Logo image
A comparison of pharmacokinetic methods for in vivo studies of nonmediated glucose absorption
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

A comparison of pharmacokinetic methods for in vivo studies of nonmediated glucose absorption

K.R. Napier, T.J. McWhorter and P.A. Fleming
Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, Vol.85(2), pp.200-208
2012
pdf
2012_Napier_et_al_comparison_of_pharmacokinetic_methods.pdfDownloadView
Published (Version of Record) Open Access
url
Link to Published Version *Subscription may be requiredView

Abstract

Two pharmacokinetic methods are used primarily to assess systematic bioavailability of orally dosed water-soluble compounds in vivo, but there have been no direct comparisons of the estimates obtained. The "area under the curve" (AUC) method employs a single oral dose of probe compound(s) followed by multiple blood sampling to obtain plasma concentration time curves. Separate injection of probe(s) followed by multiple blood sampling is used to calculate fractional elimination rate (K-el) and distribution pool space (S). The "steady state feeding" method relies on ad lib. feeding of a marked diet, with a single blood sample taken to measure steady state feeding concentration of probe(s); K-el is estimated from the decline in probe concentration in excreta after injection, with a single blood sample taken to estimate S. We compared these methods directly in the Australian red wattlebird (Anthochaera carnunculata), measuring absorption of H-3-L-glucose. The K-el values estimated using the steady state feeding protocol were significantly higher, and estimates of S and bioavailability consequently lower, compared with the AUC protocol. The AUC method relies on fewer assumptions and allows simultaneous comparisons of absorption by mediated and nonmediated (i.e., paracellular) mechanisms but cannot be easily applied to freely feeding animals. The steady state feeding method allows work with smaller species and exploration of the effects of feeding on nutrient uptake but requires careful attention to the validity of assumptions that increase error in the calculations.

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

Source: InCites

Metrics

321 File views/ downloads
74 Record Views

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
International collaboration
Citation topics
1 Clinical & Life Sciences
1.249 Digestive System Disorders
1.249.1631 Intestinal Transport
Web Of Science research areas
Physiology
Zoology
ESI research areas
Plant & Animal Science
Logo image