Hydrogen Bonding Potential as a Determinant of the in Vitro and in Situ Blood–Brain Barrier Permeability of Peptides

With the exception of various central nervous system (CNS)-required nutrients for which specific, saturable transport systems exist, the passage of most water-soluble solutes through the blood–brain barrier (BBB) is believed to depend largely on the lipid solubility of the solutes. Most peptides, therefore, do not enter the CNS because of their hydrophilic character. Recently, utilizing homologous series of model peptides and Caco-2 cell monolayers as a model of the intestinal mucosa, it was concluded that the principal determinant of peptide transport across the intestinal cellular membrane is the energy required to desolvate the polar amide bonds in the peptide (P. S. Burton et al., Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 7:365–386, 1991). To determine whether this correlation can be extended to the BBB, the permeabilities of the same peptides were determined using an in vitro as well as an in situ BBB model. The peptides, blocked on the N- and C-terminal ends, consisted of D-phenylalanine (F) residues: AcFNH2, AcF2NH2, AcF3NH2, AcF2(NMeF)NH2, AcF(NMeF)2NH2, Ac(NMeF)3NH2, and Ac(NMeF)3NHMe. A good correlation among the permeabilities of these model peptides across the bovine brain microvessel endothelial cell (BBMEC) monolayers, an in vitro model of the BBB, and their permeabilities across the BBB in situ was observed (r = 0.928, P < 0.05). The permeabilities of these peptides did not correlate with the octanol–buffer partition coefficients of the peptides (r = 0.389 in vitro and r = 0.155 in situ; P < 0.05). However, correlations were observed between the permeabilities of these peptides and the number of potential hydrogen bonds the peptides can make with water (r = 0.837 in vitro and r = 0.906 in situ; P < 0.05), suggesting that desolvation of the polar bonds in the molecule is a determinant of permeability. Consistent with this, good correlations were found between the permeabilities of these peptides and their partition coefficients between heptane–ethylene glycol (r = 0.981 in vitro and r = 0.940 in situ ; P < 0.05) or the differences in partition coefficients between octanol–buffer and isooctane–buffer (ΔlogPC) (r = 0.961 in vitro and r = 0.962 in situ; P < 0.05), both of which are experimental estimates of hydrogen bond or desolvation potential. These results suggest that the permeability of peptides through the BBB is governed by the same physicochemical parameter (hydrogen bonding potential) as their permeability through the intestinal mucosa.

[1]  S. Rapoport,et al.  Phenylalanine Transport Across the Blood‐Brain Barrier as Studied with the In Situ Brain Perfusion Technique , 1987, Journal of neurochemistry.

[2]  K D Pettigrew,et al.  Lower limits of cerebrovascular permeability to nonelectrolytes in the conscious rat. , 1978, The American journal of physiology.

[3]  R. Conradi,et al.  The Influence of Peptide Structure on Transport Across Caco-2 Cells , 1991, Pharmaceutical Research.

[4]  Donald W. Miller,et al.  Brain uptake of drugs : the influence of chemical and biological factors , 1992 .

[5]  M. Brightman,et al.  Morphology of blood-brain interfaces. , 1977, Experimental eye research.

[6]  H. Metzger,et al.  StainingPO2 measurement sites in the rat brain cortex and quantitative morphometry of the surrounding capillaries , 1980, Pflügers Archiv.

[7]  R. Schwarcz,et al.  Blood–Brain Barrier Transport of Kynurenines: Implications for Brain Synthesis and Metabolism , 1991, Journal of neurochemistry.

[8]  R. Conradi,et al.  The relationship between peptide structure and transport across epithelial cell monolayers , 1992 .

[9]  S. Rapoport,et al.  An in situ brain perfusion technique to study cerebrovascular transport in the rat. , 1984, The American journal of physiology.

[10]  K. Audus,et al.  Characterization of an In Vitro Blood–Brain Barrier Model System for Studying Drug Transport and Metabolism , 1986, Pharmaceutical Research.

[11]  W. Pardridge,et al.  Receptor-mediated peptide transport through the blood-brain barrier. , 1986, Endocrine reviews.

[12]  Thomas S. Reese,et al.  FINE STRUCTURAL LOCALIZATION OF A BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER TO EXOGENOUS PEROXIDASE , 1967, The Journal of cell biology.

[13]  M. Joesten.  Hydrogen bonding and proton transfer , 1982 .

[14]  Q. Smith,et al.  Quantitation of Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability , 1989 .

[15]  R. Conradi,et al.  B) Mechanisms of peptide and protein absorption , 1991 .

[16]  L. Rubin,et al.  A cell culture model of the blood-brain barrier , 1991, The Journal of cell biology.

[17]  R. Conradi,et al.  The Influence of Peptide Structure on Transport Across Caco-2 Cells. II. Peptide Bond Modification Which Results in Improved Permeability , 1992, Pharmaceutical Research.

[18]  W. Higuchi,et al.  Advancing quantitative and mechanistic approaches in interfacing gastrointestinal drug absorption studies in animals and humans , 1983 .

[19]  G. Goldstein,et al.  The blood-brain barrier. , 1986, Scientific American.

[20]  K. Audus,et al.  Blood-brain barrier: transport studies in isolated brain capillaries and in cultured brain endothelial cells. , 1991, Advances in pharmacology.