Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Drug Metabolism & Disposition
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Drug Metabolism & Disposition

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Visit dmd on Facebook
  • Follow dmd on Twitter
  • Follow ASPET on LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticle

Segmental Intestinal Transporters and Metabolic Enzymes on Intestinal Drug Absorption

Debbie Tam, Rommel G. Tirona and K. Sandy Pang
Drug Metabolism and Disposition April 2003, 31 (4) 373-383; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.31.4.373
Debbie Tam
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rommel G. Tirona
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
K. Sandy Pang
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Recently, a physiologically-based, segregated flow model that incorporates separate intestinal tissue and flow to both a nonabsorptive and an absorptive outermost layer (enterocytes) was shown to better describe the observations on route-dependent morphine glucuronidation in the rat small intestine than a traditional physiologically-based model. These theoretical models were expanded, as the segmental segregated flow model and the segmental traditional model, to view the intestine as three segments of equal lengths receiving equal flows to accommodate heterogeneities in segmental transporter and metabolic functions. The influence of heterogeneity in absorptive, exsorptive, and metabolic functions on drug clearance, bioavailability (F), and metabolite formation after intravenous and oral dosing was examined for the intestine when the tissue was the only organ of removal. Simulations were performed for first-order conditions, when drug partitioned readily (flow-limited distribution) or less readily (membrane-limited distribution) into intestinal tissue, and for different gastrointestinal transit times. The intestinal clearance was found to be inversely related to the rate constant for absorption of a drug that was subjected to secretion and was positively correlated with the metabolic and secretory intrinsic clearances. F was positively correlated with the absorption rate constant but was inversely related to the metabolic and secretory intrinsic clearances. The gastrointestinal transit time decreased metabolite formation, increased clearance, and decreasedF. The simulations further showed that a descending metabolic intrinsic clearance yielded a lower F and an ascending segmental distribution of metabolic intrinsic clearance yielded a higher F.

The small intestine is endowed with transporters that effect the penetration of drugs across the luminal (or apical) membrane into the cell against a concentration gradient (for review, see Tsuji and Tamai, 1996; Lin et al., 1999). Permeation via passive diffusion of lipophilic drugs exists and is highly correlated to the surface area of contact and the pKa that influence the degree of ionization and hence lipophilicity. The varying abundance of the villi along the intestinal length constitutes differing surface areas among the intestinal segments, being highest at the duodenum and upper jejunum and lowest toward the ileum (Magee and Dalley, 1986). Net apical to basolateral transport is additionally influenced by the presence of drug binding, metabolizing enzymes, transporters for efflux and basolateral transport, and the gastrointestinal motility that modulates drug transit time.

Several models have been developed to describe processes of intestinal absorption, metabolism, and secretion simultaneously (Yu and Amidon, 1998; Ito et al., 1999; Cong et al., 2000). A traditional, physiologically-based model (TM2), which regards the intestine as a single homogeneous compartment with all of the intestinal blood flow perfusing the tissue, has been developed to account for oral drug bioavailability (Doherty and Pang, 2000). However, this and other existing models fail to predict route-dependent intestinal metabolism, namely little metabolism occurs after systemic dosing, but notable metabolism exists following oral dosing. This led to the development of the segregated flow model (SFM) (Cong et al., 2000) that describes the majority of the intestinal blood flow to the nonabsorptive and nonmetabolizing serosal and submucosa regions, and only partial flow (Granger et al., 1980) to the absorptive and metabolizing, enterocyte region at the villus tips of the mucosa where the metabolic enzymes and the P-glycoprotein reside. The SFM was shown able to describe a greater extent of intestinal metabolism with oral over systemic dosing or the route-dependent intestinal hydrolysis of enalapril (Pang et al., 1985) and (−)-6-aminocarbovir (Wen et al., 1999), glucuronidation of morphine (Doherty and Pang, 2000), and oxidation of midazolam (Paine et al., 1996, 1997; Thummel et al., 1996).

However, variation in segmental absorption was shown to exist for oxyprenolol (Godbillon et al., 1987), talinolol (Grámatte et al., 1996), amoxicillin (Barr et al., 1994), lefradafiban (Drewe et al., 2000), allopurinol (Patel and Kramer, 1986), thymidine analogs (Park and Mitra, 1992), and benzoate (Cong et al., 2001) in both human and animal studies. Undoubtedly, heterogeneity of absorptive carriers would bring about variations in absorption. Regional or segmental distribution of apical transporters—the oligopeptide transporter, PEPT1 (Fei et al., 1994), the apical bile salt transporter (Shneider et al., 1995; Aldini et al., 1996), the organic anion transporting polypeptide 3 (Walters et al., 2000), the monocarboxylic acid transporter 1 (Tamai et al., 1999; Cong et al., 2001), and the nucleoside transporter (Ngo et al., 2001)—is well recognized. Heterogeneity is further known to exist for both metabolic enzymes and efflux transporters. The cytochrome P450 3A (Hoensch et al., 1976; Bonkovsky et al., 1985; Paine et al., 1996,1997; Thummel et al., 1996; Lown et al., 1997; Li et al., 2002), sulfotransferases, glutathione S-transferases and the UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (Clifton and Kaplowitz, 1977; Pinkus et al., 1977; Schwarz and Schwenk, 1984; Koster et al., 1985; Coles et al., 2002) are higher at the proximal end than the distal intestine. The multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 for intestinal exsorption follows the distribution of the cytochrome P450s and conjugation enzymes (Gotoh et al., 2000; Mottino et al., 2000) whereas the MDR1 gene product, the 170 kD P-glycoprotein (Lown et al., 1997;Collett et al., 1999; Nakayama et al., 2000; Stephens et al., 2001) is higher in the jejunum/ileum than other parts of the intestine. The basolateral Mrp3, in contrast to multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 that is higher in jejunum and duodenum, is more prevalent in the ileum and colon (Rost et al., 2002). The manner in which heterogeneity impacts drug bioavailability is virtually unknown.

In this communication, we examined, in theoretical models, the influence of apical transporter and cellular metabolic heterogeneities, drug partitioning, and gastrointestinal transit on the area under the concentration-time curves after oral (AUCpo) and intravenous (AUCiv) dosing for estimation of the clearance (CLiv) and bioavailability (F) for a compound that is removed solely by the intestine by secretion and metabolism. We further tested the hypothesis that heterogeneity in transporter and metabolic functions, together with gastrointestinal transit and drug partitioning properties, affect the extent of metabolite formation after oral and intravenous drug dosing.

Materials and Methods

Physiologically Based Intestinal Models.

The schematic depictions of the segmental traditional model (STM; Fig.1) and the segmental segregated flow model (SSFM; Fig. 2) are shown. These theoretical models are extensions of the published TM and the SFM (Cong et al., 2000) that only contained nonsegmented compartments. The two previous models are physiologically-based models, and the difference between the models is division of the intestinal tissue into the serosal (nonabsorptive and nonmetabolizing) and enterocyte (absorptive and metabolizing) regions and partitioning of flow for the SFM. With only a fraction (fQ) of the total intestinal flow (Qint) perfusing the enterocyte region, less drug is exposed to metabolic enzymes with intravenous administration.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Schematic presentation of the STM for intestinal absorption, metabolism, and secretion of substrates given orally or intravenously; the conditions considered mimic the recirculating perfused small intestine preparation with additional (parallel) clearances (CLo) occurring within the central or reservoir compartment.

The intestine is divided into three equal segments receiving parallel flow. Refer to text for details.

Figure 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2

Schematic presentation of the SSFM for intestinal absorption, metabolism, and secretion of substrates given orally or intravenously; the conditions considered mimic the recirculating perfused small intestine preparation with additional (parallel) clearances occurring within the central or reservoir compartment.

The intestine is divided into three equal segments receiving parallel flow. Only a fraction (fQ) of the segmental intestinal flow goes to the enterocyte layer, and the remaining flow enters the nonabsorptive, nonmetabolizing serosal region. Refer to text for details.

An expansion of these schemes yields the STM and the SSFM, in which the intestinal tissue is divided into three segments of equal lengths, for the sake of simplification (Figs. 1 and 2). Again, both are physiologically-based models established to accommodate heterogeneous intestinal processes among the segmental regions. The theory is based on a central or reservoir compartment from which clearance exists for other parallel organs, CLo, and an eliminating intestine compartment, with its blood and lumen compartments. Common features exist between the models. Drug partitioning between intestinal tissue (serosal and enterocyte regions) and intestinal blood is described by clearances, CLd1 and CLd2, respectively, as depicted. The volumes of the lumen for each segment are identical, namely,Vlum1 =Vlum2 =Vlum3 and equals 1/3 ofVlum, the total volume of the lumen. Metabolism exists only in the cell compartment with metabolic intrinsic clearance, CLint,mi where subscript “i” denotes segment 1, 2, or 3 for the formation of metaboliteMint1,Mint2, andMint3, respectively. Permeation of drug from the lumen into the intestinal tissue, whether mediated by carriers (Tsuji and Tamai, 1996) or passive diffusion, is associated with the absorption rate constant, kaiin which subscript “i” denotes segment 1, 2, or 3. Secretion from intestine tissue or enterocyte layer back into the lumen occurs with the intrinsic clearance, CLint,seci, where subscript “i” denotes segment 1, 2, or 3. Analogously, movement of drug along the intestinal lumen of segments 1, 2, and 3 is denoted as CLGIT1, CLGIT2, and CLGIT3, respectively. The total volume of the intestinal tissue (Vint) and intestinal blood (Vintb) for STM is the sum of those of the three segments, whereVint1 =Vint2 =Vint3 = 1/3Vint andVintb1 =Vintb2 =Vintb3 = 1/3Vintb. Each segment receives 1/3 of the intestinal flow or Qint/3 for the STM (Fig. 1). For the SSFM, the total intestinal tissue volume,Vint, is the sum of the serosal (Vs) and enterocyte (Ven) volumes, whereVs1 =Vs2 =Vs3 = 1/3Vs, andVen1 =Ven2 =Ven3 = 1/3Ven. The corresponding intestinal blood volume is further divided as the serosal blood (sb) and enterocyte blood (enb) volumes, such thatVsb1 =Vsb2 =Vsb3 = 1/3Vsb, andVenb1 =Venb2 =Venb3 = 1/3Venb. The segmental flow for the enterocyte region isfQQint/3 and that for the serosal region is (1 −fQ)Qint/3. Metabolism takes place in the enterocyte compartments (Fig. 2).

Simulations.

For the present models, the unbound fraction is assumed to be unity, and linear or first-order conditions prevail. The mass balance equations for the above schemes for the STM (eqs. 1 to 15,) and SSFM (eqs. 16 to 36) were written for simulation of data. Simulation was performed with volumes and flow rates shown in Table 1. The values have been chosen previously to describe glucuronidation of morphine and benzoate absorption in the vascularly perfused, recirculating rat small intestine preparation (Doherty and Pang, 2000; Cong et al., 2001). For values pertaining to the simulation on other species, the volume and flow values will need to be scaled-up or scaled-down. For the SSFM, the segmental enterocyte region was assumed to receive 10% of the intestinal flow to that segment (or fQQint/3, in whichfQ = 0.1), whereas the segmental serosal region receives 90% of the intestinal flow to the segment [(1− fQ)Qint/3].

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Volume, flow, and other parameters for simulation of the area under the curves (AUC), metabolite formation (M), and bioavailability (F) of the intestine, which was viewed as three segments of each volume that received the proportional flow rate (no other clearance was assumed to exist, that is CLo = 0).

Two strategies were undertaken. The first strategy took the view that all transporters for absorption (kai = 3 min−1) and exsorption (CLint,seci = 1 ml/min) and the metabolic enzymes (CLint,mi = 0.1 ml/min) were evenly dispersed among the segments for both STM and SSFM. Values of 10 ml/min (flow-limited transport, no transmembrane barrier) and 0.9 ml/min (membrane-limited transport) were assigned to CLd1 and CLd2, whereas values of 0.1 ml/min (faster gastrointestinal transit time) and 0.01 ml/min (slower gastrointestinal transit time) were used for CLGITi. To assess the influence of the absorption rate constant, the metabolic and secretory intrinsic clearances on AUC and metabolite formation, kai was varied between 0.01 to 5 min−1, CLint,mi was varied from 0.01 to 5 ml/min, and CLint,seci was varied from 0.1 to 1, 5, and 20 ml/min. The second strategy was to vary the total amount of absorptive, exsorptive, and metabolic activities for the intestine (sum of all ith segments) differentially among the segments (see Tables 2 to 5) to explore the effect of heterogeneity.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Simulations for the STM with heterogeneous absorptive, metabolic, and secretory activities: effect of changing CLGIT, segmental absorption rate constant and intrinsic clearances for secretion and metabolism on the clearance (CL), systemic availability (F), and metabolite formation after p.o. (Mpo) and intravenous (Miv) administration.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5

Simulations for the SSFM with heterogeneous absorptive, metabolic, and secretory activities: effect of changing CLGIT, segmental absorption rate constant and intrinsic clearances for secretion and metabolism on the clearance (CL), systemic availability (F), and metabolite formation after p.o. (Mpo) and intravenous (Miv) administration.

Simulation was performed with the program, Scientist (Micromath Scientific Software, Salt Lake City, UT). Recovery amounted to 100% at all times of simulation. The concentration versus time data for drug after intravenous (administration into reservoir) and oral (administration into lumen) were simulated to a time until drug concentration in reservoir became zero and the cumulative amount of metabolite became constant. The drug data were used to calculate the AUC by the trapezoidal rule and for estimation of the clearance (CLiv) and bioavailability (F).

Results

Homogeneous Distributions—Effect of kaiand CLint,seci on CLiv, F, and Metabolite Formation at CLint,mi of 0.1 ml/min.

Contrary to previous theories on the lack of influence of the absorption rate constant on the intestinal clearance, CLiv bore an inverse relation to thekai and was influenced positively by the secretory intrinsic clearance, CLint,seci(Fig. 3) for both STM (A and B) and SSFM (C and D). A higher CLGITi brought about higher CLiv for both STM and SSFM. When drug displays rapid partitioning (CLd1 = CLd2 = 10 ml/min; Fig. 3, B and D), values of CLiv were much higher than comparable values at CLd1 and CLd2 of 0.9 ml/min (cf. Fig. 3, B versus A and D versus C). Bioavailability, F, increased with increases in kai but decreased with CLint,seci (Fig.4), and high CLGITiled to lower F for both models. Higher values ofF were observed for the STM versus the SSFM (cf. Fig. 4, A and B versus C and D). For drug displaying rapid partitioning (CLd1 = CLd2 = 10 ml/min, Fig. 4, B and D), values of F were higher than comparable values at CLd1 and CLd2 of 0.9 ml/min (cf. Fig. 4, B versus A and D versus C). It was interesting to note that higher values for the kaitended to diffuse the effects of secretion (CLint,seci) on F. The patterns of metabolite formation were similar for the STM and SSFM. The extents of metabolite formation for both values of CLd1 and CLd2 (0.09 and 10 ml/min) were generally similar and were lower with higher values of CLGITi. Metabolite formation decreased with CLint,seci, and the amount of metabolite formed was greater for oral than for intravenous administration (cf. Fig. 5, A and B for STM and C and D for SSFM).

Figure 3
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3

Effect of kai and CLint,seci of each segment on the clearance (CLiv) of drugs for the STM (A and B) and SSFM (C and D), for different values of CLGITi (0.01 and 0.1 ml/min) and CLd1 and CLd2 (0.9 ml/min for A and C; 10 ml/min for B and D).

The metabolic intrinsic clearance, CLint,mi, was kept at 0.1 ml/min for all simulations. The parameters were identical among the three segmental regions.

Figure 4
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4

Effect of kai and CLint,seci of each segment on the availability (F) of drugs for the STM (A and B) and SSFM (C and D), for different values of CLGITi (0.01 and 0.1 ml/min) and CLd1 and CLd2 (0.9 ml/min for A and C; 10 ml/min for B and D).

The metabolic intrinsic clearance, CLint,mi, was kept at 0.1 ml/min for all simulations. The parameters were identical among the three segmental regions.

Figure 5
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5

Effect of kai and CLint,seci of each segment on the cumulative amount of metabolite formed after oral (Metabolitepo) and intravenous (Metaboliteiv) dosing for the STM (A and B) and SSFM (C and D), for CLGITi at 0.01 and 0.1 ml/min, and CLd1and CLd2 (0.9 ml/min).

The metabolic intrinsic clearance, CLint,mi, was kept at 0.1 ml/min for all simulations. All of the segmental parameters were identical among the three intestinal regions. These observed trends (A, B, C, and D) were similar for CLd1 and CLd2 at 10 ml/min.

Homogeneous Distributions—Effect of CLint,mi and CLint,seci on CLiv, F, and Metabolite Formation at kai of 3 ml/min.

CLiv rose positively with higher values of CLint,mi, CLint,seci, and CLGITi (Fig. 6) for both STM (A and B) and SSFM (C and D). Higher values of CLGITi, CLd1, and CLd2 brought about higher CLiv for both STM and SSFM (cf. Fig. 6, B versus A for STM and D versus C for SSFM). Bioavailability, F, decreased with increasing values of the metabolic intrinsic clearance and CLGITi for both models (Fig.7). Values of F were generally higher for the STM in relation to those for the SSFM (cf. A and B versus C and D). The patterns of metabolite formation were similar for the STM and SSFM and were similar for both CLd1and CLd2 values chosen. Metabolite formation for oral dosing exceeded that for intravenous administration (Fig.8, compare A and B for STM and C and D for SSFM), and was decreased by CLint,seci and CLGITi.

Figure 6
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 6

Effect of CLint,mi and CLint,seci of each segment on the clearance (CLiv) of drugs for the STM (A and B) and SSFM (C and D), for different values of CLGITi (0.01 and 0.1 ml/min) and CLd1 and CLd2 (0.9 ml/min for A and C; 10 ml/min for B and D).

kai was kept at 3 ml/min for all simulations. The parameters were identical among the three segmental regions.

Figure 7
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 7

Effect of the CLint,mi and CLint,seci of each segment on the bioavailability (F) of drugs for the STM (A and B) and SSFM (C and D), for different values of CLGITi (0.01 and 0.1 ml/min) and CLd1 and CLd2 (0.9 ml/min for A and C; 10 ml/min for B and D).

kai was kept at 3 ml/min for all simulations. The parameters were identical among the three segmental regions

Figure 8
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 8

Effect of the CLint,mi and CLint,seci of each segment on the cumulative amount of metabolite formed after oral (Metabolitepo) and intravenous (Metaboliteiv) dosing for the STM (A and B) and SSFM (C and D), for CLGITi at 0.01 and 0.1 ml/min, and CLd1and CLd2 (0.9 ml/min).

kai was kept at 3 ml/min for all simulations. All of the segmental parameters were identical among the three intestinal regions. These observed trends (A, B, C, and D) were similar for CLd1 and CLd2 at 10 ml/min.

Heterogeneous Distributions of kai, CLd1, CLd2, CLGITi,CLint,mi, and CLint,seci on CLiv,F, and Metabolite Formation.

The distributions of the segmental intrinsic clearances for secretion and metabolism and the absorption rate constant strongly influenced CLiv, F,Mpo andMiv for the STM (Table 2 for CLd1 = CLd2 = 0.9 ml/min and Table 3 for CLd1 = CLd2 = 10 ml/min) and the SSFM (Table 4 for CLd1 = CLd2 = 0.9 ml/min and Table 5 for CLd1 = CLd2 = 10 ml/min). The CLiv and F values were generally lower for the SSFM compared with the STM, although the patterns on metabolite formation remained similar. The lowest F occurred for case 24 (Tables 2 to 5) when kaiand CLint,mi were decreasing along the length of the intestine, whereas the CLint,seci increased along the length of the intestine (Fig.9, left panel). Low values ofF persisted for other cases (19 to 27) in which CLint,mi was decreasing along the length of the intestine, even when kai and CLint,seci displayed varying distributions (homogeneous, increasing or decreasing gradient). The highestF was observed for case 16 (Tables 2 to 5) when the metabolic and secretory intrinsic clearances (ascending from segment 1 to segment 3) were staggered in an opposite configuration tokai (descending from segment 1 to segment 3) (Fig. 9, right panel). Similar patterns of Fprevailed for cases 10 to 18 in which CLint,midisplayed an increasing, segmental gradient, even whenkai and CLint,seci exhibited varying distributions (homogeneous, increasing or decreasing gradient). The Fvalues were intermediate when CLint,mi was homogeneously distributed among segmental regions (cases 1 to 9). These trends were similar at CLGITi of 0.01 ml/min (Tables 2 and 4) and at CLGITi of 0.1 ml/min (Tables 3 and 5). The F values, however, did not directly reflect CLiv, which was lowest for case 25 and highest for case 7 (see Tables 2 to 5). The same comment applied to metabolite formation after oral dosing; these values do not correlate with F, although case 24 consistently provided the lowest metabolite formation (% dose) after oral dosing.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

Simulations for the STM with heterogeneous absorptive, metabolic, and secretory activities: effect of changing CLGIT, segmental absorption rate constant and intrinsic clearances for secretion and metabolism on the clearance (CL), systemic availability (F), and metabolite formation after po (Mpo) and intravenous (Miv) administration.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4

Simulations for the SSFM with heterogeneous absorptive, metabolic, and secretory activities: effect of changing CLGIT, segmental absorption rate constant and intrinsic clearances for secretion and metabolism on the clearance (CL), systemic availability (F), and metabolite formation after p.o. (Mpo) and intravenous (Miv) administration.

Figure 9
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 9

Segmental distributions (designated as segments 1, 2, and 3) of CLint,mi, kai, and CLint,seci for lowest F (left panel, case 24) and highest F (right panel, case 16).

The difference existed in the descending versus ascending distributions of the segmental metabolic intrinsic clearance.

Discussion

It is well recognized that drug absorption is the net result of complex interactions of apical to basolateral transport, metabolism and exsorption/efflux in the intestine for which much heterogeneity exists. In addition to the named segmental differences in surface area, flow, absorptive carriers, metabolic enzymes, and efflux transporters, bile acids are known to affect the permeability of intestinal mucosa, the solubilization of drug and/or suppression of thermodynamic activity after its involvement in the micellar complex (Emori et al., 1995). It is surmised that the influence of bile acid is greater at the sphincter of Oddi and the proximal duodenum. Hence, segmental differences in drug absorption are not unexpected outcomes.

To date, none of the proposed models (Yu and Amidon, 1998; Ito et al., 1999; Lin et al., 1999; Cong et al., 2000) is able to describe heterogeneous events in any cohesive fashion. The development of the STM and SSFM therefore provides the first theoretical models that provide predictive information on the impact of intestinal heterogeneities on drug absorption. Analogous to that shown previously for TM and SFM (Cong et al., 2000), differences exist between the STM and SSFM due to the segregation of flow for the segments of SSFM. However, common conclusions may be made for both models. Because of drug secretion, reabsorption with kaiaffects not only CLiv and F but also metabolite formation (Figs. 3 to 5). The absorption rate constant decreases CLiv but increases F and metabolite formation due to recycling of drug back to the circulation. The kai neutralizes some of the effects of drug secretion, and whenkai is large, secretion effects become minimal. The gastrointestinal transit time, denoted by CLGITi, effectively removes drug from the lumen and precludes absorption. Increases in CLGITibring about increases in CLiv but decreaseF, whereas rapid drug partitioning further brings about higher CLiv and F (Figs. 3 to 8; Tables 2 to 5). The metabolic and secretory intrinsic clearances affect CLiv and F for the STM to a much greater degree than for the SSFM (Figs. 3 and 4 and Figs. 6 and 7; cf. A and B versus C and D). Both metabolic and secretory intrinsic clearances increase CLiv but decreaseF.

The presence of secretion also affects metabolite formation, and a greater CLint,seci results in lowered metabolite formation. A similar observation was made for a theoretical examination on the time course of metabolite production in Caco-2 cells (D. Tam and K. S. Pang, unpublished data) even though metabolite formation eventually equals the dose in this stagnant system. By contrast, metabolite formation is reduced by rapid gastrointestinal transit. Metabolite formation for oral dosing is usually greater than that with intravenous dosing (Figs. 5 and 8 and Tables 2 to 5). However, whenkai is very low (<0.01 min−1) and CLGITi (>0.1 ml/min) is high, metabolite formation after intravenous dosing can exceed that for oral dosing (unpublished simulations).

Heterogeneity in metabolic intrinsic clearance among the intestinal segments strongly impacts F. Lower values of Fexisted when the gradient of metabolic activities was more proximal and dwindles toward the ileum (Fig. 9, left panel). Alternately, higherF values were observed when the segmental, metabolic intrinsic clearance was increasing toward the ileum (Fig. 9, right panel). These comments hold true regardless of the distributions (homogeneous, increasing or decreasing gradient) ofkai and CLint,seci. Metabolite formation was influenced by all of the heterogeneities, and no succinct pattern was readily identified.

The present simulation study with two theoretical models, the STM and SSFM, revealed possible interactions of the absorption rate constant, metabolic and secretory intrinsic clearances, flow, and gastrointestinal transit on drugs of varying tissue-partitioning characteristics. Although the present exploration of the theoretical models presented only a limited scope of the influence of the various segmental variables on drug bioavailability and metabolite formation, important observations nonetheless arose. The study showed that the absorption rate constant, in contrast to cases where secretion is nonexistent, strongly affected the clearance and bioavailability. Segmental metabolic heterogeneity was another important factor that influences CLiv and F.

Appendix

The mass-balanced rate equations for the STM are shown below.

For the change of drug concentrations (D) in the reservoir (compartment “R”)dDRdt=Qint3(Dintb1+Dintb2+Dintb3)−DR(Qint+CLo)/VR Equation 1For the change of concentrations of drug (D) and metabolite (M) in the intestinal tissue compartments (compartment “int1, int2, and int3”)dDint1dt=[ka1Dlum1Vlum1−Dint1(CLint,m1+CLint,sec1+CLd2)+Dintb1CLd1]/Vint1 Equation 2dDint2dt=[ka2Dlum2Vlum2−Dint2(CLint,m2+CLint,sec2+CLd2)+Dintb2CLd1]/Vint2 Equation 3dDint3dt=[ka3Dlum3Vlum3−Dint3(CLint,m3+CLint,sec3+CLd2)+Dintb3CLd1]/Vint3 Equation 4dMint1dt=Dint1CLint,m1Vint1 Equation 5dMint2dt=Dint2CLint,m2Vint2 Equation 6dMint3dt=Dint3CLint,m3Vint3 Equation 7For the change of drug concentrations (D) in the intestinal blood compartments (compartment “intb1, intb2, and intb3”)dDintb1dt=Qint3(DR−Dintb1)+Dint1CLd2−Dintb1CLd1/Vintb1 Equation 8dDintb2dt=Qint3(DR−Dintb2)+Dint2CLd2−Dintb2CLd1/Vintb2 Equation 9dDintb3dt=Qint3(DR−Dintb3)+Dint3CLd2−Dintb3CLd1/Vintb3 Equation 10For the change of drug concentrations (D) in the intestinal lumen compartments (compartment “lum1, lum2, and lum3”)dDlum1dt=[−ka1Dlum1Vlum1−Dlum1CLGIT1+Dint1CLint,sec1]/Vlum1 Equation 11dDlum2dt=[−ka2Dlum2Vlum2−Dlum2CLGIT2+Dlum1CLGIT1+Dint2CLint,sec2]/Vlum2 Equation 12dDlum3dt=[−ka3Dlum3Vlum3−Dlum3CLGIT3+Dlum2CLGIT2+Dint3CLint,sec3]/Vlum3 Equation 13The rate of metabolism, Met′, is given byMet′=Dint1CLint,m1+Dint2CLint,m2+Dint3CLint,m3 Equation 14The rate of luminal secretion,D′sec, is given byDsec′=Dlum3CLGIT3 Equation 15The mass-balanced rate equations for the SSFM are shown below

For the change of drug (D) concentrations in the reservoir (compartment “R”)dDRdt=fQQint3(Denb1+Denb2+Denb3)+(1−fQ)Qint3(Dsb1+Dsb2+Dsb3)−DR(Qint+CLo)]/VR Equation 16For the change of drug (D) and metabolite (M) concentrations in the intestinal enterocyte compartments (compartment “en1, en2, and en3”)dDen1dt=[ka1Dlum1Vlum1−Den1(CLint,m1+CLint,sec1+CLd2)+Denb1CLd1]/Ven1 Equation 17dDen2dt=[ka2Dlum2Vlum2−Den2(CLint,m2+CLint,sec2+CLd2)+Denb2CLd1]/Ven2 Equation 18dDen3dt=[ka3Dlum3Vlum3−Den3(CLint,m3+CLint,sec3+CLd2)+Denb3CLd1]/Ven3 Equation 19dMen1dt=Den1CLint,m1Ven1 Equation 20dMen2dt=Den2CLint,m2Ven2 Equation 21dMen3dt=Den3CLint,m3Ven3 Equation 22For the change of drug concentrations (D) in the enterocyte blood compartments (compartment “enb1, enb2, and enb3”)dDenb1dt=fQQint3(DR−Denb1)+Den1CLd2−Denb1CLd1/Venb1 Equation 23dDenb2dt=fQQint3(DR−Denb2)+Den2CLd2−Denb2CLd1/Venb2 Equation 24dDenb3dt=fQQint3(DR−Denb3)+Den3CLd2−Denb3CLd1/Venb3 Equation 25For the change of drug concentrations (D) in the serosal compartments (compartment “s1, s2, and s3”)dDs1dt=[Dsb1CLd1−Ds1CLd2]/Vs1 Equation 26dDs2dt=[Dsb2CLd1−Ds2CLd2]/Vs2 Equation 27dDs3dt=[Dsb3CLd1−Ds3CLd2]/Vs3 Equation 28For the change of drug concentrations (D) in the serosal blood compartments (compartment “sb1, sb2, and sb3”)dDsb1dt=(1−fQ)Qint3(DR−Dsb1)+Ds1CLd2−Dsb1CLd1/Vsb1 Equation 29dDsb2dt=(1−fQ)Qint3(DR−Dsb2)+Ds2CLd2−Dsb2CLd1/Vsb2 Equation 30dDsb3dt=(1−fQ)Qint3(DR−Dsb3)+Ds3CLd2−Dsb3CLd1/Vsb3 Equation 31For the change of drug concentrations (D) in the intestinal lumen compartments (compartment “lum1, lum2, and lum3”)dDlum1dt=[−ka1Dlum1Vlum1−Dlum1CLGIT1+Den1CLint,sec1]/Vlum1 Equation 32dDlum2dt=[−ka2Dlum2Vlum2−Dlum2CLGIT2+Dlum1CLGIT1+Den2CLint,sec2]/Vlum2 Equation 33dDlum3dt=[−ka3Dlum3Vlum3−Dlum3CLGIT3+Dlum2CLGIT2+Den3CLint,sec3]/Vlum3 Equation 34The rate of metabolism, Met′, is given byMet′=Den1CLint,m1+Den2CLint,m2+Den3CLint,m3 Equation 35The rate of luminal secretion,D′sec, is given byDsec′=Dlum3CLGIT3 Equation 36

Footnotes

  • ↵1 Present Address: Amgen Inc., Small molecule Pharmacokinetics and Drug Metabolism, Amgen Center, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320-1799

  • This work was supported by the Canadian Institute for Health Research, Grant MOP36457. Debbie Tam was a recipient of a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council summer studentship.

  • Abbreviations used are::
    TM
    traditional, physiologically-based model
    SFM
    segregated flow model
    STM
    segmental traditional model
    SSFM
    segmental segregated flow model
    sb
    serosal blood
    enb
    enterocyte blood
    AUCiv and AUCpo
    areas under the curve for intravenous and oral dosing, respectively
    CLd1 and CLd2
    transfer clearances from blood to tissue compartment, and from tissue to blood compartment, respectively
    CLint,m and CLint,sec are the metabolic and secretory intrinsic clearances for the total intestine
    respectively
    CLint,mi and CLint,seci
    metabolic and secretory intrinsic clearances for the ith segment (i = 1, 2, or 3), respectively
    CLiv
    intravenous clearance
    CLGIT
    the gastrointestinal luminal transit clearance for the entire intestine
    CLGITi
    the gastrointestinal luminal transit clearance for the ith segment
    F
    bioavailability
    fQ
    fraction of the total intestinal flow perfusing the enterocyte region
    ka
    absorption rate constant for the intestine
    kai
    absorption rate constant for the ith segment
    Mint
    total amount of metabolite formed, with subscripts p.o. and i.v. further denoting oral and intravenous dosing, respectively
    Minti
    metabolite formation from the ith segment
    Qint
    total blood flow to the intestine
    Ven and Venb
    volumes of the enterocyte layer and the blood to the enterocyte layer, respectively
    Veni and Venbi
    volumes of the enterocyte layer and the blood to the enterocyte layer of the ith segment, respectively
    Vint and Vintb
    volumes of intestinal tissue and intestinal blood for the entire intestine
    Vinti and Vintbi
    volumes of intestinal tissue and intestinal blood for the ith segment
    Vs and Vsb
    volumes of the serosal layer and the blood to the serosal layer, respectively
    Vsi and Vsbi
    volumes of the serosal layer and the blood to the serosal layer of the ith segment, respectively
    • Received August 28, 2002.
    • Accepted December 17, 2002.
  • The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

References

  1. ↵
    1. Aldini R,
    2. Montagnani M,
    3. Roda A,
    4. Hrelia S,
    5. Biagi PL,
    6. Roda E
    (1996) Intestinal absorption of bile acids in the rabbit. Different transport rates in jejunum and ileum. Gastroenterology 110:459–468.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Barr WH,
    2. Zola EM,
    3. Candler EL,
    4. Hwang SM,
    5. Tendolkar AV,
    6. Shamburek R,
    7. Parker B,
    8. Hilty MD
    (1994) Differential absorption of amoxicillin from the human small and large intestine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 56:279–285.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Bonkovsky HL,
    2. Hauri HP,
    3. Martı̈ U,
    4. Gasser R,
    5. Meyer UA
    (1985) Cytochrome P450 of small intestinal epithelial cells. Immunochemical characterization of the increase in cytochrome P450 caused by phenobarbital. Gastroenterology 88:458–467.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Clifton G,
    2. Kaplowitz N
    (1977) The glutathione S-transferases of the small intestine in the rat. Cancer Res 37:788–791.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Coles BF,
    2. Chen G,
    3. Kadlubar FF,
    4. Radominska-Pandya A
    (2002) Interindividual variation and organ-specific patterns of glutathione S-transferase alpha, mu and pi expression in gastrointestinal tract mucosa of normal individuals. Arch Biochem Biophys 403:270–276.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Collett A,
    2. Higgs NB,
    3. Sims E,
    4. Rowland M,
    5. Warhurst G
    (1999) Modulation of the permeability of H2 receptor antagonists cimetidine and ranitidine by P-glycoprotein in rat intestine and the human colonic cell line Caco-2. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 288:171–178.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Cong D,
    2. Doherty M,
    3. Pang KS
    (2000) A new physiologically-based segregated flow model to explain route-dependent intestinal metabolism. Drug Metab Dispos 28:224–235.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Cong D,
    2. Fong AKY,
    3. Lee R,
    4. Pang KS
    (2001) Absorption of benzoic acid (BA) by segmental regions of the in situ perfused rat small intestine. Drug Metab Dispos 29:1539–1547.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Doherty M,
    2. Pang KS
    (2000) Route-dependent metabolism of morphine in the vascularly perfused rat small intestine preparation. Pharm Res (NY) 17:290–297.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Drewe J,
    2. Narjes H,
    3. Heinzel G,
    4. Brickl RS,
    5. Rohr A,
    6. Beglinger C
    (2000) Absorption of lefradafiban from different sites of the gastrointestinal tract. J Clin Pharmacol 50:69–72.
  11. ↵
    1. Emori H,
    2. Yokohama S,
    3. Nishihata T
    (1995) Small intestinal absorption of bropirimine in rats and effect of bile salt on the absorption. J Pharm Pharmacol 47:487–492.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Fei YJ,
    2. Kanai Y,
    3. Nussberger S,
    4. Ganapathy V,
    5. Leibach FH,
    6. Romero MF,
    7. Singh SK,
    8. Boron WF,
    9. Hediger MA
    (1994) Expression cloning of a mammalian proton-coupled oligopeptide transporter. Nature (Lond) 368:563–566.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Godbillon J,
    2. Vidon N,
    3. Palma R,
    4. Pfeiffer A,
    5. Franchisseur C,
    6. Bovet M,
    7. Gosset G,
    8. Bernier JJ,
    9. Hirtz J
    (1987) Jejunal and ileal absorption of oxprenolol in man: influence of nutrients and digestive secretions on jejunal absorption and systemic availability. Br J Clin Pharmacol 24:335–341.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Gotoh Y,
    2. Suzuki H,
    3. Kinoshita S,
    4. Hirohashi T,
    5. Kato Y,
    6. Sugiyama Y
    (2000) Involvement of an organic anion transporter (canalicular multispecific organic anion transporter/multidrug resistance-associated protein 2) in gastrointestinal secretion of glutathione conjugates in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 292:433–439.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Grámatte T,
    2. Oertel R,
    3. Terhaag B,
    4. Kirch W
    (1996) Direct demonstration of small intestinal secretion and site-dependent absorption of the beta-blocker talinolol in humans. Clin Pharmacol Ther 59:541–549.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Granger DN,
    2. Richardson PDI,
    3. Kvietys PR,
    4. Mortillaro NA
    (1980) Intestinal blood flow. Gastroenterology 78:837–863.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Hoensch H,
    2. Woo CH,
    3. Raffin SB,
    4. Schmid R
    (1976) Oxidative metabolism of foreign compounds in rat small intestine. Cellular localization and independence on dietary iron. Gastroenterology 70:1063–1070.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Ito K,
    2. Kusuhara H,
    3. Sugiyama Y
    (1999) Effects of intestinal CYP3A4 and P-glycoprotein on oral drug absorption–theoretical approach. Pharm Res (NY) 16:225–231.
  19. ↵
    1. Koster AS,
    2. Frankhuijzen-Sierevogel AC,
    3. Noordhoek J
    (1985) Distribution of glucuronidation capacity (1-naphthol and morphine) along the rat intestine. Biochem Pharmacol 34:3527–3532.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Li LY,
    2. Amidon GL,
    3. Kim JS,
    4. Heimbach T,
    5. Kesisoglou F,
    6. Topliss JT,
    7. Fleisher D
    (2002) Intestinal metabolism promotes regional differences in apical uptake of indinavir: coupled effect of P-glycoprotein and cytochrome P450 3A on indinavir membrane permeability. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 301:586–4593.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Lin JH,
    2. Chiba M,
    3. Baillie TA
    (1999) Is the role of the small intestine in first-pass metabolism overemphasized? Pharmacol Rev 5 1:135–158.
  22. ↵
    1. Lown KS,
    2. Mayo RR,
    3. Leichtman AB,
    4. Hsiao H-L,
    5. Turgeon DK,
    6. Schmiedlin-Ren P,
    7. Brown MB,
    8. Guo W,
    9. Rossi SJ,
    10. Benet LZ,
    11. Watkins PB
    (1997) Role of intestinal P-glycoprotein (mdr1) in interpatient variation in the oral bioavailability of cyclosporine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 62:248–260.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Magee DF,
    2. Dalley AF II
    (1986) Digestion and The Structure and Function of the Gut. (Karger AG, Basel, Switzerland).
  24. ↵
    1. Mottino AD,
    2. Hoffman T,
    3. Jennes L,
    4. Vore M
    (2000) Expression and localization of multidrug resistant protein mrp2 in rat small intestine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 293:717–723.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Nakayama A,
    2. Saitoh H,
    3. Oda M,
    4. Takada M,
    5. Aungst BJ
    (2000) Region-dependent disappearance of vinblastine in rat small intestine and characterization of its P-glycoprotein-mediated efflux system. Eur J Pharm Sci 11:317–324.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Ngo LY,
    2. Patil SD,
    3. Unadkat JD
    (2001) Ontogenic and longitudinal activity of Na+-nucleoside transporters in the human intestine. Am J Physiol 280:G475–G481.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Paine MF,
    2. Khalighi M,
    3. Fisher JM,
    4. Shen DD,
    5. Kunze KL,
    6. Marsh CL,
    7. Perkins JD,
    8. Thummel KE
    (1997) Characterization of interintestinal and intraintestinal variations in human CYP3A-dependent metabolism. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 283:1552–1562.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Paine MF,
    2. Shen DD,
    3. Kunze KL,
    4. Perkins JD,
    5. Marsh CL,
    6. McVicar JP,
    7. Barr DM,
    8. Gilles BS,
    9. Thummel KE
    (1996) First-pass metabolism of midazolam by the human intestine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 60:14–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Pang KS,
    2. Cherry WF,
    3. Ulm EH
    (1985) Disposition of enalapril in the perfused rat intestine-liver preparation: absorption, metabolism and first-pass effect. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 233:788–795.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Park GB,
    2. Mitra AK
    (1992) Mechanism and site dependency of intestinal mucosal transport and metabolism of thymidine analogues. Pharm Res (NY) 9:326–331.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Patel VS,
    2. Kramer WG
    (1986) Allopurinol absorption from different sites of the rat gastrointestinal tract. J Pharm Sci 75:275–277.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Pinkus LM,
    2. Ketley JN,
    3. Jakoby WB
    (1977) The glutathione S-transferases as a possible detoxification system of rat intestinal epithelium. Biochem Pharmacol 26:2359–2363.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Rost D,
    2. Mahner S,
    3. Sugiyama Y,
    4. Stremmel W
    (2002) Expression and localization of the multidrug resistance-associated protein 3 in rat small and large intestine. Am J Physiol 282:G720–G726.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Schwarz LR,
    2. Schwenk M
    (1984) Sulfation in isolated enterocytes of guinea pig: dependence on inorganic sulfate. Biochem Pharmacol 33:3353–3356.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Shneider BL,
    2. Dawson PA,
    3. Christie DM,
    4. Hardikar W,
    5. Wong MH,
    6. Suchy FJ
    (1995) Cloning and molecular characterization of the ontogeny of a rat ileal sodium-dependent bile acid transporter. J Clin Invest 95:745–754.
  36. ↵
    1. Stephens RH,
    2. O'Neill CA,
    3. Warhurst A,
    4. Carlson GL,
    5. Rowland M,
    6. Warhurst G
    (2001) Kinetic profiling of P-glycoprotein-mediated drug efflux in rat and human intestinal epithelia. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 296:584–591.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Tamai I,
    2. Sai Y,
    3. Ono A,
    4. Kido Y,
    5. Yabuuchi H,
    6. Takanaga H,
    7. Satoh E,
    8. Ogihara T,
    9. Amano O,
    10. Izeki S,
    11. Tsuji A
    (1999) Immunohistochemical and functional characterization of pH-dependent intestinal absorption of weak organic acids by the monocarboxylic acid transporter MCT1. J Pharm Pharmacol 51:1113–1121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Thummel KE,
    2. O'Shea D,
    3. Paine MF,
    4. Shen DD,
    5. Kunze KL,
    6. Perkins JD,
    7. Wilkinson GR
    (1996) Oral first-pass elimination of midazolam involves both gastrointestinal and hepatic CYP3A-mediated metabolism. Clin Pharmacol Ther 59:491–502.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Tsuji A,
    2. Tamai I
    (1996) Carrier-mediated intestinal transport of drugs. Pharm Res (NY) 13:963–977.
  40. ↵
    1. Walters HC,
    2. Craddock AL,
    3. Fusegawa H,
    4. Willingham DC,
    5. Dawson PA
    (2000) Expression, transport properties, and chromosomal location of organic anion transporter subtype 3. Am J Physiol 279:G1188–G1200.
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Wen Y,
    2. Remmel RP,
    3. Zimmerman CL
    (1999) First-pass disposition of (−)-6-aminocarbovir in rats. 1. Prodrug activation may be limited by access to enzyme. Drug Metab Dispos 27:113–121.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Yu L,
    2. Amidon GL
    (1998) Saturable small intestinal drug absorption in humans: modeling and interpretation of cefatrizine data. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 45:199–203.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Drug Metabolism and Disposition: 31 (4)
Drug Metabolism and Disposition
Vol. 31, Issue 4
1 Apr 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Drug Metabolism & Disposition article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Segmental Intestinal Transporters and Metabolic Enzymes on Intestinal Drug Absorption
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Drug Metabolism & Disposition
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Drug Metabolism & Disposition.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Research ArticleArticle

Segmental Intestinal Transporters and Metabolic Enzymes on Intestinal Drug Absorption

Debbie Tam, Rommel G. Tirona and K. Sandy Pang
Drug Metabolism and Disposition April 1, 2003, 31 (4) 373-383; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.31.4.373

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Research ArticleArticle

Segmental Intestinal Transporters and Metabolic Enzymes on Intestinal Drug Absorption

Debbie Tam, Rommel G. Tirona and K. Sandy Pang
Drug Metabolism and Disposition April 1, 2003, 31 (4) 373-383; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.31.4.373
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Appendix
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Deoxycholate Oxidation is Predictive of CYP3A Activity
  • Retroconversion of PQ and its N-oxide metabolites
  • HNF4A-AS1 regulates CYPs via histone modifications
Show more Article

Similar Articles

  • Home
  • Alerts
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   RSS

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Fast Forward by date
  • Fast Forward by section
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive
  • Search for Articles
  • Feedback
  • ASPET

More Information

  • About DMD
  • Editorial Board
  • Instructions to Authors
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Customized Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions
  • Permissions
  • Terms & Conditions of Use

ASPET's Other Journals

  • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
  • Molecular Pharmacology
  • Pharmacological Reviews
  • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
ISSN 1521-009X (Online)

Copyright © 2021 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics