20 research outputs found

    Nucleoside Analogue Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors Differentially Inhibit Human LINE-1 Retrotransposition

    Get PDF
    Intact LINE-1 elements are the only retrotransposons encoded by the human genome known to be capable of autonomous replication. Numerous cases of genetic disease have been traced to gene disruptions caused by LINE-1 retrotransposition events in germ-line cells. In addition, genomic instability resulting from LINE-1 retrotransposition in somatic cells has been proposed as a contributing factor to oncogenesis and to cancer progression. LINE-1 element activity may also play a role in normal physiology. LINE-1 retrotransposition reporter assay, we evaluated the abilities of several antiretroviral compounds to inhibit LINE-1 retrotransposition. The nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (nRTIs): stavudine, zidovudine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and lamivudine all inhibited LINE-1 retrotransposition with varying degrees of potencies, while the non-nucleoside HIV-1 reverse transcriptase inhibitor nevirapine showed no effect.Our data demonstrates the ability for nRTIs to suppress LINE-1 retrotransposition. This is immediately applicable to studies aimed at examining potential roles for LINE-1 retrotransposition in physiological processes. In addition, our data raises novel safety considerations for nRTIs based on their potential to disrupt physiological processes involving LINE-1 retrotransposition

    Pharmacokinetic Modelling of Efavirenz, Atazanavir, Lamivudine and Tenofovir in the Female Genital Tract of HIV-Infected Pre-Menopausal Women

    No full text
    BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A previously published study of antiretroviral pharmacokinetics in the female genital tract of HIV-infected women demonstrated differing degrees of female genital tract penetration among antiretrovirals. These blood plasma (BP) and cervicovaginal fluid (CVF) data were co-modelled for four antiretrovirals with varying CVF exposures. METHODS: Six paired BP and CVF samples were collected over 24 h, and antiretroviral concentrations determined using validated liquid chromatography (LC) with UV detection or LC-mass spectrometry analytical methods. For each antiretroviral, a BP model was fit using Bayesian estimation (ADAPT5), followed by addition of a CVF model. The final model was chosen based on graphical and statistical output, and then non-linear mixed-effects modelling using S-ADAPT was performed. Population mean parameters and their variability are reported. Model-predicated area under the concentration-time curve during the dosing interval (AUC(Ο„)) and exposure ratios of CVF AUC(Ο„):BP AUC(Ο„) were calculated for each drug. RESULTS: The base model uses first-order absorption with a lag time, a two-compartment model, and a series of transit compartments that transfer the drug from BP to CVF. Protein-unbound drug transfers into CVF for efavirenz and atazanavir; total drug transfers for lamivudine and tenofovir. CVF follows a one-compartment model for efavirenz and atazanavir, and a two-compartment model for lamivudine and tenofovir. As expected, inter-individual variability was high. Model-predicted CVF AUC(Ο„):BP AUC(Ο„) ratios are consistent with published results. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first pharmacokinetic modelling of antiretroviral disposition in BP and CVF. These models will be further refined with tissue data, and used in clinical trials simulations to inform future studies of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in women
    corecore