XEN and the Art of Pharmacology: New Learning from an Old Science

Charles W. Flexner, MD
Associate Professor, Medicine, Pharmacology, Molecular Sciences, and International Health
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, Maryland

Summary by Tim Horn Edited by David J. Back, PhD, and John G. Gerber, MD



The future development of effective and safe antiretroviral agents—and the continued study of ways to maximize the utility of currently available therapies—are highly dependent on a scientific field that has evolved in recent years at an incredible rate: pharmacology. While The PRN Notebook has published numerous articles focusing on the issues of pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) as they apply to antiretroviral therapy, very little has been published in these pages regarding the actual pharmacologic mechanisms responsible for host- and drug-related PK and PD variability. To help explain the science of drug metabolism and drug interactions—and how it is translating into new treatment strategies—PRN turned to Dr. Charles Flexner, a longtime supporter and friend, to discuss the latest developments and future directions of pharmacology in the much larger arena of HIV treatment research.

The XEN of Drug Metabolism and DispositionTop of page

“Until very recently,” Dr. Flexner began, “pharmacologists typically viewed the body as a complex organism designed to eliminate and respond to drugs. Our view of the world has been so idiosyncratic that we actually started out, a couple of decades ago, simply naming the various enzymatic pathways involved in drug elimination after the drugs that were first used to make the pathways known to us. For example, we had chloramphenicol reductase and debrisoquine hydroxylase, which worked for quite some time until we began running into questions that we as pharmacologists could not easily answer.”

One example cited by Dr. Flexner was hepatic enzyme induction, a process that involves the upregulation of enzymes involved in drug metabolism. It wasn’t clear how a single drug could turn on multiple elimination pathways. Nor was it clear why inducers of drug metabolizing enzymes—such as cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), the most common enzyme involved in drug metabolism—were also upregulating expression of drug-transport proteins, such as P-glycoprotein.

Over the past decade, a great deal has been learned about the regulation of CYP3A4 expression. For many years, all that was known about enzyme-inducing substrate drugs—such as phenobarbitol, rifampin, efavirenz (Sustiva), and ritonavir (Norvir)—was that they were increasing the transcription of an elusive gene encoding CYP3A4. It wasn’t until seven or eight years ago that pharmacologists discovered two proteins in the nucleus of cells associated with increased transcription of the CYP3A4 gene: the pregnane X receptor (PXR) and the retinoid X receptor (RXR).

Simply put, PXR is an “orphan” nuclear receptor that upregulates transcription of downstream genes encoding drug-metabolizing enzymes, after it binds to substrate drugs. PXR then meshes with RXR to form a heterodimer that binds to an enhancer sequence in DNA, resulting in increased transcription, increased enzyme production, and increased enzyme activity.

More recently, pharmacologists identified yet another piece of the puzzle: the xenobiotic response element (XRE), a genetic locus on the 5’-flanking region of the CYP3A4 gene. And it is this enhancer—triggered by the PXR/RXR heterodimer—that upregulates the transcription of the CYP3A4 gene, resulting in increased production and activity of the CYP3A4 isoenzyme (see Figure 1). Most interestingly, it turns out that XRE is involved in a lot more than hepatic induction of CYP3A4.

“We know that phenobarbitol, rifampin, efavirenz, and ritonavir don’t just turn on CYP3A4,” Dr. Flexner said. “They can turn on a number of drug-metabolizing enzymes. They also turn on transport proteins that affect the absorption and elimination of drugs and the intracellular concentrations of drugs. We’ve come to realize that XRE is responsible for much of this.”

Aside from its role in increasing transcription of the CYP3A4 gene, XRE is also responsible for upregulating the activity of the CYP2D6 gene. XRE also increases transcription of the uridine diphosphate glucuronosyl-S-transferase (udpgt) gene, responsible for the glucuronidation of zidovudine (Retrovir) and abacavir (Ziagen). It also increases activity of P-glycoprotein—formerly known as the multi-drug resistance-1 (MDR-1) protein—responsible for pumping a variety of drugs out of the interior of cells. Studies have also concluded that XRE upregulates organic anion transporting polypeptide (OATP) genes, thus tying together an entire family of enzymes and transporters involved in the intestinal, hepatocellular, and renal uptake and elimination of exogenous compounds with a variety of divergent chemical structures. These compounds are all xenobiotics, from the Greek words xenos, meaning foreign, and biotiko, meaning organic or living.

“Now we know that one drug can turn on multiple enzymes and transport proteins, via its effect on XRE,” Dr. Flexner commented. “Interestingly, these regulatory networks are not unique to humans. They’re highly conserved in mammals and, even in insects, similar systems can be found. Metabolizing enzymes, drug excretion, and transport genes are really part of an ancient network designed to detoxify and eliminate ingested substances.” And this, Dr. Flexner explained, is the xenobiotic elimination network (XEN).

Obviously, these biochemical systems did not evolve simply to eliminate drugs from the body. XEN is characterized by coordinated induction of enzymes and transporters, along with redundancy of elimination pathways. This system, Dr. Flexner pointed out, evolved to prevent vertebrates and invertebrates from being poisoned by organic and inorganic toxic matter. “The fact is, our bodies can’t tell the difference between ritonavir, saccharin, strychnine, or a mushroom toxin. This is important for us to remember when we develop new antiretrovirals: our bodies work very hard to get rid of them before they can do what we pharmacologists would like them to do.”

The effects of XRE on metabolism and drug transport are variable. CYP3A4 is the most heavily influenced gene, more so than CYP2D6 and UDPGT, and significantly more so than P-glycoprotein and OATP. As an example, rifampin induces a tenfold increase in CYP3A4, compared to a twofold increase in P-glycoprotein or OATP. As explained by Dr. Flexner, CYP3A4 is one of the most promiscuous enzymes in biochemistry. It affects more than 10,000 different substrates and is the workhorse of detoxification in humans. And it’s not just the classic P450 isonenzymes and transporters that are involved in the elimination of xenobiotics. Certain vitamins, bile acids, and other substances play a role in activating a variety of possible drug-elimination pathways.

Herbal Medicines and XRETop of page

While there has always been some degree of speculation among clinicians regarding the safety of herbal/complementary medicines in the broader context of HIV/AIDS therapy, it was a study published by Dr. Stephen Piscitelli and his colleagues in a February 2000 issue of The Lancet involving an interaction between indinavir (Crixivan) and St. John’s wort that solidified the need for caution (Piscitelli, 2000). St. John’s wort reduced the AUC of indinavir by a mean of 57% and decreased the indinavir trough by 81% in healthy volunteers. The authors concluded that a reduction in indinavir exposure of this magnitude could lead to the development of premature drug resistance and treatment failure.

St. John’s wort contains at least one ingredient, hyperforin, that binds to and activates PXR. This, Dr. Flexner surmised, may explain why it is a CYP3A4 inducer. “P450 and P-glycoprotein inducers are likely to be common in herbal products, given the multitude of chemical ingredients and the evolutionary design of the XEN,” he pointed out. “These have very important implications for clinicians. It is important to know what patients are taking besides prescription drugs.”

Earlier this year, long-awaited in vivo data involving the effects of Echinacea on cytochrome P450 isoenzymes were published (Gorski, 2004). The effects of Echinacea purpurea root on CYP activity was assessed using the CYP probe drugs caffeine (CYP1A2), tolbutamide (CYP2C9), dextromethorphan (CYP2D6), and midazolam (hepatic and intestinal CYP3A4). Six male and six female healthy study volunteers completed the two-period, open-label, fixed-schedule study. Caffeine, tolbutamide, dextromethorphan, and oral and intravenous midazolam were administered before and after a short course of echinacea (400 mg four times a day for eight days) to determine in vivo CYP activities.

Echinacea administration increased the systemic clearance of intravenously administered midazolam by 34% and reduced the midazolam AUC by 23%, indicating induction of hepatic CYP3A4. Conversely, Echinacea did not affect the clearance of orally administered midazolam, although the oral bioavailability of midazolam after Echinacea dosing was significantly increased.

ReferencesTop of page

Bantia S, Ananth SL, Parker CD, et al.
Mechanism of inhibition of T-acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells by PNP inhibitor-BCX-1777.
Int Immunopharmacol 3(6):879-87, 2003.

Gallant JE, Rodriguez AE, Weinberg W, et al.
Early Non-response to tenofovir DF (TDF) + abacavir (ABC) and lamivudine (3TC) in a randomized trial compared to efavirenz (EFV) + ABC and 3TC: ESS30009
[abstract 1722a]. 43rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, September 2003.

Gorski JC, Huang SM, Pinto A, et al.
The effect of echinacea (Echinacea purpurea root) on cytochrome P450 activity in vivo
. Clin Pharmacol Ther 75(1):89-100, 2004.

Hawkins T, Veikley W, St. Claire R, et al.
Intracellular pharmacokinetics of tenofovir-dp and carbovir-TP in patients receiving triple nucleoside regimens
[abstract 2.4]. 5th International Workshop on Clinical Pharmacology of HIV Therapy, Rome, 2004.

Hsu A, Bertz R, Ashbrenner E, et al.
Interaction of ABT-378/ritonavir with protease inhibitors in healthy volunteers [Abstract 2.4]. First International Workshop on Clinical Pharmacology of HIV therapy, Noordwijk, 2000

Piscitelli SC, Burstein AH, Chaitt D, et al.
Indinavir concentrations and St John's wort. Lancet 355(9203):547-8, 2000.

Ray AS, Olson L, Fridland A.
Role of purine nucleoside phosphorylase in interactions between 2',3'-dideoxyinosine and allopurinol, ganciclovir, or tenofovir.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 48(4):1089-95, 2004.

Ray AS, Vela JE, Olson L, et al.
Lack of negative interaction between tenofovir and abacavir in human cells
[abstract 2.3]. 5th International Workshop on Clinical Pharmacology of HIV Therapy, Rome, 2004a.

Robbins BL, Wilcox CK, Fridland A, et al.
Metabolism of tenofovir and didanosine in quiescent or stimulated human peripheral blood mononuclear cells.
Pharmacotherapy 23(6):695-701, 2003. Washington CB, Flexner C, Sheiner LB, et al.
Effect of simultaneous versus staggered dosing on pharmacokinetic interactions of protease inhibitors.
Clin Pharmacol Ther 73(5):406-16, 2003.

Wood R, Trepo C, Livrozet JM, et al.
Enhancement of pharmacokinetic parameters of amprenavir when combined with low dose ritonavir (APV 600 mg/RTV 100 mg bid) and preliminary efficacy results [Abstract P283]. Fifth International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection, Glasgow, 2000.

You must be logged in to post a comment. Login | Register