The aim of this study is to elucidate quantitative structure-permeability relationship (QSPR) of various organic molecules through Caco-2 cells, and to ascertain the relationship between gastrointestinal (GI) absorption in humans and Caco-2 cell permeability. Caco-2 cell permeability and human GI absorption data were obtained from the literature. The maximum hydrogen bond-forming capacity corrected for intra-molecular H-bonding (Hbc) and Lien's QSAR model were used in this study. The latest CQSAR software was utilized in calculating the logarithm of partition coefficient in octanol/water (Clog P) and in deriving all regression equations. For 51 compounds, a significant correlation was obtained between Caco-2 cell permeability (log Pcaco-2) and Hbc, octanol/PBS (phosphate buffered saline, pH 7.4) distribution coefficient (log Doct), log MW and an indicator variable (I) for the charge, with a correlation coefficient of 0.797. When these compounds were divided into three subgroups, namely neutral, cationic and anionic compounds, much better correlations (r = 0.968, 0.915 and 0.931, respectively) were obtained using different combinations of various physico-chemical parameters. A plot of human GI absorption vs. Caco-2 cell permeability obtained from different laboratories reveals that Caco-2 cell permeability cannot be used to precisely predict human GI absorption for compounds with Pcaco-2 below 5 x 10(-6) cm/s, due to interlaboratory and experimental variabilities, and the lack of a simple correlation between human GI absorption and Caco-2 cell permeability. Caco-2 cell permeability may be estimated from the structures of drug molecules using the above-mentioned physicochemical parameters. In general, for compounds with Pcaco-2 above 5 x 10(-6) cm/s, human GI absorption ranges from 50 to 100%. This is generally acceptable for development into oral dosage form. For the compounds with Pcaco-2 below 5 x 10(-6) cm/s, careful interpretation of caco-2 cell permeability and use of internal standard for comparison are recommended. Otherwise, good drug candidates may be excluded due to incorrectly predicted poor absorption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ren et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: