4.6 Review

Zebrafish (Danio rerio): A valuable tool for predicting the metabolism of xenobiotics in humans?

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpc.2018.06.005

关键词

Zebrafish (Danio rerio); Xenobiotic metabolism; Cytochrome P450; Non-human model; Drug discovery; Toxicology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Zebrafish has become a popular model organism in several lines of biological research sharing physiological, morphological and histological similarities with mammals. In fact, many human cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes have direct orthologs in zebrafish, suggesting that zebrafish xenobiotic metabolic profiles may be similar to those in mammals. The focus of the review is to analyse the studies that have evaluated the metabolite production in zebrafish over the years, either of the drugs themselves or xenobiotics in general (environmental pollutants, natural products, etc.), bringing a vision of how these works were performed and comparing, where possible, with human metabolism. Early studies that observed metabolic production by zebrafish focused on environmental toxicology, and in recent years the main focus has been on toxicity screening of pharmaceuticals and drug candidates. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of standardization of the model and the knowledge of the extent of similarity with human metabolism. Zebrafish screenings are performed at different life stages, typically being carried out in adult fish through in vivo assays, followed by early larval stages and embryos. Studies comparing metabolism at the different zebrafish life stages are also common. As with any non-human model, the zebrafish presents similarities and differences in relation to the profile of generated metabolites compared to that observed in humans. Although more studies are still needed to assess the degree to which zebrafish metabolism can be compared to human metabolism, the facts presented indicate that the zebrafish is an excellent potential model for assessing xenobiotic metabolism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据