| Literature DB >> 31993333 |
Yusuke Kamiya1, Hiroka Takaku1, Rio Yamada1, Chisato Akase1, Yuto Abe1, Yuko Sekiguchi1, Norie Murayama1, Makiko Shimizu1, Masato Kitajima2, Fumiaki Shono3, Kimito Funatsu3, Hiroshi Yamazaki1.
Abstract
Apparent permeability coefficients (P app) across a human intestinal epithelial Caco-2 cell monolayer were measured for a range of industrial/drug chemicals. A predictive equation for determining in vitro P app values of fifty-six substances was set up using multivariate regression analysis based on in silico-estimated physicochemical properties (molecular weights and water distribution coefficients for apical and basal pH environments) (r = 0.77, p < 0.01). Predicted logP app values of a secondary set of 34 compounds were correlated with the measured values. Under the medicinal logP app values associated with their reported fraction absorbed, a significant inverse non-linear correlation was found between the logarithmic transformed values of observed P app values and reported hepatic no-observed-effect levels of industrial chemicals (r = -0.55, p < 0.01, n = 29). In vitro determination and/or in silico prediction of permeability across intestinal cells could be effective for estimating oral absorption as a putative indicator for hepatotoxicity.Entities:
Keywords: Caco-2 cells; Fraction absorbed; Multivariate prediction equation; No-observed-effect level; Octanol–water distribution coefficient
Year: 2020 PMID: 31993333 PMCID: PMC6976901 DOI: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2020.01.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxicol Rep ISSN: 2214-7500
Measured Permeability Coefficients of 56 Compounds with Their Physicochemical Properties and Reported Fraction Absorbed (Fa) and/or Hepatic No-observed-effect Levels (NOEL).
| compound | Cas No. | molecular weight | log | log | log | reported human | hepatic NOEL, mg/kg/day | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2-aminobiphenyl | 90-41-5 | 576 ± 11 | 169 | 3.05 | 3.05 | 3.05 | 100 | |
| 3-aminobenzenesulfonic acid | 121-47-1 | 21 ± 3 | 173 | –4.26 | –5.65 | –5.71 | 1000 | |
| 5-amino-2-chlorotoluene-4-sulfonic acid | 88-53-9 | 20 ± 2 | 222 | –3.17 | –3.31 | –3.33 | 1000 | |
| 3-aminophenol | 591-27-5 | 513 ± 23 | 109 | –0.05 | –0.06 | –0.05 | 240 | |
| aniline | 62-53-3 | 544 ± 26 | 93 | 1.03 | 1.01 | 1.03 | ||
| atenolol | 29122-68-7 | 5 ± 1 | 266 | 0.01 | –2.97 | –1.56 | 50 [ | |
| atomoxetine | 83015-26-3 | 27 ± 1 | 255 | 4.21 | 1.01 | 2.33 | 100 [ | |
| benzimidazole | 51-17-2 | 730 ± 6 | 118 | 0.24 | 0.13 | 0.24 | ||
| benzoic acid | 65-85-0 | 1490 ± 160 | 122 | 1.55 | –0.42 | –1.92 | ||
| benzydamine | 642-72-8 | 16 ± 1 | 309 | 4.39 | 1.81 | 2.63 | 100 [ | |
| bisphenol A | 80-05-7 | 321 ± 13 | 228 | 4.48 | 4.48 | 4.47 | 200 | |
| caffeine | 58-08-2 | 544 ± 12 | 194 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 100 [ | |
| 2-chloroaniline | 95-51-2 | 893 ± 26 | 128 | 1.74 | 1.74 | 1.74 | ||
| cotinine | 486-56-6 | 412 ± 29 | 176 | 1.02 | 1.01 | 1.02 | 90 [ | |
| 3-cyanopyridine | 100-54-9 | 569 ± 70 | 104 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 5 | |
| dexamethasone | 50-02-2 | 95 ± 14 | 392 | 2.63 | 2.63 | 2.63 | 90 [ | |
| diclofenac | 15307-86-5 | 756 ± 6 | 296 | 4.14 | 2.25 | 0.77 | 82 [ | |
| dihydrocodeine | 125-28-0 | 24 ± 1 | 301 | 2.99 | 0.47 | 0.95 | ||
| diphenylamine | 122-39-4 | 151 ± 11 | 169 | 3.53 | 3.53 | 3.53 | ||
| 1,3-dinitrobenzene | 99-65-0 | 536 ± 35 | 168 | 1.51 | 1.51 | 1.51 | ||
| 2,3-dimethylaniline | 87-59-2 | 624 ± 30 | 121 | 1.90 | 1.87 | 1.90 | 12 | |
| 2,4-dimethylaniline | 95-68-1 | 661 ± 20 | 121 | 1.92 | 1.88 | 1.92 | 2 | |
| 3,4-dimethylaniline | 95-64-7 | 541 ± 58 | 121 | 2.01 | 1.93 | 2.01 | 50 | |
| 3,5-dimethylaniline | 108-69-0 | 674 ± 113 | 121 | 2.08 | 2.03 | 2.08 | 10 | |
| hippuric acid | 495-69-2 | 6 ± 1 | 179 | –0.46 | –2.49 | –3.79 | ||
| 2-hydroxybenzimidazole | 615-16-7 | 507 ± 16 | 134 | –0.97 | –1.52 | –1.53 | ||
| 4-hydroxybiphenyl | 92-69-3 | 441 ± 28 | 170 | 3.89 | 3.89 | 3.88 | ||
| isophthalonitrile | 626-17-5 | 805 ± 8 | 128 | 1.48 | 1.48 | 1.48 | 8 | |
| lenalidomide | 191732-72-6 | 7 ± 1 | 259 | –1.03 | –1.03 | –1.04 | 90 [ | |
| lucifer yellow | 67769-47-5 | 7 ± 1 | 445 | –4.80 | –13.1 | –13.3 | 0 [ | |
| 108-39-4 | 851 ± 35 | 108 | 2.21 | 2.21 | 2.21 | 100 | ||
| 2-mercaptobenzimidazole | 583-39-1 | 673 ± 18 | 150 | 0.64 | –3.74 | –3.76 | 2 | |
| metoprolol | 51384-51-1 | 34 ± 1 | 267 | 2.20 | –0.80 | 0.61 | 98 [ | |
| midazolam | 59467-70-8 | 318 ± 19 | 326 | 4.54 | 4.20 | 4.49 | 60 [ | |
| mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate | 4376-20-9 | 467 ± 18 | 278 | 4.93 | 3.16 | 1.67 | ||
| monobutyl phthalate | 131-70-4 | 318 ± 8 | 222 | 3.35 | 1.58 | 0.09 | ||
| 121-69-7 | 999 ± 129 | 121 | 2.17 | 2.07 | 2.16 | |||
| 103-69-5 | 660 ± 10 | 121 | 2.10 | 2.04 | 2.10 | 5 | ||
| nicotine | 54-11-5 | 57 ± 6 | 162 | 2.07 | 0.23 | 1.56 | 100 [ | |
| nifedipine | 21829-25-4 | 424 ± 44 | 346 | 2.21 | 2.21 | 2.21 | 100 [ | |
| 3-nitroaniline | 99-09-2 | 520 ± 50 | 138 | 1.92 | 1.92 | 1.92 | 15 | |
| 2-nitrotoluene | 88-72-2 | 576 ± 46 | 137 | 2.28 | 2.28 | 2.28 | ||
| 100-61-8 | 463 ± 50 | 107 | 1.59 | 1.55 | 1.59 | 5 | ||
| 95-48-7 | 905 ± 64 | 108 | 1.82 | 1.82 | 1.82 | |||
| 106-44-5 | 507 ± 45 | 108 | 2.21 | 2.21 | 2.21 | |||
| phthalimide | 85-41-6 | 933 ± 69 | 147 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | ||
| 99-96-7 | 609 ± 30 | 138 | 1.73 | –0.10 | –1.61 | |||
| pomalidomide | 19171-19-8 | 466 ± 57 | 273 | –0.03 | –0.03 | –0.04 | 73 [ | |
| progesterone | 57-83-0 | 113 ± 20 | 315 | 4.18 | 4.18 | 4.18 | ||
| propranolol | 525-66-6 | 29 ± 3 | 259 | 3.07 | 0.15 | 1.57 | 90 [ | |
| quetiapine | 111974-69-7 | 38 ± 4 | 384 | 2.61 | 2.29 | 2.60 | 73 [ | |
| terephthalonitrile | 623-26-7 | 573 ± 13 | 128 | 1.48 | 1.48 | 1.48 | 20 | |
| thalidomide | 50-35-1 | 235 ± 19 | 258 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.34 | ||
| tolbutamide | 64-77-7 | 1220 ± 110 | 270 | 2.58 | 2.06 | 0.71 | 88 [ | |
| trimethylamine | 75-50-3 | 33 ± 1 | 59 | 0.76 | –1.77 | –1.43 | ||
| warfarin | 81-81-2 | 1210 ± 50 | 308 | 2.33 | 1.83 | 0.49 | 98 [ |
Observed Papp value represents the mean of triplicate determinations with standard deviation in this study. Physicochemical properties were calculated using the SPARC physicochemical calculator as mentioned in Materials and Methods. NOEL values for hepatotoxicity of chemical substances were obtained from the Hazard Evaluation Support System Integrated Platform [12].
Results (without SD values) of 17 compounds are reported in our study [10].
Predicted and Observed logPapp Values of a Secondary Set of 34 Compounds and Their Reported Fraction Absorbed (Fa) and/or Hepatic NOEL Values.
| compound | CAS No. | molecular weight | log | log | predicted | observed | observed log | reported human | hepatic NOEL mg/kg/day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| acetaminophen | 103-90-2 | 151 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 2.42 | 319 ± 14 | 2.50 | 100 [ | 250 [ |
| azamethiphos | 35575-96-3 | 325 | 2.58 | 2.58 | 2.14 | 402 ± 18 | 2.60 | ||
| bisphenol F | 620-92-8 | 200 | 3.61 | 3.60 | 2.66 | 415 ± 21 | 2.62 | 100 | |
| bisphenol S | 80-09-1 | 250 | 1.26 | 1.11 | 2.29 | 503 ± 35 | 2.70 | 200 | |
| carbamazepine | 298-46-4 | 236 | 3.64 | 3.64 | 2.54 | 380 ± 14 | 2.58 | ||
| 4-chloro- | 1570-64-5 | 143 | 2.51 | 2.51 | 2.71 | 754 ± 39 | 2.88 | 250 | |
| 2-chlorophenol | 95-57-8 | 129 | 2.13 | 2.07 | 2.73 | 752 ± 83 | 2.88 | 200 | |
| 4-chlorophenol | 106-48-9 | 129 | 2.26 | 2.26 | 2.73 | 431 ± 37 | 2.63 | 500 | |
| cimetidine | 51481-61-9 | 252 | –0.79 | –0.58 | 1.92 | 17 ± 2 | 1.22 | 68 [ | |
| coumarin | 91-64-5 | 146 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 2.52 | 806 ± 54 | 2.91 | 100 [ | |
| 4- | 599-64-4 | 212 | 4.99 | 4.99 | 2.77 | 195 ± 34 | 2.29 | 100 | |
| dabigatran | 211915-06-9 | 472 | 0.26 | −1.19 | 1.97 | 38 ± 17 | 1.58 | ||
| disopyramide | 3737-09-5 | 340 | –0.70 | 0.79 | 1.17 | 14 ± 3 | 1.16 | 83 [ | |
| 7-ethoxycoumarin | 31005-02-4 | 190 | 1.94 | 1.94 | 2.50 | 750 ± 48 | 2.88 | ||
| 3-ethylphenol | 620-17-7 | 122 | 2.75 | 2.75 | 2.80 | 515 ± 50 | 2.71 | 300 | |
| 4-ethylphenol | 123-07-9 | 122 | 2.76 | 2.75 | 2.81 | 437 ± 23 | 2.64 | 100 | |
| fluvoxamine | 54739-18-3 | 318 | 1.85 | 2.88 | 1.69 | 23 ± 3 | 1.37 | ||
| 2-hydroxybiphenyl | 90-43-7 | 170 | 3.72 | 3.72 | 2.76 | 334 ± 29 | 2.52 | ||
| 3-hydroxybiphenyl | 580-51-8 | 170 | 3.88 | 3.88 | 2.78 | 284 ± 22 | 2.45 | ||
| 7-hydroxycoumarin | 93-35-6 | 162 | 0.24 | 0.01 | 2.49 | 1030 ± 170 | 3.01 | ||
| itopride | 122898-67-3 | 358 | 0.15 | 1.40 | 1.29 | 12 ± 3 | 1.09 | ||
| lovastatin | 75330-75-5 | 405 | 4.04 | 4.04 | 2.05 | 21 ± 1 | 1.32 | 31 [ | |
| mefenamic acid | 61-68-7 | 241 | 3.78 | 2.29 | 3.11 | 1804 ± 83 | 3.26 | ||
| 2-mercaptoimidazole | 872-35-5 | 100 | –4.91 | –4.91 | 2.02 | 91 ± 3 | 1.96 | ||
| methotrexate | 59-05-2 | 454 | –4.60 | –7.46 | 2.03 | 11 ± 2 | 1.04 | 20 [ | |
| 2-methoxy-4-nitroaniline | 97-52-9 | 168 | 1.71 | 1.71 | 2.54 | 552 ± 70 | 2.74 | 100 | |
| mirtazapine | 85650-52-8 | 265 | 2.10 | 3.03 | 1.93 | 46 ± 3 | 1.66 | 80 [ | |
| olanzapine | 132539-06-1 | 312 | 3.00 | 3.29 | 2.12 | 35 ± 3 | 1.54 | ||
| omeprazole | 73590-58-6 | 345 | 1.60 | 1.63 | 1.96 | 674 ± 69 | 2.83 | 95 [ | |
| 150-13-0 | 137 | 0.40 | −1.08 | 3.06 | 587 ± 40 | 2.77 | |||
| 156-43-4 | 137 | 1.42 | 1.46 | 2.59 | 582 ± 31 | 2.76 | 160 | ||
| pravastatin | 81093-37-0 | 425 | –0.11 | –1.57 | 2.08 | 9 ± 1 | 0.95 | 13 [ | |
| 4- | 99-71-8 | 150 | 3.70 | 3.70 | 2.82 | 402 ± 19 | 2.60 | 300 | |
| verapamil | 52-53-9 | 455 | 0.58 | 2.01 | 0.97 | 23 ± 1 | 1.36 | 100 [ |
Predicted using the following equation: LogPapp = 2.9 − 0.0032 × (molecular weight) + 0.49 × (logDapical) − 0.38 × (logDbasal). Observed Papp value represents the mean of triplicate determinations with standard deviation in this study.
Fig. 1Coordinate values in a two-dimensional plane illustrating variety in the chemical space for the primary set of 56 compounds (open circles) and the secondary set of 34 (solid circles) compounds evaluated using Caco-2 permeability assays.
Fig. 2Relationships between logPapp values experimentally observed in the Caco-2 cell system and those calculated using univariate (A–D), bivariate (E–G) and multivariate (H) linear regression analyses of the primary set of 56 compounds, as a function of physicochemical properties (MW, logP, logDapical, and logDbasal). Each observed logPapp value represents the mean of triplicate determinations with standard deviation as shown in Table 1. Solid and dashed/dotted lines indicate linear regression and twofold/threefold ranges, respectively.
Fig. 3The relationship between logPapp values of the secondary set of 34 compounds calculated using multivariate linear regression analysis and those of experimentally observed in the Caco-2 cell system. The multivariate prediction equation set up using the dataset shown in Fig. 2H was applied to the secondary set of 34 compounds in this Figure: Predicted logPapp = 2.9 − 0.0032 × (MW) + 0.49 × (logDapical) − 0.38 × (logDbasal). Each observed logPapp value represents the mean of triplicate determinations with standard deviation as shown in Table 2. Solid and dashed/dotted lines indicate linear regression and twofold/threefold ranges, respectively.
Fig. 4The relationship between observed logPapp values and fraction of oral absorption (Fa) values of medicines reported in humans among the primary set of 56 compounds (open circles) and the secondary set of 34 (solid circles) compounds. Solid line indicates non-linear regression curve: Reported human Fa = 94 × (logPapp)3.6 / (0.69 + (logPapp)3.6).
Fig. 5Relationships between hepatic NOEL values of industrial chemicals and acetaminophen reported in rats and their chemical lipophilicity (logP, A) and apparent permeability data (Papp, B) among the primary set of 56 compounds (open circles) and the secondary set of 34 (solid circles) compounds.