Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:22:38.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of a Perfluorochenical Emulsion on Propranolol Binding by Alpha-I-Acid Glycoprotein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

H. F. Fan  and
D. L. Parsons
H. F. Fan
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacal Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Auburn University, Alabama, 36849
D. L. Parsons
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacal Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Auburn University, Alabama, 36849
Get access

Abstract

The binding of propranolol by a perfluorochemical emulsion (PFCE), cXiacid glycoprotein (AGP), and their mixtures was examined by a dialysis exchange method at 37°C. A sedimentation method was used to verify propranolol binding by the PFCE. Binding of 100 and 500 ng/ml drug by 100, 75, 50 and 25% v/v concentrations of the PFCE or of 0.067% AGP was determined. Propranolol was highly bound by the PFCE with a percent free propranolol in undiluted PFCE of 13.1% at both 100 and 500 ng/ml propranolol. Propranolol was moderately bound by AGP. The percent free propranolol in 0.067% AGP was 31.4% and 32.4% for 100 and 500 ng/ml propranolol, respectively. The percent bound propranolol was not significantly different when the emulsion was diluted to 75 and 50% v/v with 0.067% AGP solution rather than buffer. When the PFCE was further diluted to 25% v/v with the 0.067% AGP solution the percent free propranolol was significantly lower than in the 25% v/v PFCE alone or 75% v/v protein solution alone. Thus, the PFCE has a relatively large affinity and capacity for propranolol. Propranolol did not partition from buffer to the PFC liquid. This indicates that propranolol bound by the PFCE is associated only with the emulsifiers.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 110: Symposium M – Biomedical Materials and Devices , 1987 , 135
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Parsons, D. L., U.S. Pharm. Hosp. 10, H14 (1985).Google Scholar
2. Editorial, Lancet 1, 717 (1986).Google Scholar
3. Parsons, D.L., Ravis, W.R. and Clark, C.R., Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. 277, 4 (1985).Google Scholar
4. Parsons, D.L., Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. 286, 23 (1987).Google Scholar
5. Parsons, D.L. and Nadkarni, S. R., Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. 288, 165 (1987).Google Scholar
6. Parsons, D.L., Biochem. Pharmacol. 35, 1395 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Shrewsbury, R.P., Lewis, L.M., Oliver, S.R. and Womble, C.L., J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 39, 592 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Pedersen, A.O., Hust, B., Anderson, S., Nielson, F. and Brodersen, R., Eur. J. Biochem. 154, 542 (1986).Google Scholar
9. Piasky, K.M., Clin. Pharmacokin. 5, 246 (1980).Google Scholar
10. Glasson, S., Zini, R., D'Athis, P., Tillement, J.P. and Boissier, J.R., Molec. Pharmacol. 17, 187 (1980).Google Scholar
11. Routledge, P.A. and Shand, D.G., in Apolied Pharmacokinetics, edited by Evans, W.E., Chentag, J.J. and Jusko, W.J. (Applied Therapeutics, Inc., San Francisco, 1980) p. 464.Google Scholar
12. Naito, R. and Yokoyama, K. in Perfluorochemical Blood Substitutes (Green Cross Corporation, Osaka,- Japan, 1981) p. 79.Google Scholar