To the Editors: Recently, Gasior and associates examined the effects of acetone metabolites to evaluate their antiseizure activities and came to the conclusion that acetone itself, and not its metabolites, are likely capable of exerting antiepileptic activity (Gasior et al., 2007). Herewith this conclusion is disputed and the following analysis will address some significant points. The place of the antiseizure activity of any chemical compound is the brain. And this rule applies to acetone metabolites, too. Therefore, the first issue is the lack of evidence for brain distribution of metabolites. While acetone freely crosses blood–brain barrier, and its concentrations in blood and cerebrospinal fluid are similar in rats (Likhodii and Burnham, 2006), such an information is not available for its metabolites and the authors did not present data in this regard, either (Gasior et al., 2007). Studies with intravenously administered tracer amounts of [11C]-acetone to baboons proved that acetone exhibited a rapid uptake into and a relatively slow clearance from the brain (Gerasimov et al., 2005). And patients successfully treated with ketogenic diet have been reported to present elevated levels of acetone in their brains, too (Seymour et al., 1999). In contrast, methylglyoxal seems not to cross biological membranes as it binds to macromolecules the intracellular concentration of free methylglyoxal is estimated only 5% of the total (Chaplen et al., 1996). For the brain distribution of either acetol or 1,2-propanediol data are not known. Unless either the uptake of an acetone metabolite into the brain or its formation in the brain and its failure to exert antiseizure activity parallel to its uptake or production are proven, it cannot be stated that the indexed metabolite does not have antiseizure activity. The second issue is the application of acetone metabolites. All chemicals were administered intraperitoneally (Gasior et al., 2007). If some of the metabolites are unable to cross membranes then the intraperitoneal application of metabolites does not make sense. In addition, the mode of administration has an influence on the toxicity of a given compound as detailed for 1,2-propanediol and methylglyoxal (Ruddick, 1972; Kalapos, 1999). The third issue is data interpretation. The authors stated that acetol failed to protect animals against seizure, while it is seen in figure 3 that acetol exerted antiseizure activity in all the three seizure models (Gasior et al., 2007). Investigating data for acetone and acetol closely, it becomes obvious that the curves for acetol are shifted toward higher concentrations but run parallel to the curves gained for acetone (Gasior et al., 2007). Motor impairment caused by higher doses reflects toxicity and means a limitation to the application of acetol. For 1,2-propanediol, similar shift is seen in two of the three models (Gasior et al., 2007). The fourth issue is the contamination of commercially available chemicals. This particularly applies to methylglyoxal, which is contaminated with formaldehyde, pyruvate, lactate, and formate (Pourmotabbed and Creighton, 1986). Finally, it needs to be addressed whether animal models of this kind are suitable tools to shed light to antiseizure activity of acetone. Acetone metabolism is a complex network (Kalapos, 2006). The conversion of acetone to methylglyoxal needs the action of cytochrome P450 2E1 gene products, designated CYP2E1 (Casazza et al., 1984; Myksis and Tyndale, 2004). CYP2E1 gene products are most abundant in the liver but are present in the brain, too (Myksis and Tyndale, 2004). In animals, transgenic, knockout and viral vector methodologies represent powerful tools, thus the use of transgenic mouse line lacking CYP2E1 would be a unique model to test the role of acetone in seizure control (Bondoc et al., 1999; Kalapos, 2007).
Read full abstract