Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5443_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
brain tumor treatment. These liposomes can evade opsonization and prolong their cir-
culation time, leading to increased extravasation probability through tumor blood ves-
sels [37, 54].
5.4.4.2 Nanoparticles
Another class of carriers used in drug delivery is nanoparticles. Nanoparticles have
gained significant interest in targeting drugs to the brain. Different types of nanopar-
ticles, such as polymeric nanoparticles, nanospheres, nanosuspensions, nanoemul-
sions, nano gels, nano-micelles, and nano-liposomes, have been developed for drug
delivery to the CNS. Their nano size allows them to enter the brain by crossing the
BBB through various endocytotic mechanisms. Polymeric nanoparticles made from al-
bumin or poly (butyl cyanoacrylate) can enter the brain through size-mediated endo-
cytosis. The exact mechanisms by which nanoparticles open the BBB are not fully
understood, but they involve increased retention of drugs in brain blood capillaries,
adsorption to capillary walls, fluidization of BBB membrane, the opening of tight junc-
tions between endothelial cells, inhibition of efflux systems, selective endocytosis, and
permeabilization of brain endothelial cells [37, 55, 56].
5.4.5 Biotechnology-based approaches
5.4.5.1 Monoclonal antibodies
For brain targeting, one technique is to employ mAbs. Previously, mAbs were devel-
oped through hybridoma technology by fusing tumor cells with antibodies against
particular antigens present in malignant cells in animals. These mAbs, however, are
structurally changed through genetic engineering to improve their efficiency in brain
targeting. A recent study, for example, employed mouse mAbs modified with human
insulin receptors (HIRs) to increase absorption in the human brain. The results dem-
onstrated that these genetically modified mAb s were taken up well by the b rain of
primates [37].
5.4.5.2 Molecular Trojan horses
Molecular Trojan horses, or monocytes, have also emerged as a strategy for brain tar-
geting. Monocytes are a type of white blood cells found in the bloodstream. They can
be used as carriers to transport drugs into the brain. The mechanism involves loading
drug molecules into monocytes through receptor-mediated endocytosis when they in-
teract with suitable ligands. HIR has been identified as a potent mAb for brain target-
5 Computational approaches to the prediction of the blood–brain distribution 103
https://t.me/med1917
ing. Recombinant proteins, peptides, and antisense agents, such as peptide nucleic
acid (PNA), can be conjugated with monocytes to cross the BBB and deliver therapeu-
tic agents. Additionally, Trojan horses combined with transferrin receptor-mAb (TfR-
mAb) have been used to enhance the brain concentration of radiopharmaceuticals
like epidermal growth factor, which is used for brain cancer detection [37].
5.5 Computational tools
Computational approaches to predicting the BB distribution represent a cutting-edge
frontier in the field of pharmaceutical sciences, particularly in the development of
drugs intended for the CNS. The BBB serves as a critical checkpoint for the entry of
compounds into the brain, presenting both a formidable challenge and a protective
mechanism by selectively allowing substances to pass [38]. The intricate nature of the
BBB has prompted the need for sophisticated predictive models that can accurately
simulate the complex interplay between drugs and this barrier. The implications of
accurate BB distribution predictions are profound. Early-stage drug discovery and de-
velopment processes are significantly enhanced, enabling scientists to screen vast li-
braries of compounds for those with optimal characteristics for CNS penetration. This
efficiency not only accelerates the pace of drug development but also reduces the
costs associated with experimental testing [39].
5.5.1 Machine learning model
A subset of artificial intelligence known as machine learning (ML) uses statistical
methods and mathematical formulas to carry out tasks that are typically completed
by humans. Drug discovery, which is a process carried out by pharmaceutical busi-
nesses that focuses on finding, evaluating, and forecasting the chemical, biological,
and physical features of compounds, is one of the fields that benefit from the remark-
able development of ML. An ML technique called decision tree induction is used to
categorize data according to a set of limitations or rules [57]. Various ML algorithms
have been used to build qualitative BBB permeability prediction models including:
5.5.1.1 Decision tree induction
The decision tree induction tree is a convenient strategy to predict the ability of per-
meation across the BBB. Decision trees can categorize or separate items based on
their physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. For example, the surface per-
meability product log(ps) is the highly predictive quantitative parameter for the per-
104 Sarwal Amita, Bharti Sunil, and T.V.S. Padmajyoti
https://t.me/med1917
meability across the BBB. Such data for the drugs are collected from the databases
and the predictive computational model is applied on the descriptor database set by
ML paradigms, That is decision tree induction that later separates/classifies the sam-
ples, which have the biological limits that help in the transportation across the BBB.
There are some more parameters like log(ps), which can help in prediction, rotational
bonds, hydrogen donor and acceptor, polar surface area (PSA), and molecular weight
(MW). The data set then is collected from different literature or databases, like the
National Library of Health database PubChem. Different types of open-source soft-
ware are used to calculate the descriptors, like (CDK) chemical development kit,
which utilized the installation of various features. At last, the ML technique decision
tree is induced. Decision trees can be induced by different paradigms. For example,
the chi-squared automatic interaction detector (CHAID) and classification and regres-
sion tree algorithm (CART) help find the suitable splitting criteria.
5.5.1.2 Deep learning model
An artificial neural network (ANN) is the most common type of deep learning (DL) ap-
plied in QSAR problems since the 1990s. Feed-forward deep neural networks were
used in early attempts to predict BBB permeability using an ANN. P-glycoprotein (P-gp)
is a descriptor that Garg and Verma (2006) used an ANN model to examine. They con-
cluded that P-gp affects a molecule’s permeability. An ANN was used by Guerra et al.
(2008) to attempt to reduce the BBB dataset’s dimensionality. The dataset consisted of
108 chemicals, and an overall accuracy of 73% was reached. They used an unsuper-
vised ANN to extract descriptors and a supervised ANN to develop a prediction
model [58].
5.5.1.3 Random forest model (RF)
The supervised ML algorithm random forest (RF) model can be used for classification
and regression. Based on data samples, RF constructs numerous decision trees, gath-
ers numerous prediction scores from the trees, and then determines the optimal re-
sult based on voting. RF is an effective algorithm; however, training takes a while due
to the numerous decision trees [59].
5.5.1.4 Support vector machine (SVM)
Support vector machine (SVM) was first created by Vapnik and colleagues and is an
approach that is superior to other ML techniques. Drug development and allied fields
have made substantial u se of the SVM approach. SVM is a supervised learning ap-
5 Computational approaches to the prediction of the blood–brain distribution 105
https://t.me/med1917
proach used in regression and classification analysis. Each compound is represented
by the SVM model as a point mapping into a high-dimensional space according to its
descriptors, allowing for the separation of these data points with various BBB pene-
tration properties by as large as a clear gap (represented by a hyperplane). Based on
which side of the gap they fall, each new molecule can be mapped into the same high-
dimensional space to anticipate its BBB penetration property. SVM creates a hyper-
plane to divide various classes. For large datasets, SVM typically requires more time
to train than other models.
5.5.2 QSAR models
Following the typical processes of QSAR modelling, the BBB permeability problem is
solved. The following steps can be used to summarize a walkthrough of QSAR model-
ing [60]. Compile a 2D or 3D chemical data sheet of the molecule’s structure. Using
SMILES, translate the structure into numerical and mathematical descriptors that en-
compass all of the molecule’s attributes and functions. The dataset should be curated
and prepared. Pick the descriptors that are most important to the modelled problem.
Connect the characteristics to the chosen descriptions and ensure that further devel-
opment and optimization for the model has been done as per the guidelines. In the
recently utilized model for research purpose, Young et al. (1988) conducted one of the
earliest QSAR-based studies of BBB permeability and discovered that the Seiler pa-
rameter, which is a measure of partition coefficients, is related to the BBB permeabil-
ity values for a variety of histamine antagonists by linear regression [61]. By taking
into account two physiochemical descriptors, PSA and computed logP on large com-
pound sets, Clark proposed a simple QSAR model for the prediction of logBB from a
set of 55 different organic compounds. The ideal applications for this technology are
virtual screening and combinatorial libr aries, accord ing to Clark (1999). It is also
quick and only marginally accurate [61]. Ma and Yiyu (2005) developed QSAR models
using multidimensional linear regression fitting and a stepwise technique employing
a training set of 37 structurally varied chemicals. The capacity of a small molecule to
join with the membrane-water complex, the polar surface area, the octanol/water par-
tition coefficient, the Balaban Index, and the adaptability of the structure of a solute-
membrane-water complex were all discovered to be factored in BBB penetration.
Using a data set of 150 chemically varied substances [62] created a novel technique for
creating optimal QSAR models by combining 4D-molecular similarity measurements
and cluster analysis. This technique was used to create the best BBB penetration mod-
els. The hydrogen E-state index for hydrogen bond donors, the hydrogen E-state index
for aromatic compounds, and the second-order difference valence molecular connec-
tivity index were employed as three structural descriptors in a QSAR model-based
model (Rose et al., 2002). A training set of 106 compounds was used to develop this A
training set of 106 compounds was used to develop this model, and a validation test
106 Sarwal Amita, Bharti Sunil, and T.V.S. Padmajyoti
https://t.me/med1917
set of 20 compounds from an outside source was used to confirm its accuracy as per
claims made by the model for a quick logBB calculation.
5.6 Software tools
The ratio of concentrations recorded in the brain and blood is known as the BB distribu-
tion, and it is one of the most significant ADME metrics for studies of the CNS. It takes a
lot of time and effort to measure the BB distribution, which is expressed as log BB, and
there are significant experimental mistakes involved. Several software are being em-
ployed to make it conventional and simple for assessing drug distribution in brain tissues.
A new technique has been developed for the prediction of the ratio of concentrations of
medication in the brain and blood (BB, quantified as log BB) from structure, using the
software tools Cerius2 (v4.6, AccelrysInc, SanDiego, CA) and ACD/logD Suite (v 4.5, Ad-
vanced Chemistry Development Inc., Toronto, Canada) [63]. Cerius2 is used to create,
modify, visualize, and analyze molecular structures, their conformers, and related attrib-
utes. These tasks are typical of the drug discovery process. C2•QSAR+ can be used to de-
velop and analyze structure–activity relationships of possible lead compounds as well as
to visualize and examine patterns of receptor–pharmacophore interaction. Cerius2 has
numerous property estimation and computation functions. It can be used to anticipate
the pharmacological activity of well-known or brand-new substances and to create phar-
macophoric and receptor hypotheses. In this case, it is helpful to forecast the ability of
penetration through BBB using descriptors like log BB, C log P and structure. The soft-
wareknownasACD/LogDismostlyusedtoextrapolate the distribution coefficient (pK
a
)
from a molecule’s structure. The distribution coefficient, sometimes referred to as the ap-
parent partition coefficient, is a metric for determining whether a molecule is hydrophilic
or hydrophobic and is ionizable. It symbolizes a compound’s propensity to differentially
disintegrate into two immiscible phases:1-octanol/water distribution coefficients mea-
sured at pH 7.4. It was suggested that optimal brain uptake can be expected for com-
pounds with 0 < log D oct < 3 and A log P <2[64].
5.7 Future prospects
The establishment of “BBB drug targeting centers,” cross-disciplinary, integrated cen-
ters that bring together transport biologists, pharmaceutical scientists, and bioengi-
neers, was agreed upon by the group as the top priority in the development of future
brain drug targeting systems. Such facilities would create technological foundations
for medications involving both tiny and big molecules. The center would be technol-
ogy- and applied-science-based, and it would concentrate on creating workable deliv-
ery systems that might be used to reformulate medications that often cannot cross the
5 Computational approaches to the prediction of the blood–brain distribution 107
https://t.me/med1917
BBB [65]. With a focus on technology, thecenterwouldserveasabenchmarkfor
translational neuroscience research. The center should, however, also be well-versed
in the biology of brain microvascular transport and the basic science of the brain cap-
illary endothelium to show the continuum between the basic and practical sciences of
brain drug targeting research. Brain targeting is a crucial topic for future research.
One overarching objective of future research in brain drug targeting is to broaden the
CNS drug space from lipid-soluble small molecules to the much wider space of phar-
maceutics that includes compounds, which do not typically cross the BBB. Discover
new BBB transporters that might serve as entry points for brain medication targeting
systems. Create drug delivery systems for recombinant protein neurotherapeutics
that target the brain. Use in vivo models to verify innovative drug-targeting technolo-
gies. Improve in vivo brain drug targeting systems’ pharmacokinetics. Create systems
for genomic and proteomic research that make it possible to find novel BBB transport-
ers. Nanoparticles that target tumors according to the EPR effect could be applied to
brain diseases with consideration of leaky BBB. The impact of aging on BBB dysfunc-
tions is a further relevant subject that merits research. Rarely can you find in the lit-
erature brain medication delivery systems that have taken the effects of aging into
account and have been tested in animals of various ages [23]. The complexity of the
BBB necessitates more thorough research into delivery methods, but it may also pres-
ent special chances to develop effective delivery methods for the treatment of diverse
brain illnesses.
References
[1] Han, L., & Jiang, C. Evolution of blood–brain barrier in brain diseases and related systemic
nanoscale brain-targeting drug delivery strategies. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B, 2021 Aug, 11(8),
2306–2325.
[2] C.-T. Lu, Y.-Z. Zhao, H. L. Wong, J. Cai, L. Peng, and X.-Q. Tian, “Current approaches to enhance CNS
delivery of drugs across the brain barriers.,” Int. J. Nanomedicine, vol. 9, pp. 2241–2257, 2014.
[3] Vykhodtseva, N., McDannold, N., & Hynynen, K. Progress and problems in the application of focused
ultrasound for blood–brain barrier disruption. Ultrasonics, 2008 Aug, 48(4), 279–296.
[4] Sai, Y., Kajita, M., Tamai, I., Wakama, J., Wakamiya, T., & Tsuji, A. Adsorptive-mediated endocytosis of
a basic peptide in enterocyte-like Caco-2 cells. American Journal of Physiology Liver Physiology, 1998
Sep 1, 275(3), G514–20.
[5] Pardridge, W. M. William Pardridge discusses the lack of BBB research. Interview by Rebecca
N. Lawrence. Drug Discovery Today: Technologies, 2002 Feb 15, 7(4), 223–226.
[6] Pardridge, W. M. Crossing the blood-brain barrier: Are we getting it right?. Drug Discovery Today:
Technologies, 2001 Jan 1, 6(1), 1–2.
[7] Nicolazzo, J. A., Charman, S. A., & Charman, W. N. Methods to assess drug permeability across the
blood-brain barrier. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 2010 Feb 18, 58(3), 281–293.
[8] Pardridge, W. M. Log(BB), PS products and in silico models of drug brain penetration. Drug
Discovery Today: Technologies, 2004 May 1, 9(9), 392–393.
108 Sarwal Amita, Bharti Sunil, and T.V.S. Padmajyoti
https://t.me/med1917
[9] Zhao, Y., Gan, L., Ren, L., Lin, Y., Ma, C., & Lin, X. Factors influencing the blood-brain barrier
permeability. Brain Research, 2022 Aug 1, 1788, 147937.
[10] Mokgokong, R., Wang, S., Taylor, C. J., Barrand, M. A., & Hladky, S. B. Ion transporters in brain
endothelial cells that contribute to formation of brain interstitial fluid. Pflügers Archiv-European
Journal of Physiology, 2014 May 11, 466(5), 887–901.
[11] Luissint, A.-C., Federici, C., Guillonneau, F., Chrétien, F., Camoin, L., Glacial, F., et al. Guanine
nucleotide-binding protein Gαi2: A new partner of Claudin-5 that regulates tight junction integrity in
human brain endothelial cells. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow Metabolism, 2012 May 15, 32(5),
860–873.
[12] Alahmari, A. Blood-brain barrier overview: Structural and functional correlation. Neural Plasticity,
2021, 2021, 6564585.
[13] Alvarez, J. I., Katayama, T., & Prat, A. Glial influence on the blood brain barrier. Glia, 2013 Dec, 61(12),
1939–1958.
[14] Liebner, S., Dijkhuizen, R. M., Reiss, Y., Plate, K. H., Agalliu, D., & Constantin, G. Functional
morphology of the blood–brain barrier in health and disease. Acta Neuropathologica, 2018 Mar 6,
135(3), 311–336.
[15] Cheslow, L., & Alvarez, J. I. Glial-endothelial crosstalk regulates blood–brain barrier function.
Current Opinion Pharmacology, 2016 Feb, 26, 39–46.
[16] Zamanian, J. L., Xu, L., Foo, L. C., Nouri, N., Zhou, L., Giffard, R. G., et al. Genomic analysis of reactive
astrogliosis. Journal of Neuroscience, 2012 May 2, 32(18), 6391–6410.
[17] Sweeney, M. D., Ayyadurai, S., & Zlokovic, B. V. Pericytes of the neurovascular unit: Key functions
and signaling pathways. Nature Neuroscience, 2016 May 26, 19(6), 771–783.
[18] Bertrand, L., Cho, H. J., & Toborek, M. Blood–brain barrier pericytes as a target for HIV-1 infection.
Brain, 2019 Mar 1, 142(3), 502–511.
[19] Ginhoux, F., Lim, S., Hoeffel, G., Low, D., & Huber, T. Origin and differentiation of microglia.
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 2013, 7, 45.
[20] Bayir, E., Celtikoglu, M. M., & Sendemir, A. The use of bacterial cellulose as a basement membrane
improves the plausibility of the static in vitro blood-brain barrier model. International Journal of
Biological Macromolecules, 2019 Apr 1, 126, 1002 – 1013.
[21] Sorokin, L. The impact of the extracellular matrix on inflammation. Nature Reviews Immunology,
2010 Oct 24, 10(10), 712–723.
[22] Varsha, A., Om, B., Kuldeep, R., & Riddhi, P. Poles apart inimitability of brain targeted drug delivery
system in middle of NDDS. International Journal of Drug Development and Research, 2014 Nov 27,
6(4), 15–27.
[23] Dong, X. Current strategies for brain drug delivery. Theranostics, 2018, 8(6), 1481–1493.
[24] Lundquist, S., & Renftel, M. The use of in vitro cell culture models for mechanistic studies and as
permeability screens for the blood-brain barrier in the pharmaceutical industry–background and
current status in the drug discovery process. Vascular Pharmacology, 2002 Jun, 38(6), 355–364.
[25] Reichel, A., Begley, D. J., & Abbott, N. J. An overview of in vitro techniques for blood-brain barrier
studies. In: Blood-Brain Barrier. (pp. 307–324). Humana Press: New Jersey.
[26] Tetsuka, K., Takanaga, H., Ohtsuki, S., Hosoya, K., & Terasaki, T. The l-isomer-selective transport of
aspartic acid is mediated by ASCT2 at the blood-brain barrier. The Journal of Neurochemistry, 2004
Feb 4, 87(4), 891–901.
[27] Pastan, I., Gottesman, M. M., Ueda, K., Lovelace, E., Rutherford, A. V., & Willingham, M. C. A
retrovirus carrying an MDR1 cDNA confers multidrug resistance and polarized expression of P-
glycoprotein in MDCK cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1988 Jun, 85(12),
4486–4490.
[28] Garberg, P., Ball, M., Borg, N., Cecchelli, R., Fenart, L., Hurst, R. D., et al. In vitro models for the
blood–brain barrier. Toxicology Vitro, 2005 Apr, 19(3), 299–334.
5 Computational approaches to the prediction of the blood–brain distribution 109
https://t.me/med1917
[29] Stewart, B. H., & Chan, O. H. Use of immobilized artificial membrane chromatography for drug
transport applications. Journal Pharmaceutical Sciences, 1998 Dec, 87(12), 1471–1478.
[30] Pidgeon, C., Ong, S., Liu, H., Qiu, X., Pidgeon, M., Dantzig, A. H., et al. IAM chromatography: An
in vitro screen for predicting drug membrane permeability. Journal Medical Chemistry, 1995 Feb 1,
38(4), 590–594.
[31] Salminen, T., Pulli, A., & Taskinen, J. Relationship between immobilised artificial membrane
chromatographic retention and the brain penetration of structurally diverse drugs. Journal Pharma
Biomed Analysis, 1997 Jan 1, 15(4), 469–477.
[32] Pardridge, W. M. Blood-brain barrier biology and methodology. Journal of Neurovirology, 1999 Jan,
5(6), 556–569.
[33] Smith, Q.R. (1996). Brain Perfusion Systems for Studies of Drug Uptake and Metabolism in the
Central Nervous System. In: Borchardt, R.T., Smith, P.L., Wilson, G. (eds) Models for Assessing Drug
Absorption and Metabolism. Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, vol 8. Springer, Boston, MA.
[34] Pardridge, W. M. Transport of small molecules through the blood-brain barrier: Biology and
methodology. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 1995 Jul, 15(1–3), 5–36.
[35] Kuhnline Sloan, C. D., Nandi, P., Linz, T. H., Aldrich, J. V., Audus, K. L., & Lunte, S. M. Analytical and
biological methods for probing the blood-brain barrier. Annual Review of Analytical Chemistry, 2012
Jul 19, 5(1), 505–531.
[36] De Lange Ecm,, De Boer Bag,, & Breimer, D. D. Microdialysis for pharmacokinetic analysis of drug
transport to the brain. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 1999 Apr, 36(2– 3), 211–227.
[37] Alam, M. I., Beg, S., Samad, A., Baboota, S., Kohli, K., Ali, J., et al. Strategy for effective brain drug
delivery. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2010 Aug 11, 40(5), 385–403.
[38] Pardridge, W. M. Blood-brain barrier drug targeting: The future of brain drug development.
Molecular Interventions, 2003 Mar 1, 3(2), 90–105.
[39] Huynh, G. H., Deen, D. F., & Szoka, F. C. Barriers to carrier mediated drug and gene delivery to brain
tumors. Journal of Controlled Release, 2006 Jan, 110(2), 236–259.
[40] Zhang, Y., & Pardridge, W. M. Conjugation of brain-derived neurotrophic factor to a blood–brain
barrier drug targeting system enables neuroprotection in regional brain ischemia following
intravenous injection of the neurotrophin. Brain Research, 2001 Jan, 889(1–2), 49 –56.
[41] Steiniger, S. C. J., Kreuter, J., Khalansky, A. S., Skidan, I. N., Bobruskin, A. I., Smirnova, Z. S., et al.
Chemotherapy of glioblastoma in rats using doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles. International Journal
of Cancer, 2004 May 1, 109(5), 759–767.
[42] Abe, T., Wakimoto, H., Bookstein, R., Maneval, D. C., Chiocca, E. A., & Basilion, J. P. Intra-arterial
delivery of p53-containing adenoviral vector into experimental brain tumors. Cancer Gene Therapy,
2002 Mar 1, 9(3), 228–235.
[43] Pardridge, W. M. Blood–brain barrier delivery. Drug Discovery Today: Technologies, 2007 Jan 1,
12(1–2), 54–61.
[44] Wei, G. Intranasal administration of a PARG inhibitor profoundly decreases ischemic brain injury.
Frontiers in Bioscience, 2007, 12(12), 4986.
[45] Ali, J., Ali, M., Baboota, S., Kaur Sahni, J., Ramassamy, C., Dao, L., et al. Potential of nanoparticulate
drug delivery systems by Intranasal Administration. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 2010 May 1,
16(14), 1644–1653.
[46] MacKay, J. A., Deen, D. F., & Szoka, F. C. Distribution in brain of liposomes after convection enhanced
delivery; modulation by particle charge, particle diameter, and presence of steric coating. Brain
Research, 2005 Feb, 1035(2), 139–153.
[47] Nicholson, C., & Syková, E. Extracellular space structure revealed by diffusion analysis. Trends in
Neuroscience, 1998 May, 21(5), 207–215.
[48] Ommaya, A. K. Implantable devices for chronic access and drug delivery to the central nervous
system. Cancer Drug Delivery, 1984 Jan, 1(2), 169–179.
110 Sarwal Amita, Bharti Sunil, and T.V.S. Padmajyoti
https://t.me/med1917
[49] Groothuis, D. R., Benalcazar, H., Allen, C. V., Wise, R. M., Dills, C., Dobrescu, C., et al. Comparison of
cytosine arabinoside delivery to rat brain by intravenous, intrathecal, intraventricular and
intraparenchymal routes of administration. Brain Research, 2000 Feb, 856(1– 2), 281–290.
[50] Bickel, U., Yoshikawa, T., & Pardridge, W. M. Delivery of peptides and proteins through the
blood–brain barrier. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 2001 Mar, 46(1–3), 247–279.
[51] Pardridge, W. M. Brain drug targeting and Gene technologies. The Japanese Journal of
Pharmacology, 2001, 87(2), 97–103.
[52] Prokai, L., Prokai-Tatrai, K., & Bodor, N. Targeting drugs to the brain by redox chemical delivery
systems. Medicinal Research Reviews, 2000 Sep, 20(5), 367–416.
[53] Garzon-Aburbeh, A., Poupaert, J. H., Claesen, M., & Dumont, P. A lymphotropic prodrug of L-dopa:
Synthesis, pharmacological properties and pharmacokinetic behavior of 1,3-dihexadecanoyl-2-[(S)-2-
amino-3-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)propanoyl]propane-1,2,3-triol. Journal Medical Chemistry, 1986 May 1,
29(5), 687–691.
[54] Schnyder, A., & Huwyler, J. Drug transport to brain with targeted liposomes. NeuroRX, 2005 Jan, 2(1),
99–107.
[55] Mistry, A., Stolnik, S., & Illum, L. Nanoparticles for direct nose-to-brain delivery of drugs.
International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 2009 Sep, 379(1), 146–157.
[56] Lockman, P. R., Koziara, J. M., Mumper, R. J., & Allen, D. D. Nanoparticle surface charges alter
blood–brain barrier integrity and permeability. Journal of Drug Targeting, 2004 Dec 3, 12(9–10),
635–641.
[57] Sneader, W. Drug Discovery. 2005, Wiley.
[58] Alsenan, S., Al-Turaiki, I., & Hafez, A. A deep learning approach to predict blood-brain barrier
permeability. PeerJ Computer Science, 2021, 7, e515.
[59] Vincenzi, S., Zucchetta, M., Franzoi, P., Pellizzato, M., Pranovi, F., De Leo, G. A., et al. Application of a
random forest algorithm to predict spatial distribution of the potential yield of Ruditapes
philippinarum in the Venice lagoon, Italy. Ecological Modelling, 2011 Apr 24, 222(8), 1471–1478.
[60] Burden, F. R., & Winkler, D. A. A quantitative structure−activity relationships model for the acute
toxicity of substituted benzenes to Tetrahymena pyriformis using Bayesian-regularized neural
networks. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 2000 Jun 1, 13(6), 436–440.
[61] Norinder, U., & Haeberlein, M. Computational approaches to the prediction of the blood–brain
distribution. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 2002 Mar, 54(3), 291–313.
[62] Pan, D., Iyer, M., Liu, J., Li, Y., & Hopfinger, A. J. Constructing optimum blood brain barrier QSAR
models using a combination of 4D-molecular similarity measures and cluster analysis. Journal of
Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 2004 Nov 1, 44(6), 2083–2098.
[63] Lobell, M., Molnár, L., & Keserü, G. M. Recent advances in the prediction of blood–brain partitioning
from molecular structure. Journal Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2003 Feb, 92(2), 360–370.
[64] Ter Laak, A. M., Tsai, R. S., Donné-op den Kelder, G. M., Carrupt, P.-A., Testa, B., & Timmerman,
H. Lipophilicity and hydrogen-bonding capacity of H1-antihistaminic agents in relation to their
central sedative side-effects. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 1994 Dec, 2(5– 6),
373–384.
[65] Pallavi*, P., Geeta, A., & Hari, K. S. L. Brain targeted drug delivery system: A Review. World Journal of
Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2016 May 6, 5(6), 398– 414.
[66] Y. Takasato, S. Rapoport, & Q. Smith, "An in situ brain perfusion technique to study cerebrovascular
transport in the rat", American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, vol. 247, no.
3, p. H484-H493, 1984.
[67] P. Garg and J. Verma, “In Silico Prediction of Blood Brain Barrier Permeability: An Artificial Neural
Network Model,” J. Chem. Inf. Model., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 289–297, Jan. 2006.
[68] Guerra, A., Páez, J. and Campillo, N. (2008), Artificial Neural Networks in ADMET Modeling:
Prediction of Blood–Brain Barrier Permeation. QSAR Comb. Sci., 27: 586
–594.
5 Computational approaches to the prediction of the blood–brain distribution 111
https://t.me/med1917
[69] R.C. Young, R.C. Mitchell, T.H. Brown, C.R. Ganellin, R. Griffiths, M. Jones, K.K. Rana, D. Saunders, I.R.
Smith, N.E. Sore, T.J. Wilks, Development of a new physicochemical model for brain penetration and
its application to the design of centrally acting H2 receptor histamine antagonists, Med. Chem. 31
(1988) 656–671.
[70] D.E. Clark, Rapid calculation of polar molecular surface area and its application to the prediction of
transport phenomena. 2. Prediction of blood–brain barrier penetration, J. Pharm. Sci. 88 (1999)
815–821.
[71] Ma, Xl., Chen, C. & Yang, J. Predictive model of blood-brain barrier penetration of organic
compounds. Acta Pharmacol Sin 26, 500–512 (2005).
[72] K. Rose, L. H. Hall, and L. B. Kier, “Modeling Blood-Brain Barrier Partitioning Using the
Electrotopological State,” J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 651–666, May 2002.
112 Sarwal Amita, Bharti Sunil, and T.V.S. Padmajyoti
https://t.me/med1917
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана