Method Profile

Mechanistic Simulation and Sensitivity Analysis for Gut–Liver Chip Sampling Design

Use prior drug and donor information to select informative sampling times in a multicompartment gut–liver chip model.

Multiple OrgansComputational Models
Roche campus towers and construction cranes seen across the Rhine in Basel.
The Roche campus in Basel, photographed in May 2022. (Oporinus, CC BY-SA 4.0)

Research Applications

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.

Sources

  1. In silico modeling and simulation of organ‐on‐a‐chip systems to support data analysis and a priori experimental design. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology. 2024-02-14. DOI: 10.1002/psp4.13110. ↗