Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Nov;40(11):2555-2566.
doi: 10.1007/s11095-023-03554-5. Epub 2023 Jul 13.

Using the LeiCNS-PK3.0 Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Model to Predict Brain Extracellular Fluid Pharmacokinetics in Mice

Affiliations

Using the LeiCNS-PK3.0 Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Model to Predict Brain Extracellular Fluid Pharmacokinetics in Mice

Mohammed A A Saleh et al. Pharm Res. 2023 Nov.

Abstract

Introduction: The unbound brain extracelullar fluid (brainECF) to plasma steady state partition coefficient, Kp,uu,BBB, values provide steady-state information on the extent of blood-brain barrier (BBB) transport equilibration, but not on pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles seen by the brain targets. Mouse models are frequently used to study brain PK, but this information cannot directly be used to inform on human brain PK, given the different CNS physiology of mouse and human. Physiologically based PK (PBPK) models are useful to translate PK information across species.

Aim: Use the LeiCNS-PK3.0 PBPK model, to predict brain extracellular fluid PK in mice.

Methods: Information on mouse brain physiology was collected from literature. All available connected data on unbound plasma, brainECF PK of 10 drugs (cyclophosphamide, quinidine, erlotonib, phenobarbital, colchicine, ribociclib, topotecan, cefradroxil, prexasertib, and methotrexate) from different mouse strains were used. Dosing regimen dependent plasma PK was modelled, and Kpuu,BBB values were estimated, and provided as input into the LeiCNS-PK3.0 model to result in prediction of PK profiles in brainECF.

Results: Overall, the model gave an adequate prediction of the brainECF PK profile for 7 out of the 10 drugs. For 7 drugs, the predicted versus observed brainECF data was within two-fold error limit and the other 2 drugs were within five-fold error limit.

Conclusion: The current version of the mouse LeiCNS-PK3.0 model seems to reasonably predict available information on brainECF from healthy mice for most drugs. This brings the translation between mouse and human brain PK one step further.

Keywords: brain; leiCNS-PK3.0; mouse; physiologically-based pharmacokinetics (PBPK).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Not applicable.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Visual predictive check plots evaluating the predictive accuracy of the mouse version of the LeiCNS-PK3.0 model. Ten drugs with different physicochemical properties and affinities to active transporters were used to evaluate the model predictions. The solid lines and colored band represent the median and 95% prediction interval, respectively, of the model’s prediction of the unbound pharmacokinetic profile at the plasma (red), brain extracellular fluid (yellow). The black dots represent the unbound drug concentrations measured in mice. Drugs were simulated with various routes of administrations: cyclophosphamide, quinidine and phenobarbital were intraperitoneal; erlotinib and ribociclib were orally; prexasertib was subcutaneous; colchicine, topotecan, cefadroxil and methotrexate were intravenously administered. Please note the different axes scales
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Box plot of the relative accuracy errors to evaluate the prediction accuracy of the current mouse version of the LeiCNS-PK3.0 model. The predictions of the ten drugs in plasma (red) and brain extracellular fluid (yellow) were evaluated using the relative accuracy errors. The green and yellow vertical lines represent two- and five-fold error limit, respectively. The predictions of methotrexate and prexasertib were beyond the two-fold errors but were within the five-fold error

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Garattini S, Grignaschi G. Animal testing is still the best way to find new treatments for patients. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;39:32–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2016.11.013. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Murillo-Cuesta S, Artuch R, Asensio F, de la Villa P, Dierssen M, Enríquez JA, Fillat C, Fourcade S, Ibáñez B, Montoliu L, Oliver E, Pujol A, Salido E, Vallejo M, Varela-Nieto I. The value of mouse models of rare diseases: A spanish experience. Front Genet. 2020; 11: 583932. 10.3389/fgene.2020.583932. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hall AM, Roberson ED. Mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Res Bull. 2012;88:3–12. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2011.11.017. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. de Lange ECM, Hesselink MB, Danhof M, de Boer AG, Breimer DD. The use of intracerebral microdialysis to determine changes in blood-brain barrier transport characteristics. Pharm Res. 1995;12:129–133. doi: 10.1023/a:1016207208406. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Summerfield SG, Yates JWT, Fairman DA. Free drug theory – no longer just a hypothesis? Pharm. Res. 2022;39:213–222. doi: 10.1007/s11095-022-03172-7. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources