer SR, Sirotnak FM (1992) Energy-dependent efflux of methotrexate in L1210 leukemia cells. J Biol Chem 267: 14746–14752

  17. 17.

    Schornagel JH, McVie JG (1983) The clinical pharmacology of methotrexate. Cancer Treat Rev 10: 53–75

  18. 18.

    Sirotnak FM, Donsbach RC (1976) Kinetic correlates of methotrexate transport and therapeutic responsiveness in murine tumors. Cancer Res 36: 1151–1158

  19. 19.

    Wheeler KT, Levin VA, Deen DF (1978) The concept of drug dose for in vitro studies with chemotherapeutic agents. Radiat Res 76: 441–458

  20. 20.

    White CJ (1979) Reversal of methotrexate binding to dihydrofolate reductase by dihydrofolate. J Biol Chem 254: 10889–10895

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to H. Rainer Maurer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gimmel, S., Maurer, H.R. Growth kinetics of L1210 leukemic cells exposed to different concentration courses of methotrexate in vitro. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 34, 351–355 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00686044

Download citation

Key words

  • In vitro microperfusion system
  • L1210 cells
  • Methotrexate
  • Pharmacokinetic parameters