Display options
Share it on

Acta Histochem Cytochem. 2020 Jun 26;53(3):55-60. doi: 10.1267/ahc.19036. Epub 2020 May 29.

Immunohistochemical Pharmacokinetics of the Anti-diabetes Drug Alogliptin in Rat Kidney and Liver.

Acta histochemica et cytochemica

Yutaro Yamamoto, Yuta Yamamoto, Tetsuya Saita, Daisuke Hira, Takahito Chijiwa, Masashi Shin

Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Life Science, Faculty of Biotechnology and Life Science, Sojo University, 4-22-1 Ikeda, Nishi-ku, Kumamoto 860-0082, Japan.

PMID: 32624630 PMCID: PMC7322161 DOI: 10.1267/ahc.19036

Abstract

Alogliptin is one of a new class of therapeutic agents for type 2 diabetes called dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Here, we used immunohistochemistry to investigate the pharmacokinetics of alogliptin at the cell and tissue levels in the rat kidney and liver. One hour after alogliptin administration, the most noticeable immunoreactivity in the kidney was a moderate-to-strong staining in proximal tubule S3 segment epithelial cells. On the other hand, immunostaining was found only in the microvilli of S1 and S2 segment cells. Immunoreactivity was also observed in the glomerulus and distal tubules. Positive cells and almost negative cells coexisted in the collecting ducts. Twenty-four hours after administration, moderate immunostaining remained in the S3 segment but staining in other regions had almost disappeared. In the liver 1 hr after administration, hepatocyte staining differed in the hepatic lobule, with zone III being stronger than zone I. Immunostaining had almost disappeared 24 hr after administration. These findings suggest that alogliptin reabsorption at the kidney and uptake at the hepatocyte vary from region to region and that one or more types of transporter are involved in these processes. In addition, long-term alogliptin use may cause the drug to accumulate in S3 segment, leading to adverse events.

2020 The Japan Society of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry.

Keywords: alogliptin; immunohistochemistry; kidney; liver; pharmacokinetics

Conflict of interest statement

VThe authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2016 Jan 8;37(3):142-155 - PubMed
  2. Med Mol Morphol. 2014 Sep;47(3):137-49 - PubMed
  3. Cell Tissue Res. 2009 Sep;337(3):429-38 - PubMed
  4. Lancet. 2006 Nov 11;368(9548):1696-705 - PubMed
  5. Clin Ther. 2008 Mar;30(3):513-27 - PubMed
  6. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2015 Apr 10;11:229-43 - PubMed
  7. Acta Histochem Cytochem. 2019 Feb 28;52(1):27-34 - PubMed
  8. J Histochem Cytochem. 1981 Mar;29(3):337-43 - PubMed
  9. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2009 Aug;5(8):887-905 - PubMed
  10. Am J Physiol. 1986 Jun;250(6):F1-15 - PubMed
  11. J Neurosci Methods. 1998 Sep 1;83(2):97-102 - PubMed
  12. Am J Anat. 1978 Nov;153(3):483-8 - PubMed
  13. Histochem Cell Biol. 2002 Jan;117(1):81-5 - PubMed
  14. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2015 Apr;14(4):505-24 - PubMed
  15. J Pharm Sci. 2013 Sep;102(9):3302-8 - PubMed
  16. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011 Jan;55(1):62-71 - PubMed
  17. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012 Nov;56(11):5883-91 - PubMed
  18. N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 27;370(9):794-7 - PubMed
  19. Histochemistry. 1988;89(2):151-61 - PubMed
  20. J Histochem Cytochem. 1996 May;44(5):445-61 - PubMed
  21. Kidney Int. 2000 Sep;58(3):944-58 - PubMed
  22. Drug Metab Dispos. 2010 Sep;38(9):1443-8 - PubMed
  23. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2003 Jun;40(3):209-94 - PubMed

Publication Types