Fluorescence Detection of Zabofloxacin, a Novel Fluoroquinolone Antibiotic, in Plasma, Bile, and Urine by HPLC: The First Oral and Intravenous Applications in a Pharmacokinetic Study in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop an HPLC method using fluorescence detection for the pharmacokinetic evaluation of levels of zabofloxacin, a novel broad spectrum fluoroquinolone antibiotic, in the plasma, bile and urine of rats. METHODS: A simple reversed-phase HPLC method using a C18 column with fluorescence detection was developed and validated for the simultaneous determination of zabofloxain and enrofloxacin as an internal standard. The plasma sample was treated with methanol for protein precipitation, and treatment of the bile and urine samples included deproteinization and extraction using chloroform. The applicability of the developed assay method to pharmacokinetic studies of zabofloxacin in rats was examined. Zabofloxacin was intravenously and orally administered to rats at a dose of 20 mg/kg. RESULTS: The limits of quantification (LOQ) was determined to be 50 ng/mL for the plasma with acceptable linearity ranging from 50 to 25,000 ng/mL (R>0.999), and 0.5 μg/mL for the bile and urine samples with acceptable linearity ranging from 0.5 to 100 μg/mL (R>0.999). The validation parameters for zabofloxacin were found to be acceptable according to FDA assay validation (2001). While zabofloxacin in plasma and urine has been stable in all tested handling conditions, it has been unstable in bile during freeze-thaw cycles for 24 h at room temperature. Following intravenous and oral administration of zabofloxacin to rats at a dose of 20 mg/kg, concentration was quantifiable in plasma for up to 8 h. The bioavailability of zabofloxacin was 27.7%, and it was excreted into bile and urine at about 8% each per oral administration. CONCLUSIONS: These observations suggest that a validated assay can be used in pharmacokinetic studies of zabofloxacin in small animals. Due to the limited stability of zabofloxcin in rat bile, freeze-thaw cycles or prolonged handling at room temperature is not recommended. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".