Endogenous metabolite; glycine-conjugated secondary bile acid

Lithocholic acid (LCA) is a bile acid associated with adverse effects, including cholestasis, and it exists in vivo mainly as conjugates known as Glycolithocholic acid/glyco-LCA (GLCA) and tauro-LCA (TLCA). Tamoxifen has been linked to the development of cholestasis, and it inhibits sulfotransferase 2A1 (SULT2A1)-catalyzed dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) sulfonation. The present study was done to characterize the sulfonation of LCA, GLCA, and TLCA and to investigate whether triphenylethylene (clomifene, tamoxifen, toremifene, ospemifene, droloxifene), benzothiophene (raloxifene, arzoxifene), tetrahydronaphthalene (lasofoxifene, nafoxidine), indole (bazedoxifene), and benzopyran (acolbifene) classes of selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) inhibit LCA, GLCA, and TLCA sulfonation. Human recombinant SULT2A1, but not SULT2B1b or SULT1E1, catalyzed LCA, GLCA, and TLCA sulfonation, whereas each of these enzymes catalyzed DHEA sulfonation. LCA, GLCA, and TLCA sulfonation is catalyzed by human liver cytosol, and SULT2A1 followed the substrate inhibition model with comparable apparent K m values (≤1 µM). Each of the SERMs inhibited LCA, GLCA, and TLCA sulfonation with varying potency and mode of enzyme inhibition. The potency and extent of inhibition of LCA sulfonation were attenuated or increased by structural modifications to toremifene, bazedoxifene, and lasofoxifene. The inhibitory effect of raloxifene, bazedoxifene, and acolbifene on LCA sulfonation was also observed in HepG2 human hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Overall, among the SERMs investigated, bazedoxifene and raloxifene were the most effective inhibitors of LCA, GLCA, and TLCA sulfonation. These findings provide insight into the structural features of specific SERMs that contribute to their inhibition of SULT2A1-catalyzed LCA sulfonation. Inhibition of LCA, GLCA, and TLCA detoxification by a SERM may provide a biochemical basis for adverse effects associated with a SERM [3].

In the patients with heterozygous FH type IIa, we observed both a significant decrease in the molar percentages of glycochenodeoxycholic acid, glycoursodeoxycholic acid, and Glycolithocholic acid, and a significant increase of taurochenodeoxycholic acid compared to the corresponding values in the controls. Bile analysis of six patients was reexamined during probucol treatment after 16 weeks. Probucol significantly lowered serum cholesterol levels. However, biliary lipid composition and individual bile acid proportions was not altered by the treatment. The results suggest that most of the patients with heterozygous FH have supersaturated bile and are predisposed to cholesterol gallstone formation. In addition, the mechanism by which probucol lowers serum cholesterol appears to be independent of any change in the metabolism of biliary lipid.[1]

---

Results: Thirty-two UC patients and twenty-three HCs were enrolled in this study. It was found that the diversity of gut microbiota in UC patients was reduced compared with that in HCs. Firmicutes, Clostridium IV, Butyricicoccus, Clostridium XlVa, Faecalibacterium, and Roseburia were significantly decreased in patients with UC (P = 3.75E-05, P = 8.28E-07, P = 0.0002, P = 0.003, P = 0.0003, and P = 0.0004, respectively). Proteobacteria, Escherichia, Enterococcus, Klebsiella, and Streptococcus were significantly enriched in the UC group (P = 2.99E-09, P = 3.63E-05, P = 8.59E-05, P = 0.003, and P = 0.016, respectively). The concentrations of fecal secondary BAs, such as lithocholic acid, deoxycholic acid, glycodeoxycholic acid, Glycolithocholic acid, and taurolithocholate, in UC patients were significantly lower than those in HCs (P = 8.1E-08, P = 1.2E-07, P = 3.5E-04, P = 1.9E-03, and P = 1.8E-02, respectively) and were positively correlated with Butyricicoccus, Roseburia, Clostridium IV, Faecalibacterium, and Clostridium XlVb (P < 0.01). The concentrations of primary BAs, such as taurocholic acid, cholic acid, taurochenodeoxycholate, and glycochenodeoxycholate, in UC patients were significantly higher than those in HCs (P = 5.3E-03, P = 4E-02, P = 0.042, and P = 0.045, respectively) and were positively related to Enterococcus, Klebsiella, Streptococcus, Lactobacillus, and pro-inflammatory cytokines (P < 0.01). The expression of TGR5 was significantly elevated in UC patients (0.019 ± 0.013 vs 0.006 ± 0.003, P = 0.0003). VDR expression in colonic mucosal specimens was significantly decreased in UC patients (0.011 ± 0.007 vs 0.016 ± 0.004, P = 0.033). Conclusion: Fecal BA profiles are closely related to the gut microbiota and serum inflammatory cytokines. Dysregulation of the gut microbiota and altered constitution of fecal BAs may participate in regulating inflammatory responses via the BA receptors TGR5 and VDR [2].

Optimization of the LCA, GLCA/Glycolithocholic acid, TLCA, and DHEA Sulfonation Assays [3]
LCA sulfonation assay in human liver cytosol was optimized previously (Bansal and Lau, 2016a). LCA and GLCA/Glycolithocholic acid sulfonation increased linearly up to 100 µg of cytosolic protein, whereas TLCA sulfonation increased linearly up to 80 µg of cytosolic protein (Supplemental Fig. S1, A–C). LCA, GLCA, and TLCA sulfonation catalyzed by recombinant SULT2A1 was linear up to 5 µg of enzyme (Supplemental Fig. S1, D–F). LCA sulfonation catalyzed by human liver cytosol was linear up to 45 minutes, whereas GLCA..

Background: Gut microbiota and its metabolites may be involved in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Several clinical studies have recently shown that patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) have altered profiles of fecal bile acids (BAs). It was observed that BA receptors Takeda G-protein-coupled receptor 5 (TGR5) and vitamin D receptor (VDR) participate in intestinal inflammatory responses by regulating NF-ĸB signaling. We hypothesized that altered profiles of fecal BAs might be correlated with gut microbiota and inflammatory responses in patients with UC. Aim: To investigate the changes in fecal BAs and analyze the relationship of BAs with gut microbiota and inflammation in patients with UC. Methods: The present study used 16S rDNA sequencing technology to detect the differences in the intestinal flora between UC patients and healthy controls (HCs). Fecal BAs were measured by targeted metabolomics approaches. Mucosal TGR5 and VDR expression was analyzed using immunohistochemistry, and serum inflammatory cytokine levels were detected by ELISA.[2]

[1]. Biliary lipid composition in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and influence of treatment with probucol. Dig Dis Sci. 1994 Jul;39(7):1586-91.

[2]. Altered profiles of fecal bile acids correlate with gut microbiota and inflammatory responses in patients with ulcerative colitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2021 Jun 28;27(24):3609-3629.

[3]. Inhibition of Human Sulfotransferase 2A1-Catalyzed Sulfonation of Lithocholic Acid, Glycolithocholic Acid, and Taurolithocholic Acid by Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators and Various Analogs and Metabolites. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2019 Jun;369(3):389-405.

[4]. Potent suppression of hydrophobic bile acids by aldafermin, an FGF19 analogue, across metabolic and cholestatic liver diseases. JHEP Rep. 2021 Feb 19;3(3):100255.

Glycolithocholic acid is the glycine conjugate of lithocholic acid. It is a bile acid glycine conjugate and a N-acylglycine. It is functionally related to a lithocholic acid. It is a conjugate acid of a glycolithocholate.
Glycolithocholic acid has been reported in Homo sapiens and Bos taurus with data available.
See also: Glycolithocholate (annotation moved to).

---

Background & aims: Higher serum bile acid levels are associated with an increased risk of cirrhosis and liver-related morbidity and mortality. Herein, we report secondary analyses of aldafermin, an engineered analogue of the gut hormone fibroblast growth factor 19, on the circulating bile acid profile in prospective, phase II studies in patients with metabolic or cholestatic liver disease. Methods: One hundred and seventy-six patients with biopsy-confirmed non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and fibrosis and elevated liver fat content (≥8% by magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction) received 0.3 mg (n = 23), 1 mg (n = 49), 3 mg (n = 49), 6 mg (n = 28) aldafermin or placebo (n = 27) for 12 weeks. Sixty-two patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and elevated alkaline phosphatase (>1.5× upper limit of normal) received 1 mg (n = 21), 3 mg (n = 21) aldafermin or placebo (n = 20) for 12 weeks. Serum samples were collected on day 1 and week 12 for determination of bile acid profile and neoepitope-specific N-terminal pro-peptide of type III collagen (Pro-C3), a direct measure of fibrogenesis. Results: Treatment with aldafermin resulted in significant dose-dependent reductions in serum bile acids. In particular, bile acids with higher hydrophobicity indices, such as deoxycholic acid, lithocholic acid, glycodeoxycholic acid, glycochenodeoxycholic acid, and glycocholic acid, were markedly lowered by aldafermin in both NASH and PSC populations. Moreover, aldafermin predominantly suppressed the glycine-conjugated bile acids, rather than the taurine-conjugated bile acids. Changes in levels of bile acids correlated with changes in the novel fibrogenesis marker Pro-C3, which detects a neo-epitope of the type III collagen during its formation, in the pooled NASH and PSC populations. Conclusions: Aldafermin markedly reduced major hydrophobic bile acids that have greater detergent activity and cytotoxicity. Our data provide evidence that bile acids may contribute to sustaining a pro-fibrogenic microenvironment in the liver across metabolic and cholestatic liver diseases. Lay summary: Aldafermin is an analogue of a gut hormone, which is in development as a treatment for patients with chronic liver disease. Herein, we show that aldafermin can potently and robustly suppress the toxic, hydrophobic bile acids irrespective of disease aetiology. The therapeutic strategy utilising aldafermin may be broadly applicable to other chronic gastrointestinal and liver disorders. Clinical trials registration: The study is registered at Clinicaltrials.govNCT02443116 and NCT02704364.[4]

C26H42NO4-.NA+

455.60578

455.301

24404-83-9

Glycolithocholic acid;474-74-8;Glycolithocholic acid-d4;2044276-16-4

23688920

White to off-white solid powder

619.7ºC at 760 mmHg

328.6ºC

3.679

2

4

6

32

701

6

C[C@H](CCC(=NCC(=O)O)[O-])[C@H]1CCC2C3CCC4C[C@@H](CC[C@]4(C)C3CC[C@]12C)O.[Na+]

LQKBJAKZKFBLIB-NYTIRPLLSA-M

InChI=1S/C26H43NO4.Na/c1-16(4-9-23(29)27-15-24(30)31)20-7-8-21-19-6-5-17-14-18(28)10-12-25(17,2)22(19)11-13-26(20,21)3;/h16-22,28H,4-15H2,1-3H3,(H,27,29)(H,30,31);/q;+1/p-1/t16-,17-,18-,19?,20-,21?,22?,25+,26-;/m1./s1

sodium;2-[[(4R)-4-[(3R,5R,10S,13R,17R)-3-hydroxy-10,13-dimethyl-2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,14,15,16,17-tetradecahydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]phenanthren-17-yl]pentanoyl]amino]acetate

Glycolithocholic acid sodium salt; GLYCOLITHOCHOLIC ACID, SODIUM SALT; 24404-83-9; Glycolithocholic acid (sodium); Sodium ((4R)-4-((3R,10S,13R,17R)-3-hydroxy-10,13-dimethylhexadecahydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]phenanthren-17-yl)pentanoyl)glycinate; Sodium Glycolithocholate; N-(3alpha-Hydroxy-5beta-cholan-24-oyl)glycine Sodium Salt; N-[(3alpha,5beta)-3-Hydroxy-24-oxocholan-24-yl]glycine Sodium Salt;; Lithocholylglycine (sodium); Glycolithocholic acid,sodium salt;

2934.99.9001

Powder      -20°C    3 years

                     4°C     2 years

In solvent   -80°C    6 months

                  -20°C    1 month

Room temperature (This product is stable at ambient temperature for a few days during ordinary shipping and time spent in Customs)

DMSO : ~25 mg/mL (~54.87 mM)
H2O : < 0.1 mg/mL

Note: Listed below are some common formulations that may be used to formulate products with low water solubility (e.g. < 1 mg/mL), you may test these formulations using a minute amount of products to avoid loss of samples.

---

Injection Formulation 1: DMSO : Tween 80： Saline = 10 : 5 : 85 (i.e. 100 μL DMSO stock solution → 50 μL Tween 80 → 850 μL Saline)
*Preparation of saline: Dissolve 0.9 g of sodium chloride in 100 mL ddH ₂ O to obtain a clear solution.
Injection Formulation 2: DMSO : PEG300 ：Tween 80 : Saline = 10 : 40 : 5 : 45 (i.e. 100 μL DMSO → 400 μLPEG300 → 50 μL Tween 80 → 450 μL Saline)
Injection Formulation 3: DMSO : Corn oil = 10 : 90 (i.e. 100 μL DMSO → 900 μL Corn oil)
Example: Take the Injection Formulation 3 (DMSO : Corn oil = 10 : 90) as an example, if 1 mL of 2.5 mg/mL working solution is to be prepared, you can take 100 μL 25 mg/mL DMSO stock solution and add to 900 μL corn oil, mix well to obtain a clear or suspension solution (2.5 mg/mL, ready for use in animals).

View More

Injection Formulation 4: DMSO : 20% SBE-β-CD in saline = 10 : 90 [i.e. 100 μL DMSO → 900 μL (20% SBE-β-CD in saline)]
*Preparation of 20% SBE-β-CD in Saline (4°C，1 week): Dissolve 2 g SBE-β-CD in 10 mL saline to obtain a clear solution.
Injection Formulation 5: 2-Hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin : Saline = 50 : 50 (i.e. 500 μL 2-Hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin → 500 μL Saline)
Injection Formulation 6: DMSO : PEG300 : castor oil : Saline = 5 : 10 : 20 : 65 (i.e. 50 μL DMSO → 100 μLPEG300 → 200 μL castor oil → 650 μL Saline)
Injection Formulation 7: Ethanol : Cremophor : Saline = 10： 10 : 80 (i.e. 100 μL Ethanol → 100 μL Cremophor → 800 μL Saline)
Injection Formulation 8: Dissolve in Cremophor/Ethanol (50 : 50), then diluted by Saline
Injection Formulation 9: EtOH : Corn oil = 10 : 90 (i.e. 100 μL EtOH → 900 μL Corn oil)
Injection Formulation 10: EtOH : PEG300：Tween 80 : Saline = 10 : 40 : 5 : 45 (i.e. 100 μL EtOH → 400 μLPEG300 → 50 μL Tween 80 → 450 μL Saline)

---

Oral Formulation 1: Suspend in 0.5% CMC Na (carboxymethylcellulose sodium)
Oral Formulation 2: Suspend in 0.5% Carboxymethyl cellulose
Example: Take the Oral Formulation 1 (Suspend in 0.5% CMC Na) as an example, if 100 mL of 2.5 mg/mL working solution is to be prepared, you can first prepare 0.5% CMC Na solution by measuring 0.5 g CMC Na and dissolve it in 100 mL ddH2O to obtain a clear solution; then add 250 mg of the product to 100 mL 0.5% CMC Na solution, to make the suspension solution (2.5 mg/mL, ready for use in animals).

View More

Oral Formulation 3: Dissolved in PEG400
Oral Formulation 4: Suspend in 0.2% Carboxymethyl cellulose
Oral Formulation 5: Dissolve in 0.25% Tween 80 and 0.5% Carboxymethyl cellulose
Oral Formulation 6: Mixing with food powders

---

Note: Please be aware that the above formulations are for reference only. InvivoChem strongly recommends customers to read literature methods/protocols carefully before determining which formulation you should use for in vivo studies, as different compounds have different solubility properties and have to be formulated differently.

---

 (Please use freshly prepared in vivo formulations for optimal results.)