| Literature DB >> 19735551 |
Sunday Olakunle Idowu1, Morenikeji Ambali Adeyemo, Udochi Ihechiluru Ogbonna.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Determination of lipophilicity as a tool for predicting pharmacokinetic molecular behavior is limited by the predictive power of available experimental models of the biomembrane. There is current interest, therefore, in models that accurately simulate the biomembrane structure and function. A novel bio-device; a lipid thin film, was engineered as an alternative approach to the previous use of hydrocarbon thin films in biomembrane modeling.Entities:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19735551 PMCID: PMC2745359 DOI: 10.1186/1754-1611-3-14
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biol Eng ISSN: 1754-1611 Impact factor: 4.355
Physicochemical properties of crude and refined seed oil of L. leucocephala
| Saponification value | 203.15 | 233.52 |
| Iodine value | 12.53 | 11.99 |
| Peroxide value | 0 | 0 |
| Acid value | 5.61 | 11.55 |
| Ester value | 197.54 | 221.97 |
| Hydroxyl value | 98.46 | 42.41 |
| Relative density | 0.9241 | 0.9254 |
| Refractive index | 1.4700 | 1.4700 |
Figure 1Chemical structures of model compounds.
Hydrophobicity parameters Rm, S and φobtained for nabumetone on lipid films of various thicknesses, highlighting benchmark requirements and constraint
| 5% LP | -3.48 | 2.43 | 0.70 | 0.35-0.70 | 5 | 0.986 | 0.056 |
| 5% LO | -4.67 | 3.48 | 0.75 | 0.60-0.80 | 5 | 0.949 | 0.085 |
| 3.75% LO | -3.95 | 2.58 | 0.66 | 0.55-0.70 | 5 | 0.895 | 0.082 |
| 2.5% LO | -3.14 | 1.94 | 0.62 | 0.50-0.70 | 5 | 0.974 | 0.040 |
| 1.25% LO | -2.33 | 1.05 | 0.45 | 0.25-0.60 | 5 | 0.981 | 0.047 |
*LP = liquid paraffin, LO = leucaena oil,
aStatistically similar to benchmark (LP, p > 0.05, 1-way ANOVA)
bPlate development cycle time (for 7 cm path length and φ of 0.5) is 39 min, lower than the range 45-50 min for other film thicknesses investigated.
Figure 2(A) Schematic representation of the purification of leucaena oil and creation of the lipid thin film, (B) samples of crude and refined leucaena oil.
Figure 3Optimization of leucaena oil (LO) film thickness relative to liquid paraffin benchmark film, using (A) surface hydrophobicity and (B) rate of partition into aqueous phase as benchmark requirements.
Figure 4Surface images of the silica--supported lucaena oil (LO) lipid film under ultraviolet light at (A) 254 nm and (B) 365 nm showing two distinct zones.
Figure 5Schematic representation showing molecular differentiation of (A) leucaena oil (LO) lipid film as a mimic of (B) amphiphilic structural configuration of phospholipid monolayer of the biological membrane, and hence a biomimietic artificial biological interface (ABI) model.
Figure 6Chemical structures of lipids found in biological membranes and leucaena oil showing similarities of lipid composition.
Figure 7Linear relationships between Rm and methanol fraction showing retention behavior of model compounds on liquid paraffin film (LP), leucaena oil film (LP) and octadecylsilane (ODS) layer.
Basic and derived lipophilicity parameters for model compounds on 3 layer types.
| ADBA | |||||||
| LO | -8.84 | -0.646 | -0.073 | 0.003125-0.025 | 4 | 0.974 | 0.0141 |
| LP | -5.99 | -4.85 | -0.081 | 0.0025-0.0254 | 4 | 0.806 | 0.0495 |
| ODS | -1.41 | -0.102 | -0.073 | 0.025-0.40 | 5 | 0.915 | 0.0620 |
| Naproxen | |||||||
| LO | -6.32 | -0.459 | -0.073 | 0.003125-0.025 | 4 | 0.753 | 0.0350 |
| LP | -5.42 | 0.610 | 0.11 | 0.0025-0.10 | 6 | 0.819 | 0.0959 |
| ODS | -2.18 | 1.30 | 0.60 | 0.20-0.80 | 6 | 0.961 | 0.0944 |
| Nabumetone | |||||||
| LO | -3.95 | 2.58 | 0.66 | 0.55-0.70 | 5 | 0.895 | 0.0815 |
| LP | -3.48 | 2.43 | 0.70 | 0.35-0.70 | 5 | 0.986 | 0.0556 |
| ODS | -3.13 | 2.77 | 0.89 | 0.70-0.95 | 6 | 0.978 | 0.0438 |
| Halofantrine | |||||||
| LO | -8.13 | 8.40 | 1.03 | 0.925-0.99 | 5 | 0.738 | 0.120 |
| LP | -6.54 | 6.76 | 1.03 | 0.90-1.0 | 5 | 0.864 | 0.102 |
| ODS | -4.55 | 4.94 | 1.09 | 0.90-0.975 | 6 | 0.665 | 0.107 |
Figure 8Retention behavior of: (A) ADBA exemplifies stronger solute-layer hydrophobic interaction on pure hydrocarbon layers (LP and ODS) relative to a layer incorporating polar heads (LO), (B) HF exemplifies the interaction between the two variables; layer type and solute type in the determination of lipophilicity.
Figure 9Anomalous retention behavior shown by the value and sign of .
Calculated molecular descriptors and goodness-of-correlation of derived hydrophobicity descriptor (φ) with calculated molecular descriptors.
| 1. | Refractive index | 1.719 | 1.608 | 1.575 | 1.562 | 0.720 | 0.980 | 0.577 |
| 2. | Surface tension(dyne/cm) | 101.6 | 47.4 | 39.8 | 44.6 | 0.505 | 0.869 | 0.360 |
| 3. | Density (g/cm3) | 1.775 | 1.197 | 1.084 | 1.25 | 0.398 | 0.766 | 0.267 |
| 4. | Polarizability (10-24 cm3) | 20.02 | 26.37 | 27.59 | 51.42 | 0.747 | 0.608 | 0.723 |
| 5. | Parachor (cm3) | 406.2 | 504.6 | 529 | 1033.1 | 0.721 | 0.557 | 0.709 |
| 6. | Molar refractivity (cm3) | 50.51 | 66.52 | 69.61 | 129.7 | 0.747 | 0.608 | 0.723 |
| 7. | Molar volume (cm3) | 127.9 | 192.2 | 210.5 | 399.7 | 0.791 | 0.672 | 0.757 |
| 1. | Log P*(octanol/water) | -1.50 | 3.18 | 3.27 | 3.25 | 0.468 | 0.852 | 0.32 |
| 2. a | -0.081 | 0.11 | 0.70 | 1.03 | - | - | - | |
| b. | -0.073 | -0.073 | 0.66 | 1.03 | - | - | - | |
| c. | -0.073 | 0.6 | 0.89 | 1.09 | - | - | - | |
* Log P values were taken from literature