Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Oct 18.
Published in final edited form as: Eur J Pharmacol. 2008 Feb 5;584(2-3):213–221. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2008.01.036

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

Double reciprocal plot of the rate of reduction of glyceraldehyde by C299S mutant AKR1B10. Lineweaver–Burk plots of rate of reduction of DLglyceraldehyde in the presence of various concentrations of (A) ciprofibrate (● — 0 μM; ○ — 20 μM; ▲ — 50 μM; Δ — 100 μM; ■ — 200 μM; □ — 250 μM), (B) fenofibrate (● — 0 μM; ○ — 0.5 μM; ▲ — 1 μM; Δ — 2 μM; ■ — 5 μM; □ — 10 μM; □ — 20 μM), (C) fenofibric acid (● — 0 μM; ○ — 5 μM; ▲ — 10 μM; Δ — 20 μM; ■ — 50 μM; □ — 100 μM; ♦ — 200 μM), (D) gemfibrozil. (● — 0 μM; ○ — 10 μM; ▲ — 20 μM; Δ — 50 μM; ■ — 100 μM; □ — 200 μM; ♦ — 400 μM), (E) Wy 14,643 (● — 0 μM; ○ — 10 μM; ▲ — 20 μM; Δ — 50 μM; ■ — 100 μM; □ — 200 μM; ♦ — 300 μM) and (F) zopolrestat (● — 0 μM; ○ — 0.5 μM; ▲ — 2 μM; Δ — 5 μM; ■ — 10 μM; □ — 20 μM). Each individual rate measurement was evaluated in triplicate.