Advertisement

The AAPS Journal

, 21:15 | Cite as

Sorafenib N-Oxide Is an Inhibitor of Human Hepatic CYP3A4

  • Sussan Ghassabian
  • Tina B. Gillani
  • Tristan Rawling
  • Severine Crettol
  • Pramod C. Nair
  • Michael Murray
Research Article

Abstract

The multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib (SOR) is clinically important in the treatment of hepatocellular and renal cancers and undergoes CYP3A4-dependent oxidation in liver to the pharmacologically active N-oxide metabolite (SNO). There have been reports that kinase inhibitors such as SOR may precipitate pharmacokinetic interactions with coadministered drugs that compete for CYP3A4-mediated biotransformation, but these occur non-uniformly in patients. Clinical evidence also indicates that SNO accumulates in serum of some patients during prolonged SOR therapy. In this study undertaken in hepatic microsomes from individual donors, we assessed the possibility that SNO might contribute to pharmacokinetic interactions mediated by SOR. Enzyme kinetics of CYP3A4-mediated midazolam 1′-hydroxylation in individual human hepatic microsomes were analyzed by non-linear regression and appropriate replots. Thus, SNO and SOR were linear-mixed inhibitors of microsomal CYP3A4 activity (Kis 15 ± 4 and 33 ± 14 μM, respectively). To assess these findings, further molecular docking studies of SOR and SNO with the 1TQN crystal structure of CYP3A4 were undertaken. SNO elicited a larger number of interactions with key amino acid residues located in substrate recognition sequences of the enzyme. In the optimal docking pose, the N-oxide moiety of SNO was also found to interact directly with the heme moiety of CYP3A4. These findings suggest that SNO could contribute to pharmacokinetic interactions involving SOR, perhaps in individuals who produce high circulating concentrations of the metabolite.

KEY WORDS

CYP3A4 inhibition metabolite inhibition midazolam 1′-hydroxylation sorafenib sorafenib N-oxide 

Abbreviations

AUC

area under the serum concentration versus time curve

Cmax

maximal serum concentration

DDI

drug–drug interaction

SOR

sorafenib

SNO

sorafenib N-oxide

SRS

substrate recognition sequence

Notes

Acknowledgements

SC acknowledges Fellowship support from the Swiss National Science Foundation. PCN acknowledges the Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer (FCIC) and Flinders Medical Centre (FMC) Foundation for an Early Career Research Grant. Technical contributions in aspects of the study from Dr. S. Cui, Ms. K Bourget, Mr. E Li and Ms. L Pham are also acknowledged. The supply of several of the human liver samples used in this study by Dr. J George is also gratefully acknowledged.

Funding information

This study is financially supported by the Cancer Council NSW (grants RG09-14 and IG11-33).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Experiments in human liver microsomes were approved by ethics committees of the Western Sydney Area Health Service and the University of Sydney, according to the Declaration of Helsinki.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM, Szczylik C, Oudard S, Siebels M, et al. Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. New Engl J Med. 2007;356:125–34.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa060655.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu L, Cao Y, Chen C, Zhang X, McNabola A, Wilkie D, et al. Sorafenib blocks the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway, inhibits tumor angiogenesis, and induces tumor cell apoptosis in hepatocellular carcinoma model PLC/PRF/5. Cancer Res. 2006;66:11851–8.  https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1377.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Awada A, Hendlisz A, Christensen O, Lathia CD, Bartholomeus S, Lebrun F, et al. Phase I trial to investigate the safety, pharmacokinetics and efficacy of sorafenib combined with docetaxel in patients with advanced refractory solid tumours. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:465–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.12.026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azad N, Dasari A, Arcaroli J, Taylor GE, Laheru DA, Carducci MA, et al. Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of cetuximab, irinotecan and sorafenib in advanced colorectal cancer. Investig New Drugs. 2013;31:345–54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-012-9820-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Strumberg D, Clark JW, Awada A, Moore MJ, Richly H, Hendlisz A, et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity of sorafenib: a review of four phase I trials in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors. Oncologist. 2007;12:426–37.  https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.12-4-426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Minami H, Kawada K, Ebi H, Kitagawa K, Kim YI, Araki K, et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, in Japanese patients with advanced refractory solid tumors. Cancer Sci. 2008;99:1492–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1349-7006.2008.00837.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Inaba H, Rubnitz JE, Coustan-Smith E, Li L, Furmanski BD, Mascara GP, et al. Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib in combination with clofarabine and cytarabine in pediatric relapsed/refractory leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3293–300.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.34.7427.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferrario C, Strepponi I, Esfahani K, Charamis H, Langleben A, Scarpi E, et al. Phase I/II trial of sorafenib in combination with vinorelbine as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0167906.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167906.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lathia C, Lettieri J, Cihon F, Gallentine M, Radtke M, Sundaresan P. Lack of effect of ketoconazole-mediated CYP3A inhibition on sorafenib clinical pharmacokinetics. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2006;57:685–92.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-005-0068-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghassabian S, Rawling T, Zhou F, Doddareddy MR, Tattam BN, Hibbs DE, et al. Role of human CYP3A4 in the biotransformation of sorafenib to its major oxidized metabolites. Biochem Pharmacol. 2012;84:215–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2012.04.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Richly H, Henning BF, Kupsch P, Passarge K, Grubert M, Hilger RA, et al. Results of a phase I trial of sorafenib (BAY 43-9006) in combination with doxorubicin in patients with refractory solid tumors. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:866–73.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdl017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mross K, Steinbild S, Baas F, Gmehling D, Radtke M, Voliotis D, et al. Results from an in vitro and a clinical/pharmacological phase I study with the combination irinotecan and sorafenib. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:55–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2006.08.032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gillani T, Rawling T, Murray M. Cytochrome P450-mediated biotransformation of sorafenib and its N-oxide metabolite: implications for cell viability and human toxicity. Chem Res Toxicol. 2015;28:92–102.  https://doi.org/10.1021/tx500373g.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Farrell GC, Koltai A, Murray M. The source of raised estrogens in male rats with portal bypass. J Clin Invest. 1988;81:221–8.  https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI113299.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Murray M. Participation of a cytochrome P450 enzyme from the 2C subfamily in progesterone 21-hydroxylation in sheep liver. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1992;43:591–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-0760(92)90248-H.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghassabian S, Chetty M, Tattam BN, Glen J, Rahme J, Stankovic Z, et al. A high-throughput assay using liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry for simultaneous in vivo phenotyping of five major cytochrome P450 enzymes in patients. Ther Drug Monit. 2009;31:239–46.  https://doi.org/10.1097/FTD.0b013e318197e1bf.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith MT, Eadie MJ, Brophy TO. The pharmacokinetics of midazolam in man. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1981;19:271–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00562804.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Crevoisier C, Ziegler WH, Eckert M, Heizmann P. Relationship between plasma concentration and effect of midazolam after oral and intravenous administration. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1983;16:51S–61S.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1983.tb02271.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    von Moltke LL, Greenblatt DJ, Cotreau-Bibbo MM, Duan SX, Harmatz JS, Shader RI. Inhibition of desipramine hydroxylation in vitro by serotonin-reuptake-inhibitor antidepressants, and by quinidine and ketoconazole: a model system to predict drug interactions in vivo. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1994;268:1278–83.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murray M. Metabolite intermediate complexation of microsomal cytochrome P450 2C11 in male rat liver by nortriptyline. Mol Pharmacol. 1992;42:931–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yano JK, Wester MR, Schoch GA, Griffin KJ, Stout CD, Johnson EF. The structure of human microsomal cytochrome P450 3A4 determined by X-ray crystallography to 2.05-Å resolution. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:38091–4.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.C400293200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Williams PA, Cosme J, Vinkovic DM, Ward A, Angove HC, Day PJ, et al. Crystal structures of human cytochrome P450 3A4 bound to metyrapone and progesterone. Science. 2004;305:683–6.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1099736.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sugiyama M, Fujita K, Murayama N, Akiyama Y, Yamazaki H, Sasaki Y. Sorafenib and sunitinib, two anticancer drugs, inhibit CYP3A4-mediated and activate CY3A5-mediated midazolam 1′-hydroxylation. Drug Metab Dispos. 2011;39:757–62.  https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.110.037853.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gasteiger J, Marsili M. Iterative partial equalization of orbital electronegativity—a rapid access to atomic charges. Tetrahedron. 1980;36:3219–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-4020(80)80168-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Powell MJD. Restart procedures for the conjugate gradient method. Math Program. 1977;12:241–54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01593790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clark M, Cramer RD III, Van Opdenbosch N. Validation of the general purpose tripos 5.2 force field. J Comput Chem. 1989;10:982–1012.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.540100804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jain AN. Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J Med Chem. 2003;46:499–511.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jm020406h.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ghosal A, Satoh H, Thomas PE, Bush E, Moore D. Inhibition and kinetics of cytochrome P4503A activity in microsomes from rat, human, and cDNA-expressed human cytochrome P450. Drug Metab Dispos. 1996;24:940–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patki KC, Von Moltke LL, Greenblatt DJ. In vitro metabolism of midazolam, triazolam, nifedipine, and testosterone by human liver microsomes and recombinant cytochromes P450: role of CYP3A4 and CYP3A5. Drug Metab Dispos. 2003;31:938–44.  https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.31.7.938.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sevrioukova IF, Poulos TL. Structural and mechanistic insights into the interaction of cytochrome P4503A4 with bromoergocryptine, a type I ligand. J Biol Chem. 2012;287:3510–7.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.317081.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Graaf C, Oostenbrink C, Keizers PH, van Vugt-Lussenburg BM, van Waterschoot RA, Tschirret-Guth RA, et al. Molecular modeling-guided site-directed mutagenesis of cytochrome P450 2D6. Curr Drug Metab. 2007;8:59–77.  https://doi.org/10.2174/138920007779315062.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ferrara P, Gohlke H, Price DJ, Klebe G, Brooks CL 3rd. Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. J Med Chem. 2004;47:3032–47.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jm030489h.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pham TA, Jain AN. Parameter estimation for scoring protein-ligand interactions using negative training data. J Med Chem. 2006;49:5856–68.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jm050040j.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kenny JR, Mukadam S, Zhang C, Tay S, Collins C, Galetin A, et al. Drug-drug interaction potential of marketed oncology drugs: in vitro assessment of time-dependent cytochrome P450 inhibition, reactive metabolite formation and drug-drug interaction prediction. Pharm Res. 2012;29:1960–76.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-012-0724-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Filppula AM, Neuvonen PJ, Backman JT. In vitro assessment of time-dependent inhibitory effects on CYP2C8 and CYP3A activity by fourteen protein kinase inhibitors. Drug Metab Dispos. 2014;42:1202–9.  https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.114.057695.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Giri P, Naidu S, Patel N, Patel H, Srinivas NR. Evaluation of in vitro cytochrome P450 inhibition and in vitro fate of structurally diverse N-oxide metabolites: case studies with clozapine, levofloxacin, roflumilast, voriconazole and zopiclone. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2017;42:677–88.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13318-016-0385-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Marcus CB, Murray M, Wilkinson CF. Spectral and inhibitory interactions of methylenedioxyphenyl and related compounds with purified isozymes of cytochrome P-450. Xenobiotica. 1985;15:351–62.  https://doi.org/10.3109/00498258509045370.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Butler AM, Murray M. Inhibition and inactivation of constitutive cytochromes P450 in rat liver by parathion. Mol Pharmacol. 1993;43:902–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ortiz de Montellano PR, Correia MA. Suicidal destruction of cytochrome P-450 during oxidative drug metabolism. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 1983;23:481–503.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pa.23.040183.002405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    He K, Iyer KR, Hayes RN, Sinz MW, Woolf T, Hollenberg PF. Inactivation of cytochrome P450 3A4 by bergamottin, a component of grapefruit juice. Chem Res Toxicol. 1998;11:252–9.  https://doi.org/10.1021/tx970192k.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stupans I, Murray M, Kirlich A, Tuck K, Hayball P. Inactivation of cytochrome P450 by the food-derived complex phenol oleuropein. Food Chem Toxicol. 2001;39:1119–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-6915(01)00060-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Murray M. Complexation of cytochrome P-450 isoenzymes in hepatic microsomes from SKF 525-A-induced rats. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1988;262:381–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9861(88)90202-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Murray M, Field SL. Inhibition and metabolite complexation of rat hepatic microsomal cytochrome P450 by tricyclic antidepressants. Biochem Pharmacol. 1992;43:2065–71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-2952(92)90163-D.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Murray M. In vitro effects of quinoline derivatives on cytochrome P-450 and aminopyrine N-demethylase activity in rat hepatic microsomes. Biochem Pharmacol. 1984;33:3277–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-2952(84)90090-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nemeroff CB, DeVane CL, Pollock BG. Newer antidepressants and the cytochrome P450 system. Am J Psychiatr. 1996;153:311–20.  https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.153.3.311.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ohyama K, Nakajima M, Suzuki M, Shimada N, Yamazaki H, Yokoi T. Inhibitory effects of amiodarone and its N-deethylated metabolite on human cytochrome P450 activities: prediction of in vivo drug interactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2000;49:244–53.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2000.00134.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Miller AA, Murry DJ, Owzar K, Hollis DR, Kennedy EB, Abou-Alfa G, et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of sorafenib in patients with hepatic or renal dysfunction: CALGB 60301. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1800–5.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.20.0931.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Flaherty KT, Lathia C, Frye RF, Schuchter L, Redlinger M, Rosen M, et al. Interaction of sorafenib and cytochrome P450 isoenzymes in patients with advanced melanoma: a phase I/II pharmacokinetic interaction study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011;68:1111–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-011-1585-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ekroos M, Sjögren T. Structural basis for ligand promiscuity in cytochrome P450 3A4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:13682–7.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0603236103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Teixeira VH, Ribeiro V, Martel PJ. Analysis of binding modes of ligands to multiple conformations of CYP3A4. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010;1804:2036–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbapap.2010.06.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bren U, Oostenbrink C. Cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibition by ketoconazole: tackling the problem of ligand cooperativity using molecular dynamics simulations and free-energy calculations. J Chem Inf Model. 2012;52:1573–82.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ci300118x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bren U, Fuchs JE, Oostenbrink C. Cooperative binding of aflatoxin B1 by cytochrome P450 3A4: a computational study. Chem Res Toxicol. 2014;27:2136–47.  https://doi.org/10.1021/tx5004062.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nair PC, McKinnon RA, Miners JO. Cytochrome P450 structure-function: insights from molecular dynamics simulations. Drug Metab Rev. 2016;48:434–52.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03602532.2016.1178771.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sevrioukova IF, Poulos TL. Structural basis for regiospecific midazolam oxidation by human cytochrome P450 3A4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114:486–91.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616198114.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Torimoto N, Ishii I, Toyama KI, Hata M, Tanaka K, Shimomura H, et al. Helices F-G are important for the substrate specificities of CYP3A7. Drug Metab Dispos. 2007;35:484–92.  https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.106.011304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kaur P, Chamberlin AR, Poulos TL, Sevrioukova IF. Structure-based inhibitor design for evaluation of a CYP3A4 pharmacophore model. J Med Chem. 2016;59:4210–20.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5b01146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Seto Y, Guengerich FP. Partitioning between N-dealkylation and N-oxygenation in the oxidation of N,N-dialkylarylamines catalyzed by cytochrome P450 2B1. J Biol Chem. 1993;268:9986–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Skálová L, Nobilis M, Szotáková B, Wsól V, Kvasnicková E. Induction and inhibition of cytochrome P450-catalysed reduction of biologically active benfluron N-oxide. Drug Metabol Drug Interact. 1998;14:221–33.  https://doi.org/10.1515/DMDI.1998.14.4.221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ly JQ, Messick K, Qin A, Takahashi RH, Choo EF. Utility of CYP3A4 and PXR-CAR-CYP3A4/3A7 transgenic mouse models to assess the magnitude of CYP3A4 mediated drug-drug interactions. Mol Pharm. 2017;14:1754–9.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.7b00006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pharmacogenomics and Drug Development Group, Discipline of Pharmacology, School of Medical Sciences, Sydney Medical SchoolUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, College of Medicine and Public HealthFlinders UniversityBedford ParkAustralia

Personalised recommendations