Skip Navigation



ToxSci Advance Access published online on July 11, 2003
Toxicological Sciences, doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfg185
Toxicological Sciences © Society of Toxicology 2003; all rights reserved
This Article
Right arrow Advance Access manuscript (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
77/2/258    most recent
kfg185v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Petrikovics, I.
Right arrow Articles by Way, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Petrikovics, I.
Right arrow Articles by Way, J. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Received May 16, 2003; accepted June 24, 2003
© 2003 Society of Toxicology

Environmental Toxicology

Comparing Therapeutic and Prophylactic Protection against the Lethal Effect of Paraoxon

I. Petrikovics 1, D. Papahadjopoulos 2, K. Hong 2, T.-C. Cheng 3, S. I. Baskin 1*, J. Jiang 4, J. C. Jaszberenyi 3, B. A. Logue 1, M. Szilasi 5, W. D. McGuinn 4, and J. L. Way 4

1 U.S.A. Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5400
2 Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143
3 Technical University of Budapest, Hungary, H-1010
4 Department of Medical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Texas A&M University, College of Medicine, College Station, TX 77843-1114
5 University Medical School, Department of Pulmonology, Debrecen, Hungary, H-4031

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: Steven.Baskin{at}apg.amedd.army.mil.


  Abstract

Prophylactic and therapeutic efficacy against organophosphorus (OP) intoxication by pralidoxime (2-PAM) and atropine were studied and compared with sterically stabilized long circulating liposomes encapsulating recombinant organophosphorus acid hydrolase (OPH) either alone or in various specific combinations in paraoxon poisoning. Prophylactic and therapeutic properties of atropine and 2-PAM are diminished when they are used alone. However, their prophylactic effects are enhanced when they are used in combination. Present studies indicate that sterically stabilized liposomes (SL) encapsulating recombinant OPH (SL-OPH) alone can provide much better therapeutic and prophylactic protection than the classic 2-PAM + atropine combination. This protection was even more dramatic, when (SL-OPH) was employed in combination with 2-PAM and/or atropine: the magnitude of prophylactic antidotal protection was an astounding 1022 LD50 [920 mg/kg (LD50 of paraoxon with antagonists)/0.95 mg/kg (LD50 of control paraoxon)], and the therapeutic antidotal protection was 156 LD50 [140 mg/kg (LD50 of paraoxon with antagonists)/0.9 mg/kg (LD50 of control paraoxon)]. The current study firmly establishes the value of using liposome encapsulating OPH.

Key Words: Organic Phosphoric Acid Hydrolase (OPH), OPA Anhydrase, Paraoxonase, Paraoxon antagonism, Sterically Stabilized Liposomes, Stealth Liposomes, Long Circulating Liposomes, OPA Hydrolase (OPH), Organophorus antagonism, Prophylactic, Therapeutical .


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.