Selection of Solvent Systems for Membrane-, Cell- and Tissue-Based Permeability Assessment

Part of the Biotechnology: Pharmaceutical Aspects book series (PHARMASP, volume VI)


In the past, drug discovery was mainly linearly oriented: discovery compounds were primarily synthesized in view of optimizing their pharmacological activity, often resulting in poorly water-soluble and highly lipophilic compounds. In contrast to the traditional discovery paradigm, drug discovery today is more and more practiced in parallel design, where the pharmacological potency is screened concurrently with the initial ADMET profiling of compounds. For a compound to be a successful drug, it should not only have pharmacological activity, but also adequate biopharmaceutical properties enabling it to reach the site of action. This approach permits one to improve the quality of generated drug candidates, to have greater probability of success in the clinic and to guide the chemists in the selection of compounds with better biopharmaceutical properties.


Bile Salt Ussing Chamber Receiver Compartment Drug Permeation Basolateral Compartment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderberg EK and Artursson P. Cell Cultures to Assess Drug ABsorption Enhancement. In: Drug absorption enhancement. Concepts, possibilities, limitations and trends. Ed: A. (Bert) G. de Boer. 1994. Harwood Academic publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Anderberg EK, Nyström C, and Artursson P. Epithelial Transport of Drugs in Cell Culture. VII: Effects of Pharmaceutical Surfactant Excipients and Bile Acids on Transepithelial Permeability in Monolayers of Human Intestinal Epithelial (Caco-2) Cells. J Pharm Sci 1992; 81: 879–887.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Annaert P, Tukker JT, Van Gelder J, Naesens L, De Clercq E, Van den Mooter G, Kinget R, and Augustijns P. In vitro, ex vivo and in situ Intestinal Absorption Characteristics of the Antiviral Ester Prodrug Adefovir Dipivoxil. J Pharm Sci 2000; 89: 1054–1062.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Artursson P and Karlsson J. Correlation Between Oral Drug Absorption in Humans and Apparent Drug Permeability Coefficients in Human Intestinal Epithelial (Caco-2) Cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1991; 175: 880–885.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Artursson P, Palm K, and Luthman K. Caco-2 Monolayers in Experimental and Theoretical Predictions of Drug Transport. Adv Drug Del Rev 2001; 46: 27–43.Google Scholar
  6. Artursson P, Ungell AL and Löfroth JE. Selective Paracellular Permeability in Two Models of Intestinal Absorption: Cultured Monolayers of Human Intestinal Epithelial Cells and Rat Intestinal Segments. Pharm Res 1993; 10: 1123–1129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Augustijns P, Bradshaw TP, Gan LSL, Henden RW, and Thakker DR. Evidence of a Polarized Efflux System in Caco-2 Cells Capable of Modulating Cyclosporin a Transport. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1993; 197: 360–365.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Aungst BJ, Nguyen NH, Bulgarelli JP, and Oates-Lenz K. The Influence of Donor and Reservoir Additives on Caco-2 Permeability and Secretory Transport of HIV Protease Inhibitors and Other Lipophilic Compounds. Pharm Res 2000; 17: 1175–1180.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Avdeef A. Absorption and drug development. 2003-Wiley-Interscience NY, pp. 116–246.Google Scholar
  10. Avdeef A, Strafford M, Block E, Balogh MP, Chambliss W, and Khan I. Drug Absorption in vitro Model: Filter-Immobilized Artificial Membranes 2. Studies of the Permeability Properties of Lactones in Piper methysticum Forst. Eur J Pharm Sci 2001; 14: 271–280.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Balimane PV and Chong S. Cell Culture-Based Models for Intestinal Permeability: A Critique. Drug Discov Today 2005; 10(5): 335–343.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Balimane PV, Chong S, and Morrison RA. Current Methodologies Used for Evaluation of Intestinal Permeability and Absorption. J Pharmacol Toxicol Meth 2000; 44: 301–312.Google Scholar
  13. Balon K, Riebesehl BU, and Müller BW. Drug Liposome Partitioning as a Tool for the Prediction of Human Passive Intestinal Absorption. Pharm Res 1999; 16: 275–285.Google Scholar
  14. Bangham AD. Liposomes: The Babraham Connection. Chem Phys Lipids 1993; 64: 275–285.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bassolino D, Alper H, and Stouch TR. Drug-membrane Interactions Studied by Molecular Dynamics Simulation: Size Dependece of Diffusion. Drug Des Discov 1996; 13: 135–141.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Batrakova EV, Li S, Li Y, Alakhov V Yu, and Kabanov AV. Effect of Pluronic P85 on ATPase Activity of Drug Efflux Transporters. Pharm Res 2004; 21: 2226–2233.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bermejo M, Avdeef A, Ruiz A, Nalda R, Ruell JA, Tsinman O, González I, Fernández C, Sánchez G, Garrigues TM, and Merino V. PAMPA –A Drug Absorption in vitro Model. 7. Comparing Rat in situ, Caco-2, and PAMPA Permeability of Fluoroquinolones. Eur J Pharm Sci 2004; 21: 429–441.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Bogman K, Zysset Y, Degen L, Hopfgartner G, Gutmann H, Alsenz J, and Drewe J. P-glycoprotein and Surfactants: Effects on Intestinal Talinolol Absorption. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2005; 77: 24–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Bohets H, Annaert P, Mannens G, van Beijsterveldt L, Anciaux K, Verboven P, Meuldermans W, and Lavrijsen K. Strategies for Absorption Screening in Drug Discovery and Development. Cur Top Med Chem 2001; 1: 367–383.Google Scholar
  20. Brouwers J, Tack J, Lammert F, and Augustijns P. Intraluminal Drug and Formulation Behavior and Integration in in vitro Permeability Estimation: A Case Study with Amprenavir. J Pharm Sci 2006; 95: 372–383.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Center for drug evaluation and research (CDER), Food and drug administration (FDA). Waiver of in vivo bioavailibility and bioequivalence studies for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms based on a biopharmaceutics classification system. Guidance for industry 2000, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  22. Chan OH, Schmid HL, Kuo B, Wright DS, Howson W, and Stewart BH. Absorption of Cam-2445, an NK1 Neurokinin Receptor Antagonist: in vivo, in situ, and in vitro evaluations. J Pharm Sci 1996; 85: 253–257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Chung SM and Chiou WL. Potential Overestimation of the Role of Gastrointestinal Metabolism and p-glycoprotein Mediated Efflux in Contributing to Low Bioavailability of Drugs in Humans. Pharm Sci Suppl 1999; 1:presentation 4272.Google Scholar
  24. Chung SM, Park EJ, Swanson SM, Wu TC, and Chiou WL. Profound Effect of Plasma Protein Binding on the Polarized Transport of Furosemide and Verapamil in the Caco-2 Model. Pharm Res 2001; 18: 544–547.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Conradi RA, Hilgers AR, Ho NFH, and Burton PS. The Influence of Peptide Structure on Transport Across Caco-2 cells. Pharm Res 1991; 8: 1453–1460.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Davies GR, Santa Ana CA, Morawski SG, and Fordtran JS. Permeability Characteristics of Human Jejunum, Proximal Colon and Distal Colon: Results of Potential Difference Measurements and Unidirectional Fluxes. Gastroenterology 1982; 83: 844–850.Google Scholar
  27. Deferme S, Van Gelder J, Ingels F, Van den Mooter G, De Buck S, Balzarini J, Naesens L, De Clercq E, Kinget R, and Augustijns P. Intestinal Absorption Characteristics of the Low Solubility Thiocarboxanilide UC-781. Int J Pharm 2002; 234: 113–119.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Dimitrijevic D, Shaw AJ, and Florence AT. Effects of Some Non-Ionic Surfactants on Transepithelial Permeability in Caco-2 cells. J Pharm Pharmacol 2000; 52: 157–162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Dintaman JM and Silverman JA. Inhibition of P-glycoprotein by D-α-tocopheryl Polyethylene Glycol 1000 Succinate (TPGS). Pharm Res 1999; 16: 1550–1556.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Egan WJ, Merz KM, and Baldwin JJ. Prediction of Drug Absorption Using Multivariate Statistics. J Med Chem 2000; 43: 3867–3877.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Fallingborg J, Christensen LA, Ingelman-Nielsen M, Jacobsen BA, Abildgaard K and Rasmussen HH. pH Profile and Regional Transit Times of the Normal Gut Measured by Radiotelemetry Device. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1989; 3: 605–613.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Fix JA. Intestinal Rings and Isolated Intestinal Mucosal Cells.Chapter 4. In: Borchardt RT et al.(eds.), Models for Assessing Drug Absorption and Metabolism. Plenum Press, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  33. Friedrichsen GM, Chen W, Begtrup M, Lee C-P, Smith PL, and Borchardt RT. Synthesis of Analogs of L-valacyclovir and Determination of their Substrate Activity for the Oligopeptide Transporter in Caco-2 Cells. Eur J Pharm Sci 2002; 16: 1–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Gan LSL and Thakker DR. Applications of the Caco-2 Model in the Design and Development of Orally Active Drugs: Elucidation of Biochemical and Physical Barriers Posed by the Intestinal Epithelium. Adv Drug Del Rev 1997; 23: 77–98.Google Scholar
  35. Goodwin JT, Mao B, Vidmar TJ, Conradi RA, and Burton PS. Strategies Toward Predicting Peptide Cellular Permeability from Computed Molecular Descriptors. J Peptide Res 1999; 53: 355–369.Google Scholar
  36. Grass GM and Sweetana SA. In vitro Measurement of Gastrointestinal Tissue Permeability Using a New Diffusion Cell. Pharm Res 1988; 5(6): 372–376.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Gray V and Dressman JB. Change of pH Requirements for Simulated Intestinal Fluid TS. Pharmacopeial Forum 1996; 22: 1943–1945.Google Scholar
  38. Griffiths R, Lewis A, and Jeffrey P. Models of Drug Absorption in situ and in Conscious Animals. Chapter 5. In: Borchardt RT et al. (eds.), Models for Assessing Drug Absorption and Metabolism. Plenum Press, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  39. Grinius L, Stanton DT, Morris CM, Howard JM, and Curnow AW. Profiling of Drugs for Membrane Activity Using Liposomes as an in vitro Model System. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 2002; 28: 193–202.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hanisch G, Utter L, Ungell A-L, and Lucas M. Surface pH Measurements During in vitro Transport Studies Across Intestinal Epithelia: Thickness of Acid Microclimate. AAPS annual meeting in San Diego, California, 6–10 Nov, 1994. Pharm Res. 1994, vol 11:10 suppl.Google Scholar
  41. Hidalgo IJ, Hillgren KM, Grass GM, and Borchardt RT. Characterization of the Unstirred Water Layer in Caco-2 cell Monolayers Using a Novel Diffusion Apparatus. Pharm Res 1991; 8: 222–227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Hidalgo IJ and Li J. Carrier-mediated Transport and Efflux Mechanisms in Caco-2 Cells. Adv Drug Del Rev 1996; 22: 53–66.Google Scholar
  43. Hidalgo IJ, Raub TJ, and Borchardt RT. Characterization of Human Colon Carcinoma Cell Line (Caco-2) as a Model System for Intestinal Epithelial Permeability. Gastroenterology 1989; 96: 736–749.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Hilgers AR, Conradi RA, and Burton PS. Caco-2 cell Monolayers as a Model for Drug Transport Across the Intestinal Mucosa. Pharm Res 1990; 7: 902–910.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Hugger ED, Audus KL, and Borchardt RT. Effects of Poly(ethylene glycol) on Efflux Transporter Activity in Caco-2 Cell Monolayers. J Pharm Sci 2002; 91: 1980–1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Ingels F, Deferme S, Destexhe E, Oth M, Van den Mooter G, and Augustijns P. Simulated Intestinal Fluid as Transport Medium in the Caco-2 Cell Culture Model. Int J Pharm 2002; 232: 183–192.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Ingels FM and Augustijns PF. Biological, Pharmaceutical, and Analytical Considerations with Respect to the Transport Media used in the Absorption Screening System, Caco-2. J Pharm Sci 2003; 92(8): 1545–1558.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Irvine JD, Takahashi L, Lockhart K, Cheong J, Tolan JW, Selick HE, and Grove JR. MDCK (Madin-Darby Canine Kidney) Cells: A Tool for Membrane Permeability Screening. J Pharm Sci 1999; 88(1): 28–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Jacobs RE and White SH. The Nature of Hydrophobic Binding of Small Peptides at the Bilayer Interface: Implications for the Insertion of Transbilayer Helices. Biochemistry 1989; 28: 3421–3437.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Kabanov AV, Batrakova EV, and Alakhov VYu. An Essential Relationship Between ATP Depletion and Chemosensitizing Activity of Pluronic® Block Copolymers. J Control Release 2003; 91: 75–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Kansy M, Avdeef A, and Fischer H. Advances in Screening for Membrane Permeability: High-Resolution PAMPA for Medicinal Chemists. Drug Discov Today 2004; 1: 349–355.Google Scholar
  52. Kansy M, Senner F, and Gubernator K. Physico-chemical High Throughput Screening: Parallel Artificial Membrane Permeation Assay in the Description of Passive Absorption Process. J Med Chem 1998; 41: 1007–1010.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Kim DC, Burton PS, and Borchardt RT. A Correlation Between the Permeability Characteristics of a Series of Peptides Using an in vitro Cell Culture Model (Caco-2) and Those Using an in situ Perfused Rat Ileum Model of the Intestinal Mucosa. Pharm Res 1993; 10: 1710–1714.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Krishna G, Chen KJ, Lin CC, and Nomeir AA. Permeability of Lipophilic Compounds in Drug Discovery Using in-vitro Human Absorption Model, Caco-2. Int J Pharm 2001; 222: 77–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, and Feeney PJ. Experimental and Computational Approaches to Estimate Solubility and Permeability in Drug Discovery and Development Settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2001; 46: 3–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Lo Y-L and Huang J-F. Effects of Sodium Deoxycholate and Sodium Caprate on the Transport of Epirubicin in Human Intestinal Epithelial Caco-2 Cell Layers and Everted Gut Sacs of Rats. Biochem Pharmacol 2000; 59: 665–672.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Lucas M. Determination of Acid Surface pH in vivo in Rat Proximal Jejunum. Gut 1983; 24: 734–739.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Lundahl P and Beigi F. Immobilized Liposome Chromatography of Drugs for Model Analysis of Drug-Membrane Interactions. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1997; 23: 221–227.Google Scholar
  59. Makhey VD, Guo A, Norris DA, Hu P, Yan J, and Sinko PJ. Characterization of the Regional Intestinal Kinetics of Drug Efflux in Rat and Human Intestine and in Caco-2 Cells. Pharm Res 1998; 15: 1160–1166.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Mälkiä A, Murtomäki L, Urtti A, and Kontturi K. Drug Permeation in Biomembranes. In vitro and in silico Prediction and Influence of Physicochemical Properties. Eur J Pharm Sci 2004; 23: 13–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Marrink SJ and Berendsen HJC. Permeation Process of Small Molecules Across Lipid Membranes Studied by Molecular Dynamics Simulations. J Phys Chem 1994; 98: 4155–4168.Google Scholar
  62. Martin YC. A practitioner's Perspective of the Role of Quantitative Structure-Activity Analysis in Medicinal Chemistry. J Med Chem 1981; 24: 229–237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Mathieu F, Galmier M-J, Pognat J-F, Petit J, and Lartigue C. Transepithelial Transport of Bepiridil in the Human Intestinal Cell Line, Caco-2, Using Two Media, DMEMc and HBSS. Int J Pharm 1999; 181: 203–217.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Matsson P, Bergström CAS, Nagahara N, Tavelin S, Norinder U, and Artursson P. Exploring the Role of Different Drug Transport Routes in Permeability Screening. J Med Chem 2005; 48: 604–613.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Meaney C and O'Driscoll C. Mucus as a Barrier to the Permeability of Hydrophilic and Lipophilic Compounds in the Absence and Presence of Sodium Taurocholate Micellar Systems Using Cell Culture Models. Eur J Pharm Sci 1999; 8: 167–175.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Miret S, Abrahamse L, and de Groene EM. Comparison of in vitro Models for the Prediction of Compound Absorption Across the Human Intestinal Mucosa. J Biomol Screen 2004; 9: 598–606.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Mosmann T. Rapid Colorimetric Assay for Cellular Growth and Survival: Application to Proliferation and Cytotoxicity Assays. J Immunol Met 1983; 65: 55–63.Google Scholar
  68. Narawane M, Podder SK, Bundgaard H, and Lee VHL. Segmental Differences in Drug Permeability, Esterase Activity and Ketone Reductase Activity in the Albino Rabbit Intestine. J Drug Targeting 1993; 1: 29–39.Google Scholar
  69. Nerurkar MN, Burton PS, and Borchardt RT. The Use of Surfactants to Enhance the Permeability of Peptides Through Caco-2 Cells by Inhibition of an Apically Polarized Efflux System. Pharm Res 1996; 13: 528–534.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Neuhoff S. Refined in vitro Models for Prediction of Intestinal Drug Transport: Role of pH and Extracellular Additives in the Caco-2 Cell Model. Doctoral thesis, 2005.Google Scholar
  71. (accessed June 2005).Google Scholar
  72. Neuhoff S, Ungell AL, Zamora I, and Artursson P. pH dependent Bidirectional Transport of Weakly Basic Drugs Across Caco-2 Cell Monolayers: Implications for Drug-Drug Interactions. Pharm Res 2003; 20: 1141–1148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Neuhoff S, Ungell AL, Zamora I, and Artursson P. pH Dependent Passive and Active Transport of Acidic Drugs Across Caco-2 Cell Monolayers. Eur J Pharm Sci 2005; 25: 211–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Oberle RL, Moore TJ, and Krummel DAP. Evolution of Mucosal Damage of Surfactants in Rat Jejunum and Colon. J Pharmacol and Toxicol Methods 1995; 33: 75–81.Google Scholar
  75. Ogihara T, Tamai I, and Tsuji A. Structural Characterization of Substrates for the Anion Exchange Transporter in Caco-2 Cells. J Pharm Sci 1999; 88: 1217–1221.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Ürnskov E, Gottfries J, Erickson M, and Folestad S. Experimental Modelling of Drug Membrane Permeability by Capillary Electrophoresis Using Liposomes, Micelles and Microemulsions. J Pharm Pharmacol 2005; 57: 435–442.Google Scholar
  77. Palm K, Luthman K, Ros J, Grasjo J, and Artursson P. Effect of Molecular Charge on Intestinal Epithelial Drug Transport: pH-dependent Transport of Cationic Drugs. J Pharmacol and Exp Therap 1999; 291: 435–443.Google Scholar
  78. Palm K, Luthman K, Ungell AL, Strandlund G, Beigi F, Lundahl P, and Artursson P. Correlation of Drug Absorption with Molecular Surface Properties. J Pharm Sci 1996; 85: 32–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Palm K, Luthman K, Ungell AL, Strandlund G, Beigi F, Lundahl P, and Artursson P. Evaluation of Dynamic Polar Molecular Surface Area as Predictor of Drug Absorption: Comparison with Other Computational and Experimental Predictors. J Med Chem 1998; 41: 5382–5392.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Pidgeon C and Venkataram UV. Immobilized Artificial Membrane Chromatography: Supports Composed of Membrane Lipids. Anal Chem 1989; 176: 36–47.Google Scholar
  81. Polentarutti B, Peterson A, Sjöberg Å, Anderberg EK, Utter L, and Ungell AL. Evaluation of Viability of Excised Rat Intestinal Segments in the Ussing Chamber: Investigation of Morphology, Electrical Parameters and Permeability Characteristics. Pharm Res 1999; 16: 446–454.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Putnam WS, Pan L, Tsutsui K, Takahashi L, and Benet LZ. Comparison of Bi-directional Cephalexin Transport Across MDCK and Caco-2 Cell Monolayers: Interactions with Peptide Transporters. Pharm Res 2002a; 19: 27–33.Google Scholar
  83. Putnam WS, Ramanathan S, Pan L, Takahashi LH, and Benet LZ. Functional Characterization of Monocarboxylic Acid, Large Neutral Amino Acid, Bile Acid and Peptide Transporters, and P-glycoprotein in MDCK and Caco-2 Cells. J Pharm Sci 2002b; 91: 2622–2635.Google Scholar
  84. Quadros E, Cassidy JP, and Leipold H. Buccal Tissues and Cell Culture. Chapter 7. In: Borchardt RT (ed.), Models for Assessing Drug Absorption and Metabolism. Plenum Press, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  85. Reardon PM. In Vitro Nasal Models. Chapter 16. In: Borchardt RT (ed.), Models for Assessing Drug Absorption and Metabolism. Plenum Press, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  86. Rege BD, Kao JPY, and Polli JE. Effects of Non-Ionic Surfactants on Membrane Transporters in Caco-2 Cell Monolayers. Eur J Phar Sci 2002; 16: 237–246.Google Scholar
  87. Rege BD, Yu LX, Hussain AS, and Polli JE. Effect of Common Excipients on Caco-2 Transport of Low-permeability Drugs. J Pharm Sci 2001; 90: 1776–1786.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Rubas W, Jezyk N, and Grass GM. Comparison of the Permeability Characteristics of a Human Colonic Epithelial (Caco-2) Cell Line to Colon of Rabbit, Monkey and Dog Intestine and Human Drug Absorption. Pharm Res 1993; 10: 113–118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Saha P and Kou JH. Effect of Bovine Serum Albumin on Drug Permeability Estimation Across Caco-2 Monolayers. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2002; 54: 319–324.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Scudiero DA, Shoemaker RH, Paull KD, Monks A, Tierney S, Nofziger TH, Currens MJ, Seniff D, and Boyd MR. Evaluation of a Soluble Tetrazolium/formazan Assay for Cell Growth and Drug Sensitivity in Culture Using Human and Other Tumor Cell Lines. Canc Res 1988; 48: 4827–4833.Google Scholar
  91. Sjöström M, Sjöberg Å, Utter L, Hyltander A, Karlsson J, Stockman E, and Ungell AL. Excised Human Intestinal Segments as a Mechanistic Tool for Verifying Transport Properties of Drug Candidates. Abstract AAPS 2000. Pharm Sci 2000; suppl.Google Scholar
  92. Söderholm JD, Hedamn L, Artursson P, Franzen L, Larsson J, Pantzar N, Permert J, and Olaison G. Integrity and Metabolism of Human Ileal Mucosa in vitro in the Ussing Chamber. Acta Physiol Scand 1998; 162: 47–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Steffansen B, Nielsen CU, Brodin B, Eriksson AH, Andersen R, and Frokjaer S. Intestinal Solute Carriers: An Overview of Trends and Strategies for Improving Oral Drug Absorption. Eur J Pharm Sci 2004; 21: 3–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Stenberg P, Luthman K, and Artursson P. Prediction of Membrane Permeability to Peptides from Calculated Dynamic Molecular Surface Properties. Pharm Res 1999a; 16: 205–212.Google Scholar
  95. Stenberg P, Luthman K, Ellens H, Lee CP, Smith PL, Lago A, Elliott JD, and Artursson P. Prediction of the Intestinal Absorption of Endothelin Receptor Antagonists Using Three Theoretical Methods of Increasing Complexity. Pharm Res 1999b; 16: 1520–1526.Google Scholar
  96. Stewart BH, Chan OH, Jezyk N, and Fleisher D. Discrimination Between Drug Candidates Using Models for Evaluation of Intestinal Absorption. Adv Drug Del Rev 1997; 23: 27–45.Google Scholar
  97. Sugano K, Hamada H, Machida M, Ushio H, Saitoh K, and Terada K. Optimized Conditions of Bio-mimetic Artificial Membrane Permeation Assay. Int J Pharm 2001; 228: 181–188.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Sugano K, Nabuchi Y, Machida M, and Aso Y. Prediction of Human Intestinal Permeability Using Artificial Membrane Permeability. Int J Pharm 2003; 257: 245–251.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Sugano K, Takata N, Machida M, Saitoh K, and Terada K. Prediction of Passive Intestinal Absorption Using Bio-mimetic Artificial Membrane Permeation Assay and the Paracellular Pathway Model. Int J Pharm 2002; 241: 241–251.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Sugiyama T, Yamamoto A, Kawabe Y, Uchiyama T, Quan Y-S, and Muranishi S. Effects of Various Absorption Enhancers on the Intestinal Absorption of Water Soluble Drugs by in vitro Ussing Chamber Method: Correlation with an in situ Absorption Experiment. Biol Pharm Bull 1997; 20: 812–814.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Tada H, Shiho O, Kuroshima KI, Koyama M, and Tsukamoto K. An Improved Colorimetric Assay for Interleukin 2. J Immunol Met 1986; 93: 157–165.Google Scholar
  102. Taillardat-Bertschinger A, Carrupt PA, Barbato F, and Testa B. Immobilized Artificial Membrane HPLC in Drug Research. J Med Chem 2003; 46: 655–665.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Taylor DC, Pownall R, and Burke W. The Absorption Of Beta-adrenoceptor Antagonists in Rat in situ Small Intestine; The Effect of Lipophilicity. J Pharm Pharmacol 1985; 37: 280–283.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Tsuji A and Tamai I. Carrier-mediated Intestinal Transport of Drugs. Pharm Res 1996; 13: 963–977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Udata C, Patel J, Pal D, Hejchman E, Cushman M, and Mitra AK. Enhanced Transport of a Novel Anti-HIV Agent –cosalane and its Congeners Across Human Intestinal Epithelial (Caco-2) Cell Monolayers. Int J Pharm 2003; 250: 157–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Ungell AL. In vitro Absorption Studies and Their Relevance to Absorption from the GI Tract. Drug Develop and Indust Pharmacy 1997; 23: 879–892.Google Scholar
  107. Ungell AL. Transport Studies Using Intestinal Tissue Ex-vivo. Chapter 11. In: Lehr C-M (ed.), Cell Culture Models of Biological Barriers; in vitro Test Systems for Drug Absorption and Delivery. Taylor & Francis London, NY, 2002, pp. 164–188.Google Scholar
  108. Ungell AL. Prediction of Human Drug Absorption Using in Silico and in vitro Techniques. Bullentin Technique Gattefosse No 98; 2005, pp. 19–30.Google Scholar
  109. Ungell AL and Karlsson J. Cell Cultures in Drug Discovery: An Industrial Pers- pective. In: Van de Waterbeemd et al. (eds.), Drug Bioavailability. Estimation of Solubility, Permeability, Absorption and Bioavailability. P. Wiley WCH 2003, pp. 72–89.Google Scholar
  110. Ungell AL, Nylander S, Bergstrand S, Sjöberg Å, and Lennernäs H. Membrane Transport of Drugs in Different Regions of the Intestinal Tract of the Rat. J. Pharm Sci 1997; 87: 360–366.Google Scholar
  111. Ungell AL, Zamora I, Neuhoff S, and Artursson P. Real and False Efflux of Weak Basic Drugs Across Caco-2 Monolayers. AAPS Annual Meeting, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2002.Google Scholar
  112. Ussing HH and Zerahn K. Active Transport of Sodium as the Source of Electric Current in the Short-circuited Isolated Frog Skin. Acta Physiol Scand 1951; 23: 110–127.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. USP. USP Pharmacopeial Forum. US Pharmacopeia 1998; 24: 6015–6023.Google Scholar
  114. Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng H-Y, Smith BR, Ward KW, and Kopple KD. Molecular Properties that Influence the oral Bioavailibility of Drug Candidates. J Med Chem 2002; 45: 2615–2623.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Volpe DA. Permeability Classification of Representative Fluoroquinolones by a Cell Culture Method. AAPS Pharm Sci 2004; 6, Article 13.Google Scholar
  116. Walgren RA and Walle T. The Influence of Plasma Binding on Absorption/exsorption in the Caco-2 Model of Human Intestinal Absorption. J Pharm Pharmacol 1999; 51: 1037–1040.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. Watanabe E, Sudo R, Takahashi M, and Hayashi M. Evaluation of Absorbability of Poorly Water-soluble Drugs: Validity of the Use of Additives. Biol Pharm Bull 2000; 23: 838–843.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Watanabe E, Takahashi M, and Hayashi M. A Possibility to Predict the Absorbability of Poorly Water-soluble Drugs in Humans Based on Rat Intestinal Permeability Assessed by an in vitro Chamber Method. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2004; 58: 659–665.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Wiedmann TS and Kamel L. Examination of the Solubilization of Drugs by Bile Salt Micelles. J Pharm Sci 2002; 91: 1743–1764.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. Wright LL and Painter GR. Role of Desolvatation Energy in the Nonfacilitated Membrane Permeability of Dideoxyribose Analogs of Thymidine. Mol Pharmacol 1992; 41: 957–962.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. Yamashita S, Furubayashi T, Kataoka M, Sakane T, Sezaki H, and Tokuda H. Optimized Conditions for Prediction of Intestinal Drug Permeability Using Caco-2 Cells. Eur J Pharm Sci 2000; 10: 195–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. Yamashita S, Tanaka Y, Endoh Y, Taki Y, Sakane T, Nadai T, and Sezaki H. Analysis of Drug Permeation Across Caco-2 Monolayer: Implication for Predicting in vivo Drug Absorption. Pharm Res 1997; 14: 486–491.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Yang CY, Cai SJ, Liu H, and Pidgeon C. Immobilized Artificial Membranes –Screens for Drug Membrane Interactions. Adv Dr Del Rev 1997; 23: 229–256.Google Scholar
  124. Yee S. In Vitro Permeability Across Caco-2 cells (colonic) can Predict in vivo (small intestine) Absorption in Man –Fact or Myth. Pharm Res 1997; 14: 763–766.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. Yu L, Bridgers A, Polli J, Vickers A, Long S, Roy A, Winnike R, and Coffin M. Vitamin E-TPGS Increases Absorption Flux of an HIV Protease Inhibitor by Enhancing its Solubility and Permeability. Pharm Res 1999; 16: 1813–1816.Google Scholar
  126. Yu LX, Amidon GL, Polli JE, Zhao H, Mehta MU, Conner DP, Shah VP, Lesko LJ, Chen M-L, Lee VHL, and Hussain AS. Biopharmaceutics Classification System: The Scientific Basis for Biowaiver Extensions. Pharm Res 2002; 19: 921–925.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. Zakelj S, Legen I, Veber M, and Kristl A. The Influence of Buffer Composition on Tissue Integrity During Permeability Experiments ‘in vitro’. Int J Pharm 2004; 272: 173–180.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Pharmaceutical Sciences R&DLilly Development Centre, Mont-Saint-GuibertBelgium
  2. 2.DMPK and Bioanalytical ChemistryAstraZeneca R&DMölndalSweden
  3. 3.Laboratory for Pharmacotechnology and BiopharmacyKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations