Allopurinol and oxypurinol differ in their strength and mechanisms of inhibition of xanthine oxidoreductase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Xanthine oxidoreductase is a metalloenzyme that catalyzes the final steps in purine metabolism by converting hypoxanthine to xanthine and then uric acid. Allopurinol, an analog of hypoxanthine, is widely used as an antigout drug, as xanthine oxidoreductase-mediated metabolism of allopurinol to oxypurinol leads to oxypurinol rotation in the enzyme active site and reduction of the molybdenum Mo(VI) active center to Mo(IV), inhibiting subsequent urate production. However, when oxypurinol is administered directly to a mouse model of hyperuricemia, it yields a weaker urate-lowering effect than allopurinol. To better understand its mechanism of inhibition and inform patient dosing strategies, we performed kinetic and structural analyses of the inhibitory activity of oxypurinol. Our results demonstrated that oxypurinol was less effective than allopurinol both in vivo and in vitro. We show that upon reoxidation to Mo(VI), oxypurinol binding is greatly weakened, and reduction by xanthine, hypoxanthine, or allopurinol is required for reformation of the inhibitor-enzyme complex. In addition, we show oxypurinol only weakly inhibits the conversion of hypoxanthine to xanthine and is therefore unlikely to affect the feedback inhibition of de novo purine synthesis. Furthermore, we observed weak allosteric inhibition of purine nucleoside phosphorylase by oxypurinol which has potentially adverse effects for patients. Considering these results, we propose the single-dose method currently used to treat hyperuricemia can result in unnecessarily high levels of allopurinol. While the short half-life of allopurinol in blood suggests that oxypurinol is responsible for enzyme inhibition, we anticipate multiple, smaller doses of allopurinol would reduce the total allopurinol patient load.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".