Cited by 252Drug Solubulity and Delivery SystemsDrug Transport and Resistance MechanismsComputational Drug Discovery Methods

PAMPA—critical factors for better predictions of absorption

Avdeef, Alex, Bendels, Stefanie, Di, L.i., Faller, Bernard, Kansy, Manfred, Sugano, Kiyohiko, Yamauchi, Yukinori·2007·Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Abstract

PAMPA, log P(OCT), and Caco-2 are useful tools in drug discovery for the prediction of oral absorption, brain penetration and for the development of structure-permeability relationships. Each approach has its advantages and limitations. Selection criteria for methods are based on many different factors: predictability, throughput, cost and personal preferences (people factor). The PAMPA concerns raised by Galinis-Luciani et al. (Galinis-Luciani et al., 2007, J Pharm Sci, this issue) are answered by experienced PAMPA practitioners, inventors and developers from diverse research organizations. Guidelines on how to use PAMPA are discussed. PAMPA and PAMPA-BBB have much better predictivity for oral absorption and brain penetration than log P(OCT) for real-world drug discovery compounds. PAMPA and Caco-2 have similar predictivity for passive oral absorption. However, it is not advisable to use PAMPA to predict absorption involving transporter-mediated processes, such as active uptake or efflux. Measurement of PAMPA is much more rapid and cost effective than Caco-2 and log P(OCT). PAMPA assay conditions are critical in order to generate high quality and relevant data, including permeation time, assay pH, stirring, use of cosolvents and selection of detection techniques. The success of using PAMPA in drug discovery depends on careful data interpretation, use of optimal assay conditions, implementation and integration strategies, and education of users.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jps.21068

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Avdeef, A., Bendels, S., Di, L. I., Faller, B., Kansy, M., Sugano, K., & Yamauchi, Y.
Affiliations
  • F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (CH)
  • Wyeth (US)
  • Novartis (Switzerland) (CH)
  • Pfizer (Japan) (JP)
Corresponding author
Avdeef, Alex
Venue
Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-11
Volume
96
Issue
11
Pages
2893-2909
ISSN
0022-3549 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2168642149
Cited by
240
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 16
FWCI
11.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Drug Solubulity and Delivery Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Drug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
Pampas, Caco-2 cells, brain penetration, structure-permeability relationship, passive diffusion, assay conditions, cosolvents, drug discovery
MeSH terms
Pharmaceutical Preparations, Humans, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Intestinal Absorption, Jejunum, Membranes, Artificial, Pharmacokinetics, Structure-Activity Relationship, Caco-2 Cells

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review