Mass Spectrometry Letters

Korean Society for Mass Spectrometry (한국질량분석학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Gastrointestinal Permeability of Caffeine, Propranolol, Atenolol, Ofloxacin, and Quinidine Measured Using Ussing Chamber System and Caco-2 Cell Monolayer

  • Song, Im-Sook (College of Pharmacy and Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Choi, Young A (College of Pharmacy, Dankook University) ;
  • Choi, Min-Koo (College of Pharmacy, Dankook University)
  • Received : 2017.06.09
  • Accepted : 2017.06.15
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a cocktail approach for the measurement of the permeability of marker compounds, caffeine and propranolol (high permeability), ofloxacin (intermediate), atenolol (low), and quinidine (P-glycoprotein substrate), simultaneously. Then we compared the permeability in Caco-2 cells with that in rat intestinal segments. The difference between individual measurement and cocktail approach was less than 20 %, and the permeabilities of these compounds were similar to those previously reported, suggesting that the cocktail transport study and simultaneous drug analysis were successfully developed and validated in this study. Additionally, in the application of this cocktail method, the permeability of five drugs in rat jejunum was similar to that in ileum but different from that in colon, which was measured using the Ussing chamber system. Moreover, permeability in jejunum and ileum was similar to that in Caco-2 cells. In conclusion, the permeability in Caco-2 cells was equivalent to the permeability in rat jejunum and ileum determined with the Ussing system. Therefore, this newly developed cocktail assay and its application to the Ussing system can be a useful tool for robust and rapid screening for site-specific permeability in rat intestine, thus accelerating the prediction of absorption of new chemical entities.

Keywords

References

  1. Artursson, P.; Karlsson, J. Biochem. Biophysic. Res. Commun. 1991, 175, 880. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-291X(91)91647-U
  2. Fredlund, L.; Winiwarter, S.; Hilgendorf, C. Mol. Pharm. 2017, 14, 1601. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b01059
  3. Kamiyama, E.; Sugiyama, D.; Nakai, D.; Miura, S.; Okazaki, O. Drug Metab. Dispos. 2009, 37, 1956. https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.109.027490
  4. Yamashita, S.; Konishi, K.; Yamazaki, Y.; Taki, Y.; Sakane, T.; Sezaki, H.; Furuyama, Y. J. Pharm. Sci. 2002, 91, 669. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.10050
  5. Stappaerts, J.; Annaert, P.; Augustijns, P. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2013, 49, 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2013.01.015
  6. Tamura, S.; Tokunaga, Y.; Ibuki, R.; Amidon, G. L.; Sezaki, H.; Yamashita, S. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2003, 306, 310. https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.103.050716
  7. Miyake, M.; Koga, T.; Kondo, S.; Yoda, N.; Emoto, C.; Mukai, T.; Toguchi, H. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2017, 96, 373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2016.10.006
  8. Wahajuddin; Singh, S. P.; Raju, K. S.; Nafis, A.; Jain, G. K. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2012, 67-68, 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2012.03.048
  9. Volpe, D. A. AAPS J. 2004, 6, 1.
  10. Patil, A. G.; D'Souza, R.; Dixit, N.; Damre, A. Eur. J. Drug Metab. Pharmacokinet. 2011, 36, 115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13318-011-0046-9