A Mathematical Model of In Vitro Cellular Uptake of Zoledronic Acid and Isopentenyl Pyrophosphate Accumulation

Abstract

The mevalonate pathway is an attractive target for many areas of research, such as autoimmune disorders, atherosclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease and cancer. Indeed, manipulating this pathway results in the alteration of malignant cell growth with promising therapeutic potential. There are several pharmacological options to block the mevalonate pathway in cancer cells, one of which is zoledronic acid (ZA) (an N-bisphosphonate (N-BP)), which inhibits the farnesyl pyrophosphate (FPP) synthase enzyme, inducing cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, inhibition of protein prenylation, and cholesterol reduction, as well as leading to the accumulation of isopentenyl pyrophosphate (IPP). We extrapolated the data based on two independently published papers that provide numerical data on the uptake of zoledronic acid (ZA) and the accumulation of IPP (Ag) and its isomer over time by using in vitro human cell line models. Two different mathematical models for IPP kinetics are proposed. The first model (Model 1) is a simpler ordinary differential equation (ODE) compartmental system composed of 3 equations with 10 parameters; the second model (Model 2) is a differential algebraic equation (DAE) system with 4 differential equations, 1 algebraic equation and 13 parameters incorporating the formation of the ZA+enzyme+Ag complex. Each of the two models aims to describe two different experimental situations (continuous and pulse experiments) with the same ZA kinetics. Both models fit the collected data very well. With Model 1, we obtained a prevision accumulation of IPP after 24 h of 169.6 pmol/mgprot/h with an IPP decreasing rate per (pmol/mgprot) of ZA (kXGZ) equal to 13.24/h. With Model 2, we have comprehensive kinetics of IPP upon ZA treatment. We calculate that the IPP concentration was equal to 141.6 pmol/mgprot/h with a decreasing rate/percentage of 0.051 (kXGU). The present study is the first to quantify the influence of ZA on the pharmacodynamics of IPP. While still incorporating a small number of parameters, Model 2 better represents the complexity of the biological behaviour for calculating the IPP produced in different situations, such as studies on γδ T cell-based immunotherapy. In the future, additional clinical studies are warranted to further evaluate and fine-tune dosing approaches.