Plan measurements and estimate intestinal permeability and gut/liver clearance without confounding them with system geometry, volume loss or donor activity.
Model & Design
Compartmental parent/metabolite ordinary differential equations for apical, basal and hepatic media; worked example is midazolam and 1′-hydroxymidazolam.
Experimental Format
Structural-identifiability assessment, uncertainty propagation, dynamic sensitivity analysis and simulation–estimation verification under constrained sampling.
Model Components
Component
Prior inputs
Description
Permeability and intestinal/hepatic clearance from existing assays; device area/volume/flow, donor activity, analytical quantification limits and uncertainty.
Component
Reported software
Description
DAISY for identifiability; R/RxODE simulations and ODEsensitivity analysis; Phoenix with RsNLME for fitting. The published implementation includes commercial fitting software.
Measurements & Endpoints
Parent/metabolite concentration–time profiles
Time-varying parameter sensitivity
Recovered permeability and clearance
Relative root mean squared error
Absolute average fold error
Analysis
Distinguish same-donor priors, activity-scaled different-donor data and unknown-donor distributions. Include sampling/evaporation volume changes. Verify selected times with simulated observations, then assess the fitted model against actual data before translation.
Published Evidence
Study Design
Midazolam worked example with five target parameters and an optimized versus shortened liver-sampling schedule.
Study Sample
2,500 simulated profiles; 100 selected experiments for parameter recovery, with three replicate analyses and 15% added residual variability. Reference activity datasets contained 128 hepatocyte and 24 enterocyte donors, with enzyme-specific missingness.
Comparison
Optimized final liver sample at 24 hours versus eight hours, with other sampling times held unchanged.
Finding
Optimized relative parameter errors were ≤32%. Metabolite hepatic-clearance relative error increased from 32% to 75% and absolute average fold error from 1.2 to 3.2 with the shortened liver schedule.
Interpretation & Limits
Verification uses synthetic observations and the generating model structure.
The example does not establish wet-lab or clinical accuracy.
Sampling design depends on drug, donor activity, device and quantification limits.
Commercial software and specific prior inputs were used.
A Roche–Manchester tutorial uses mechanistic simulations to plan gut–liver chip experiments. Its midazolam example shows that sampling sufficient for parent-drug parameters can still give poor estimates of metabolite clearance, with verification performed on simulated experiments.