The biochemical basis underlying the genetic polymorphism of drug N-acetylation was investigated using a combination of in vivo and in vitro assays for arylamine N-acetyltransferase (NAT) activity and content in human liver. The acetylator phenotype of 26 surgical patients was determined using caffeine as an innocuous probe drug by measurement of the 5-acetyl-amino-6-formylamino-3-methyluracil to 1-methylxanthine molar ratio in urine. Liver wedge biopsies from these patients and livers from 24 organ donors were then used for measurement of N-acetyltransferase activity with the substrate sulfamethazine and for quantitation of immunoreactive N-acetyl-transferase protein. In vivo (caffeine metabolites in urine) and in vitro (sulfamethazine acetylation) measures of N-acetyl-transferase activity correlated very highly (r = 0.98). Moreover, in all subjects tested, slow acetylation both in vivo and in vitro was associated with a decrease in the quantity of immunodetectable N-acetyltransferase protein in liver cytosol relative to that seen in cytosols from rapid acetylator livers. Two kinetically distinct enzyme activities, designated NAT-1 and NAT-2, were partially purified from low- and high-activity livers and their relationship to acetylator status was determined. Low acetylation capacity was related to decreases in the liver content of both of these immunologically related proteins. The results demonstrate that genetically defective arylamine N-acetylation is due to a parallel decrease in the quantity of two structurally and functionally similar acetylating enzymes.
D M Grant, K Mörike, M Eichelbaum, U A Meyer
Usage data is cumulative from March 2024 through March 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 197 | 118 |
46 | 55 | |
Scanned page | 140 | 23 |
Citation downloads | 45 | 0 |
Totals | 428 | 196 |
Total Views | 624 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.