Mays D C, Nelson A N, Lam-Holt J, Fauq A H, Lipsky J J
Department of Pharmacology, Mayo Medical School, Mayo Clinic/Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1996 May;20(3):595-600. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1996.tb01099.x.
The mechanism of action of disulfiram involves inhibition of hepatic aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH). Although disulfiram inhibits ALDH in vitro, it is believed that the drug is too short-lived in vivo to inhibit the enzyme directly. The ultimate inhibitor is thought to be a metabolite of disulfiram. In this study, we examined the effects of S-methyl-N,N-diethylthiocarbamate (MeDTC) sulfoxide and S-methyl-N,N-diethylthiocarbamate sulfone (confirmed and proposed metabolites of disulfiram, respectively) on rat liver mitochondrial low K(m) ALDH. MeDTC sulfoxide and MeDTC sulfone, in 10-min incubations with detergent-solubilized mitochondria, inhibited ALDH activity with an IC50 (mean +/- SD) of 0.93 +/- 0.04 and 0.53 +/- 0.11 microM, respectively, compared with 7.4 +/- 1.0 microM for the parent drug disulfiram. Inhibition by MeDTC sulfone and MeDTC sulfoxide, both at 0.6 microM, was time-dependent, following apparent pseudo-first-order kinetics with a t1/2 of inactivation of 3.5 and 8.8 min, respectively. Dilution of ALDH inhibited by either sulfoxide or sulfone did not restore activity, an indication of irreversible inhibition. Addition of glutathione (50 to 1000 microM) to ALDH before the inhibitors did not alter the inhibition by MeDTC sulfoxide. In contrast, the inhibition by MeDTC sulfone was decreased > 10-fold (IC50 = 6.3 microM) by 50 microM of glutathione and almost completely abolished by 500 microM of glutathione. The cofactor NAD, in a concentration-dependent manner, protected ALDH from inhibition by MeDTC sulfoxide and MeDTC sulfone. In incubations with intact mitochondria, the potency of the two compounds was reversed (IC50 of 9.2 +/- 3.6 and 0.95 +/- 0.30 microM for the MeDTC sulfone and sulfoxide, respectively). Our results suggest that MeDTC sulfone is highly reactive with normal cellular constituents (e.g., glutathione), which may protect ALDH from inhibition, unless this inhibitor is formed very near the target enzyme. In contrast, MeDTC sulfoxide is a better candidate for the ultimate active metabolite of disulfiram, because it is more likely to be sufficiently stable to diffuse from a distant site of formation, such as the endoplasmic reticulum, penetrate the mitochondria, and react with ALDH located in the mitochondrial matrix.
双硫仑的作用机制涉及对肝脏醛脱氢酶(ALDH)的抑制。尽管双硫仑在体外可抑制ALDH,但据信该药物在体内的存在时间过短,无法直接抑制该酶。最终的抑制剂被认为是双硫仑的一种代谢产物。在本研究中,我们检测了S-甲基-N,N-二乙基硫代氨基甲酸盐(MeDTC)亚砜和S-甲基-N,N-二乙基硫代氨基甲酸盐砜(分别为双硫仑已确认和推测的代谢产物)对大鼠肝脏线粒体低K(m)ALDH的影响。在与去污剂增溶的线粒体进行10分钟孵育时,MeDTC亚砜和MeDTC砜分别以0.93±0.04和0.53±0.11微摩尔的IC50(平均值±标准差)抑制ALDH活性,相比之下,母体药物双硫仑的IC50为7.4±1.0微摩尔。0.6微摩尔的MeDTC砜和MeDTC亚砜的抑制作用呈时间依赖性,遵循表观假一级动力学,失活的t1/2分别为3.5分钟和8.8分钟。被亚砜或砜抑制的ALDH经稀释后活性未恢复,这表明是不可逆抑制。在加入抑制剂之前向ALDH中添加谷胱甘肽(50至1000微摩尔)不会改变MeDTC亚砜的抑制作用。相比之下,50微摩尔的谷胱甘肽可使MeDTC砜的抑制作用降低10倍以上(IC50 = 6.3微摩尔),而500微摩尔的谷胱甘肽几乎可完全消除其抑制作用。辅因子NAD以浓度依赖性方式保护ALDH免受MeDTC亚砜和MeDTC砜的抑制。在与完整线粒体的孵育中,这两种化合物的效力发生了逆转(MeDTC砜和亚砜的IC50分别为9.2±3.6和0.95±0.30微摩尔)。我们的结果表明,MeDTC砜与正常细胞成分(如谷胱甘肽)具有高反应性,这可能会保护ALDH免受抑制,除非这种抑制剂在靶酶附近形成。相比之下,MeDTC亚砜更有可能是双硫仑的最终活性代谢产物,因为它更有可能足够稳定,能够从内质网等远处形成部位扩散,穿透线粒体,并与位于线粒体基质中的ALDH发生反应。