Anatomical and physiological parameters affecting gastrointestinal absorption in humans and rats
Abstract
Anatomical and physiological parameters of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract dramatically affect the rate and extent of absorption of ingested compounds. These parameters must be considered by nutritionists, pharmacologists and toxicologists when describing or modeling absorption. Likewise, interspecies extrapolation (e.g. from rat to human) requires species-to-species comparison of these parameters. The present paper (1) describes the alimentary canal and the barrier to absorption; (2) relates the major sites of absorption; (3) compares the dimensions and surface areas of human and rat intestinal tracts; (4) discusses motility of the gut and transit times through regions of the alimentary canal; (5) explains how luminal contents are altered by physical, chemical and metabolic processes; and (6) describes the flow of blood and lymph from the GI tract to the systemic circulation, including the enterohepatic circulation. Despite strong morphological similarities between humans and rats at the microscopic level, gross anatomical differences in the relative absorptive surface areas provide a basis for concluding that the human GI tract is capable of absorbing materials faster and to a greater extent than that of the rat. Differences in the environment of the GI lumen of the two species make it possible to infer which substances are more likely to be present in a dissolved/non-ionized state for each species. Taken together, these differences may be of sufficient magnitude to alter the assessment of risks/benefits for a given compound when those risks/benefits are based on interspecies extrapolations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
PAMPA blood-brain barrier controls yielded similar permeability measures as previously reported.
“Verapamil, corticosterone and theophylline were controls for high, intermediate and low permeability, respectively, and yielded similar permeability measures as previously reported [35,39].”
From Polyphenol Microbial Metabolites Exhibit Gut and Blood–Brain Barrier Permeability and Protect Murine Microglia against LPS-Induced Inflammation (2019) · cites this paper as [35]
While many other factors contribute to blood-brain barrier permeability, such as plasma concentration, plasma binding, and metabolic modifications by barrier enzymes, PAMPA is a good predictor of passive movement across the blood-brain barrier.
“While there are many other factors that contribute to BBB permeability, such as plasma concentration, plasma binding, and metabolic modifications by barrier enzymes, PAMPA is a good predictor of passive movement across the BBB [35,46].”
From Polyphenol Microbial Metabolites Exhibit Gut and Blood–Brain Barrier Permeability and Protect Murine Microglia against LPS-Induced Inflammation (2019) · cites this paper as [35]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chromium in Drinking Water: Sources, Metabolism, and Cancer Risks
Zhitkovich, A. (2011) · Chemical Research in Toxicology · doi:10.1021/tx200251t · Cited by 1,132 · see citing works
Gut-on-a-Chip microenvironment induces human intestinal cells to undergo villus differentiation
Kim, H. J., & Ingber, D. E. (2013) · Integrative Biology · doi:10.1039/c3ib40126j · Cited by 750 · see citing works
Hatton, G. B., Yadav, V., Basit, A. W., & Merchant, H. A. (2015) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · doi:10.1002/jps.24365 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Enteric coating of oral solid dosage forms as a tool to improve drug bioavailability
Maderuelo, C., Lanao, J. M., & Zarzuelo, A. (2019) · European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ejps.2019.105019 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
On being the right size: scaling effects in designing a human-on-a-chip
Moraes, C., Labuz, J. M., Leung, B. M., Inoue, M., Chun, T.-H., & Takayama, S. (2013) · Integrative Biology · doi:10.1039/c3ib40040a · Cited by 134 · see citing works
McKim, J. M. (2014) · Critical Reviews in Toxicology · doi:10.3109/10408444.2013.861797 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Johnson, S. L., Kirk, R. D., DaSilva, N. A., Ma, H., Seeram, N. P., & Bertin, M. J. (2019) · Metabolites · doi:10.3390/metabo9040078 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Martin, F.-P. J., Wang, Y., Sprenger, N., Holmes, E., Lindon, J. C., Kochhar, S., & Nicholson, J. K. (2007) · Journal of Proteome Research · doi:10.1021/pr060596a · Cited by 87 · see citing works
- Authors
- DeSesso, J. M., & Jacobson, C. F.
- Corresponding author
- DeSesso, J.M
- ORCID
- DeSesso, J.M
- Venue
- Food and Chemical Toxicology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 209-228
- ISSN
- 0278-6915 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2022898836
- Cited by
- 528
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 28
- FWCI
- 0.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Food and Chemical Toxicology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Air Force Research Laboratory
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Drug Solubulity and Delivery Systems
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
- Keywords
- gastrointestinal absorption, interspecies extrapolation, human-rat comparison, intestinal surface area, intestinal motility, gastrointestinal transit time, luminal contents, enterohepatic circulation, risk assessment
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Gastric Mucosa, Gastrointestinal Motility, Humans, Intestinal Absorption, Rats
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