Experimentally derived biomimetic chromatographic descriptors for drug-induced phospholipidosis liability prediction

Original scientific paper

Authors

  • Chrysanthos Stergiopoulos Laboratory of Process Analysis and Design, School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Iroon Polytechniou 9, 157 75 Zografou, Athens, Greece https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6002-4870
  • Klara Valko Bio-Mimetic Chromatography Ltd, Business & Technology Centre, Bessemer Drive, Stevenage, Herts, SG1 2DX, United Kingdom https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4605-2941

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.3460

Keywords:

Phospholipidosis, biomimetic chromatography, membrane affinity, cationic amphiphilic drugs, lysosomal trapping

Abstract

Background and purpose: Drug-induced phospholipidosis (PLD) is a complex intracellular liability commonly associated with the lysosomal accumulation of cationic amphiphilic drugs and remains an important concern in drug development because of its implications for safety, intracellular disposition, and compound prioritization. Although cationic amphiphilicity, membrane interactions, and lysosomal trapping are established features of PLD, experimentally accessible descriptors that capture PLD-relevant membrane affinity remain valuable for early-stage risk assessment. This study aimed to evaluate whether biomimetic chromatographic descriptors can improve the prediction and interpretation of PLD liability by providing experimentally derived information on membrane affinity and protein-binding-related distributional behavior. Experimental approach: A curated dataset of 65 compounds with experimentally reported PLD responses was analyzed using multiple linear regression and ordinal classification approaches. PLD potency was expressed as pEC₅₀, while ordinal models classified compounds into non-inducers, weak/moderate inducers, and strong inducers. Membrane affinity was quantified using immobilized artificial membrane chromatography, expressed as CHI IAM, while protein-related interactions were represented by human serum albumin affinity, log kHSA, and α1-acid glycoprotein affinity, log kAGP. Biomimetic chromatographic descriptors were compared with conventional physicochemical parameters, including log P and log D, to assess their relative predictive and mechanistic value. Key results: CHI IAM-containing models showed strong predictive performance for PLD potency, with external predictivity reaching Q²ext = 0.823. CHI IAM alone also performed strongly, achieving Q²ext = 0.821, indicating that membrane affinity captures a major component of PLD-relevant behavior. In ordinal classification models, CHI IAM alone provided robust discrimination of PLD severity, with a test accuracy of 0.769, macro F1 score of 0.778, and macro-AUC of 0.923. Protein-binding descriptors, particularly log kAGP, showed moderate predictive value but offered limited, model-dependent improvement once membrane affinity was considered. Conventional lipophilicity descriptors did not outperform the biomimetic membrane-affinity descriptor. Conclusion: Biomimetic chromatographic descriptors provide experimentally derived, mechanistically interpretable surrogates for assessing early-stage PLD liability. CHI IAM offers a practical approximation of membrane-affinity behavior relevant to lysosomal phospholipid accumulation and PLD risk. Protein-binding descriptors may provide complementary information related to distributional phenotypes, but their added value appears less consistent than that of membrane affinity. This approach extends beyond conventional lipophilicity-based QSAR by incorporating experimentally measured distribution-relevant properties and may support compound prioritization during drug discovery.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] M.J. Reasor, S. Kacew. Drug-induced phospholipidosis: are there functional consequences? Experimental Biology and Medicine 226 (2001) 825-830. https://doi.org/10.1177/153537020122600903

[2] N. Anderson, J. Borlak. Drug-induced phospholipidosis. FEBS Letters 580 (2006) 5533-5540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2006.08.061

[3] M. Muehlbacher, P. Tripal, F. Roas, et al. Identification of drugs inducing phospholipidosis by novel in vitro data. ChemMedChem 7 (2012) 1865-1875. https://doi.org/10.1002/cmdc.201290053

[4] J.A. Shayman, A. Abe. Drug induced phospholipidosis: an acquired lysosomal storage disorder. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1831 (2013) 602-611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbalip.2012.08.013

[5] W.H. Halliwell. Cationic amphiphilic drug-induced phospholipidosis. Toxicologic Pathology 25 (1997) 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/019262339702500111

[6] A.M. Kaufmann, J.P. Krise. Lysosomal sequestration of amine-containing drugs: analysis and therapeutic implications. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 96 (2007) 729-746. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.20792

[7] U.M. Hanumegowda, G. Wenke, A. Regueiro-Ren, et al. Phospholipidosis as a function of basicity, lipophilicity, and volume of distribution of compounds. Chemical Research in Toxicology 23 (2010) 749-755. https://doi.org/10.1021/tx9003825

[8] J.P. Ploemen, J. Kelder, T. Hafmans, et al. Use of physicochemical calculation of pKa and CLogP to predict phospholipidosis-inducing potential: a case study with structurally related piperazines. Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology 55 (2004) 347-355. https://doi.org/10.1078/0940-2993-00338

[9] A. Casartelli, M. Bonato, P. Cristofori, F. Crivellente, G. Dal Negro, I. Masotto, C. Mutinelli, K. Valko, V. Bonfante. A cell-based approach for the early assessment of the phospholipidogenic potential in pharmaceutical research and drug development. Cell Biology and Toxicology 19 (2003) 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024778329320

[10] T. Kasahara, K. Tomita, H. Murano, et al. Establishment of an in vitro high-throughput screening assay for detecting phospholipidosis-inducing potential. Toxicological Sciences 90 (2006) 133-141. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfj067

[11] J.K. Morelli, M. Buehrle, F. Pognan, et al. Validation of an in vitro screen for phospholipidosis using a high-content biology platform. Cell Biology and Toxicology 22 (2006) 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10565-006-0176-z

[12] L. Zhou, G. Geraci, S. Hess, et al. Predicting phospholipidosis: a fluorescence noncell based in vitro assay for the determination of drug-phospholipid complex formation in early drug discovery. Analytical Chemistry 83 (2011) 6980-6987. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac200683k

[13] Y. Kuroda, M. Saito. Prediction of phospholipidosis-inducing potential of drugs by in vitro biochemical and physicochemical assays followed by multivariate analysis. Toxicology in Vitro 24 (2010) 661-668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2009.09.018

[14] Z. Jiang, J. Reilly. Chromatography approaches for early screening of the phospholipidosis-inducing potential of pharmaceuticals. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 61 (2012) 184-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2011.11.033

[15] X.L. Zhao, W.J. Chen, Z.H. Liu, J.L. Guo, Z.Y. Zhou, J. Crommen, R. Moaddel, Z.J. Jiang. A novel mixed phospholipid functionalized monolithic column for early screening of drug induced phospholipidosis risk. Journal of Chromatography A 1367 (2014) 99-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2014.09.048

[16] J. Wang, X. Zhao, D. Xu, L. Lai, J. Crommen, J. Guo, Z. Jiang. Development of acidic phospholipid containing immobilized artificial membrane column to predict drug-induced phospholipidosis potency. Journal of Chromatography A 1647 (2021) 462147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2021.462147

[17] H. Fischer, E.A. Atzpodien, M. Csato, et al. In silico assay for assessing phospholipidosis potential of small druglike molecules: training, validation, and refinement using several data sets. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 55 (2012) 126-139. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm201082a

[18] A. Nath, G.K. Sahu. Exploiting ensemble learning to improve prediction of phospholipidosis inducing potential. Journal of Theoretical Biology 479 (2019) 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2019.07.009

[19] H. van de Waterbeemd, E. Gifford. ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2 (2003) 192-204. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1032

[20] J.A. Arnott, S.L. Planey. The influence of lipophilicity in drug discovery and design. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery 7 (2012) 863-875. https://doi.org/10.1517/17460441.2012.714363

[21] K.L. Valko. Lipophilicity and biomimetic properties measured by HPLC to support drug discovery. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 130 (2016) 35-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2016.04.009

[22] K. Valko, S. Nunhuck, C. Bevan, M.H. Abraham, D.P. Reynolds. Fast gradient HPLC method to determine compounds binding to human serum albumin. Relationships with octanol/water and immobilized artificial membrane lipophilicity. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 92 (2003) 2236-2248. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.10494

[23] K.L. Valkó. Biomimetic chromatography - A novel application of the chromatographic principles. Analytical Science Advances 3 (2022) 146-153. https://doi.org/10.1002/ansa.202200004

[24] F. Tsopelas, C. Stergiopoulos, A. Tsantili-Kakoulidou. Immobilized artificial membrane chromatography: from medicinal chemistry to environmental sciences. ADMET and DMPK 6 (2018) 225-241. https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.553

[25] L. LeCureux, C.S. Cheng, J. Herbst, et al. Evaluation and validation of multiple cell lines and primary mouse macrophages to predict phospholipidosis potential. Toxicology in Vitro 25 (2011) 1934-1943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2011.06.017

[26] S.A. Shahane, R. Huang, D. Gerhold, et al. Detection of phospholipidosis induction: a cell-based assay in high-throughput and high-content format. SLAS Discovery 19 (2014) 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087057113502851

[27] F. Atienzar, H. Gerets, S. Dufrane, et al. Determination of phospholipidosis potential based on gene expression analysis in HepG2 cells. Toxicological Sciences 96 (2007) 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfl184

[28] Advanced Chemistry Development, Inc., ACD/Percepta Platform, Advanced Chemistry Development, Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada, 2026. https://www.acdlabs.com/products/percepta/

[29] A. Tropsha. Best practices for QSAR model development, validation, and exploitation. Molecular Informatics 29 (2010) 476-488. https://doi.org/10.1002/minf.201000061

[30] P. Gramatica. Principles of QSAR models validation: internal and external. QSAR & Combinatorial Science 26 (2007) 694-701. https://doi.org/10.1002/qsar.200610151

[31] S. Wold, M. Sjöström, L. Eriksson. PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 58 (2001) 109-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7439(01)00155-1

[32] P. McCullagh. Regression models for ordinal data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 42 (1980) 109-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1980.tb01109.x

[33] H. Akaike. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19 (1974) 716-723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

[34] G. Schwarz. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6 (1978) 461-464. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136

[35] D. McFadden. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Frontiers in Econometrics, P. Zarembka, Ed., Academic Press, New York, 1974, pp. 105-142. ISBN: 978-0-12-776150-3

[36] N.A. Kratochwil, W. Huber, F. Müller, M. Kansy, P.R. Gerber. Predicting plasma protein binding of drugs: a new approach. Biochemical Pharmacology 64 (2002) 1355-1374. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-2952(02)01074-2

Published

10-07-2026

Issue

Section

Modelling and simulation

How to Cite

Experimentally derived biomimetic chromatographic descriptors for drug-induced phospholipidosis liability prediction: Original scientific paper. (2026). ADMET and DMPK, 14, Article 3460. https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.3460