Bile micelle binding of structurally diverse ionized drug molecules doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/admet.2802 1 ADMET & DMPK 13(4) (2025) 2802; doi: https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2802 Open Access : ISSN : 1848-7718 http://www.pub.iapchem.org/ojs/index.pH-p/admet/index Original scientific paper Bile micelle binding of structurally diverse ionized drug molecules Mayu Konishi and Kiyohiko Sugano* Molecular Pharmaceutics Lab., College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ritsumeikan University, 1-1-1, Noji-higashi, Kusatsu, Shiga 525-8577, Japan *Corresponding Authors: E-mail: suganok@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp; Tel.: +81-77-561-2773 Received: May 15, 2025; Revised: July 17, 2025; Published: July 22, 2025 Abstract Background and purpose: Predicting the food effect on oral drug absorption by physiologically based biopharmaceutical modelling (PBBM) remains challenging. The bile micelle unbound fraction (fu) is one of the primary determinants of the negative food effect for high solubility drugs. To calculate the pH-fu profile for PBBM, the bile micelle partition coefficients of ionized and un-ionized drug species (Kbm,z, z: charge) are required. The general rules for the ratio of the partition coefficients of ionized and un-ionized drug species have been reported for the octanol/water (Poct) and phosphatidylcholine liposome/water partition coefficients. However, the general rule for the bile micelle partition coefficient has not yet been investigated. The purpose of the present study was to clarify the general rule for Kbm,z≠0/Kbm,0. Experimental approach: The pH-fu profiles of 4 monovalent weak acids, 8 monovalent weak bases, 2 divalent weak bases, and 2 zwitterion drugs were measured by dynamic dialysis in the pH range about pKa ± 2. Bile micelles consisted of taurocholic acid (TC)/egg lecithin (15 mM/ 3.75 mM). Kbm,z was calculated from the pH-fu profiles. Key results: Kbm,-1/Kbm,0 was ≤ 0.03 for all monovalent acids. Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 ranged from 0.24 to 2.6. Kbm,+2/Kbm,0 was about 0.3. For the two zwitterionic drugs, Kbm,-1/Kbm,±0 was 1.1 and 2.3, and Kbm,+1/Kbm,±0 was 3.9 and 20, respectively. Kbm,0 roughly correlated with Poct (r = 0.68). Conclusion: The bile micelle binding of anionic drug species (z = -1) is generally negligible, whereas that of cationic drug species (z = +1) can be significant. A general rule for Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 was not found. Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 can be greater than 1 in several cases, suggesting an attractive electrostatic interaction between the positive charge of a drug and the negative charge of TC. These points should be considered in food effect prediction. ©2025 by the authors. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Keywords Bile micelles; ionizable drug; unbound fraction; dynamic dialysis; intestinal membrane permeation; physiologically-based biopharmaceutics modelling Introduction Oral drug absorption is affected by various gastrointestinal (GI) conditions [1]. Physiologically based bio- pharmaceutics modelling (PBBM) is anticipated to be a powerful tool to predict the effect of GI conditions on oral drug absorption. The GI conditions in the fed state differ from those in the fasted state. For example, the concentration of bile micelles (Cbm) increases about 5-fold in the fed state compared to the fasted state [2,3]. It has previously been suggested that the unbound (free) fraction (fu) of a drug in the intestinal fluid is one of the factors of the negative food effect on the oral absorption of highly soluble weak base drugs [4,5]. An increase in bile micelle binding in the fed state reduces fu, resulting in a decrease in the effective intestinal http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/admet.2802 https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2802 http://www.pub.iapchem.org/ojs/index.php/admet/index mailto:suganok@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ M. Konishi and K. Sugano ADMET & DMPK 13(4) (2025) 2802 2 permeability (Peff) and a negative food effect on oral drug absorption (cf. Peff is defined based on the total dissolved drug concentration (= bound + unbound concentrations)) [6-10]. Bile micelle-bound drug molecules diffuse across the unstirred water layer (UWL) adjacent to the epithelial membrane; however, only unbound drug molecules permeate the epithelial membrane [5]. When Peff is rate-limited by the epithelial membrane permeation, Peff ∝ fuPep (Pep: the epithelial membrane permeability of unbound drug molecules [5]). The fu value of an ionizable drug depends on the pH value, which can vary in the small intestine due to factors such as the intestinal position, postprandial conditions, and intra- and inter-individual variations. Therefore, a pH- fu profile is required for accurate food effect prediction. To calculate the pH-fu profile, the bile micelle partition coefficient (Kbm,z, z = charge) of both un-ionized (z = 0) and ionized drug species (z ≠ 0) is required. Kbm is the ratio of drug concentration in the bile micelles to the water phase, normalized by the bile micelle and water concentrations [11]. In the case of the octanol-water partition coefficient (Poct), the ratios of the partition coefficients of cationic species (Poct,+1) and anionic species (Poct,-1) to un-ionized species (Poct,0) are generally approximated to be about Poct,+1/ Poct,0 ≈ 1/1000 and Poct,-1/ Poct,0 ≈ 1/10000, respectively (in the presence of 0.15 M NaCl) [12]. In the case of the liposome-water partition coefficient of phosphatidylcholine (PC) liposomes, the ratios of the partition coefficients of cationic species (KPC,+1) and anionic species (KPC,-1) to un-ionized species (KPC,0) are generally approximated to be about KPC,+1/ KPC,0 ≈ 1/10 and KPC,-1/ KPC,0 ≈ 1/100, respectively [12-14]. However, it has been unknown whether there is such a general approximation rule for the bile micelle partition coefficient. Previously, Schwartz et al. investigated the bile micelle binding of several ionizable drugs by electrokinetic capillary chromatography at pH 7.4 and 10 [15]. It was suggested that only hydrophobic weak base drugs, such as quinine and propranolol, can interact with bile micelles. Castro et al. investigated the Kbm of atenolol, nadolol, and nitrazepam at pH 7.0 and 10.8 by spectrofluorimetry and derivative spectrophotometry [16]. In those studies, the Kbm of protonated molecular species (Kbm,+1) of atenolol and nadolol was greater than that of un-ionized species (Kbm,0). On the other hand, the Kbm of the deprotonated molecular species of nitrazepam (mono-anion) (Kbm,-1) was markedly less than Kbm,0. However, the number of drugs was not sufficient to clarify whether there is a general rule for Kbm,z≠0/Kbm,0. The purpose of the present study was to clarify whether there is a general rule for the ratio of Kbm,z≠0/Kbm,0 for structurally diverse ionizable drug molecules. Four monovalent weak acids, 8 monovalent weak bases, 2 divalent weak bases, and 2 zwitterionic drugs were employed as model drugs (Figure 1). The pH-fu profile was measured by dynamic dialysis [17,18]. The fu value was measured in the pH range of about pKa ± 2. The Kbm,z values were calculated from the pH-fu profile in the fed-state simulated intestinal fluid (FeSSIF) containing taurocholic acid (TC) (15 mM) and egg lecithin (EL) (3.75 mM) [19]. Figure 1. Chemical structures of model drugs ADMET & DMPK 13(4) (2025) 2802 Bile micelle binding of structurally diverse ionized drugs doi: https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2802 3 Table 1. Physicochemical properties of model drugs Drug MW pKa a log Poct ref Monovalent weak acid drugs Flurbiprofen 244 4.18(A) (25 °C, I = 0.16 M) 4.0 [12] Furosemide 331 3.53(A) (37 °C, I = 0.15 M) 2.6 [12] Ibuprofen 206 4.35(A) (25 °C, I = 0.15 M) 4.1 [12] Ketoprofen 254 4.00(A) (37 °C, I = 0.15 M) 3.2 [12] Monovalent weak base drugs Diphenhydramine 255 8.86(B) (37 °C, I = 0.15 M) 3.2 [12] Papaverine 339 6.22(B) (37 °C, I = 0.18 M) 3.0 [12] Propranolol 259 9.16(B) (37 °C, I = 0.15 M) 3.5 [12] Pyrimethamine 249 7.36(B) b 2.7 [20] Talinolol 363 9.4 (B) b 3.1 [21] Tamsulosin 409 8.37(B) b 2.0 [22] Verapamil 455 8.68(B) (37°C, I = 0.19 M) 4.3 [12] Vibegron 445 8.9(B) b 3.1 [23] Divalent weak base drugs Quinidine 324 4.09(B), 8.55(B) b 3.6 [12] Quinine 324 4.35 (B), 8.57 (B) (26°C, I = 0.15 M) 3.5 [12] Zwitterionic drugs Cetirizine 389 2.12(B), 2.90(A), 7.98(B) (25°C, I = 0.15 M) 1.46 c [12] Olopatadine 337 4.18 (A), 9.79 (B) b 0.34 c [24] aA: acid, B: base; bTemperature and ionic strength were not reported; cOctanol-water distribution coefficient at pH 6.5 [25]. Experimental Material Diphenhydramine hydrochloride, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, papaverine hydrochloride, propranolol hydrochlo- ride, quinidine sulphate dihydrate, quinine, sodium taurocholic acid (TC), sodium chloride, sodium dihydrogen phosphate dihydrate, 6 M HCl, and 8 M NaOH were purchased from FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation (Osaka, Japan). Cetirizine dihydrochloride, tamsulosin hydrochloride, pyrimethamine, flurbiprofen, furosemide, olopatadine hydrochloride, talinolol, and verapamil hydrochloride were purchased from Tokyo Chemical Industry Co., Ltd (Tokyo, Japan). Vibegron was extracted from the Beova tablet purchased from KYORIN Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (Tokyo, Japan). Egg yolk lecithin (EL) was purchased from Kewpie Corporation (Tokyo, Japan). A cellulose dialysis membrane (MWCO 3500) was purchased from As-One Corporation (Osaka, Japan). Methods Measurement of the unbound fraction by dynamic dialysis The fu value was measured by dynamic dialysis using a side-by-side chamber (SANPLATEC Co., Ltd, Osaka, Japan) as previously reported [25,26]. The area of the dialysis membrane was 2.0 cm2. The fluid volume was 1.5 mL in both the donor and acceptor chambers. The bile micelle media consisted of TC/EL (15 / 3.75 mM) and phosphate buffer (28.6 mM phosphate, 106 mM NaCl). The pH value was adjusted by NaOH in the range of about pKa±2 (9615S-10D Standard ToupH electrode, HORIBA Advanced Techno, Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan). A drug solution with or without bile micelles at each pH (1.5 mL) was added to the donor chamber. The initial donor concentration of each drug is shown in Supplementary material (SM) Table S1. A blank phosphate buffer solution (same pH) without a drug and bile micelles (1.5 mL) was added to the acceptor chamber. After incubation for 1.0 h at 37 °C, the drug concentration in the acceptor chamber was measured by HPLC (Shimazu Prominence LC-20 series, column: ZORBAX Eclipse Plus (C18 2.1×50 mm, 3.5 µm) (Agilent Techno- logies), flow rate: 0.6 mL min-1, column temperature: 40 °C, and injection volume of 10 µL). The mobile phase https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2802 M. Konishi and K. Sugano ADMET & DMPK 13(4) (2025) 2802 4 composition and the detection wavelength are listed in SM Table S2. The determination coefficient of the standard curves was greater than 0.999 in all cases. Permeation, % was calculated as the ratio of the concentrations in the acceptor chamber at 1.0 h and the theoretical equilibrium concentration in the absence of bile micelles (1/2 of the initial donor concentration). The unbound fraction (fu) was calculated as the ratio of permeation in the presence and absence of bile micelles. Kbm calculation The Kbm value of each charge species (Kbm,z) was calculated from the pH-fu profile [27]. For monovalent weak acid drugs (HA), the un-ionized fraction (f0) is defined by Equation (1), 0 -- + [HA] 1 1 [A ][HA]+[A ] 11+ [H ][HA] a f K = = = + (1) The unbound fraction (fu) is defined by Equation (2), - u - - [HA]+[A ] = [HA]+[A ]+[HA BM]+[A BM] f   (2) Therefore, the un-ionized unbound fraction (f0fu) becomes, Equation (3), - 0 - - - - - - - - m a bm,0 m,-1- + + W [HA] [HA]+[A ] [HA] [HA]+[A ] [HA]+[A ]+[HA BM]+[A BM] [HA]+[A ] [HA BM]+[A BM] 1 1 [A ] [HA BM] [A ] [A BM] 1 1 [HA] [HA] [HA] [A ] [H ] [H ] u a b b f f K C K K K C =  = =   +   = =     + + + + + +    (3) where BM is bile micelles, Cbm is the concentration of BM (mol/L) (in this study, 0.015 mol/L), and CW is the concentration of water (55.5 mol L-1) [11]. The fu value can be calculated by dividing Eq. (3) by Eq. (1). Similarly, for monovalent weak base drugs (B), Equations (4) and (5) 0 + ++ a [B] 1 1 [BH ] [H ][B] [BH ] 1 1 [B] f K = = = + + + (4) 0 u + + + + bm bm,0 m,+1 a W a [B] 1 [B] [BH ] [B BM] [BH BM] [H ] [H ] 1 + b f f C K K K C K = = + +  +    + +     (5) For divalent weak base drugs with pKa1 and pKa2 (B) (pKa1 < pKa2), Equations (6) and (7), 0 + + 2 ++ ++ + 22 + a1 a2 a2 [B] 1 1 [BH ] [H ] [H ][BH ] [BH ][BH ] [BH ] [B] 11 [BH ] [B] [B] f K K K = = = + + + ++ + (6) 0 u + + 2 2 2 2 + 2 + + 2 + bm bm,+2 bm,+1 bm,0 a1 a2 a2 W a1 a2 a2 [B] [BH ] [BH ] [B] [BH BM] [BH BM] [B BM] 1 [H ] [B ] [H ] [H ] 1 + + K f f C K K K K K K C K K = = + + +  +  +  =   + + +     (7) For zwitterion drugs with pKa1 and pKa2 (D) (pKa1 < pKa2), Equations (8) and (9), ADMET & DMPK 13(4) (2025) 2802 Bile micelle binding of structurally diverse ionized drugs doi: https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2802 5 0 + - ++ - a2 + a1 [D] 1 1 [DH ] [D ] [H ][DH ] [D] [D ] 1 1 [D] [D] [H ] f K K = = = + + + + + + (8) 0 u + - + + + a2 bm a2 bm,+1 bm,0 m,-1+ + a1 W a1 [D] [DH ] [D] [D ] [DH BM] [D BM] [D BM] 1 [H ] [H ] 1 + + [H ] [H ] b f f K C K K K K K C K − = = + + +  +  +  =   + + +     (9) The Kbm,z values can be obtained by fitting the theoretical pH-fu curve to experimentally observed data by the least squares method using the Excel solver. Because the fu was measured at 37 °C, the pKa value at 37 °C (pKa(37 °C)) was used for the calculation when available in the literature. The pKa value at 25 °C can be converted to pKa(37 °C) by the Abraham linear free energy relationship [28]. However, the Abraham solute descriptor was not available for some drugs. In addition, the temperature was not reported. Therefore, in these cases, the reported values were used as it is. [H+] was calculated as 10-pH, neglecting the effect of ionic strength (I) (about 0.1 pH unit) and the electrode factors [12]. Results and discussion Permeation and fu values at each pH are summarized in SM Table S1. Since the fu value becomes sensitive to the variation in permeation at fu > 0.9, they were not used for the following data analysis. Monovalent weak acid drugs Figure 2 shows the pH-fu profiles of monovalent weak acid drugs. The theoretical equations (Eqs. (1) to (3)) appropriately described the pH-fu profiles. The Kbm,z values are summarized in Table 2. Figure 2. pH-fu profile of monovalent weak acids in the TC/EL bile micelle media (mean ± standard deviation (SD), N = 3). The solid line is the fitted theoretical curve f u f u f u f u https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2802 M. Konishi and K. Sugano ADMET & DMPK 13(4) (2025) 2802 6 Table 2. Kbm values of monovalent weak acid drugs in the TC/EL bile micelle media (mean ± SD, N = 3) Drug Kbm,0 Kbm,-1 Kbm,-1 / Kbm,0 Flurbiprofen 3.93 ± 0.14 × 104 1.14 ± 0.07 × 103 0.03 Furosemide 3.80 ± 0.04 × 103 < 1.00 ×102 <0.03 Ibuprofen 2.29 ± 0.18 × 104 5.33 ± 1.16 × 102 0.02 Ketoprofen 3.91 ± 0.12 × 103 < 1.00 × 102 <0.03 In the case of monovalent weak acid drugs, the bile micelle binding decreased as pH increased (the fu value increased as a drug became ionized at pH > pKa (deprotonated)) (Figure 2). The Kbm,-1/Kbm,0 ratio was ≤ 0.03 for all weak acid drugs (Table 2). Like the cases of Poct and Kpc, the bile micelle binding of anionic molecular species (z = -1) is negligibly small compared to un-ionized molecular species (z = 0). The negatively charged moiety of a drug can be energetically unfavourable for partitioning to both the hydrophobic core region and the negatively charged head group region of the bile micelles (Figure 3A). Figure 3. Interactions between the charged moiety of a drug and bile micelles. R-COO-: ionized (deprotonated) carboxylic group, R-NH+: ionized (protonated) amino group. Monovalent weak base drugs Figure 4 shows the pH-fu profiles of monovalent weak base drugs. The theoretical equations (Eqs. (4) and (5)) appropriately described the pH-fu profiles. The Kbm,z values are summarized in Table 3. Figure 4. pH-fu profile of monovalent weak bases in the TC/EL bile micelle media (mean ± SD, N = 3). The solid line is the fitted theoretical curve In the case of monovalent weak base drugs, the fu value either increased or decreased as pH decreased (Figure 3). The Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 ratio ranged from 0.24 to 2.6 (Table 3), unlike the cases of octanol and PC liposome partitioning (Poct,+1/Poct,0 ≈ 0.001, KPC,+1/KPC,0 ≈ 0.1) [12-14]. Structurally diverse cationic molecular species (z = +1) can bind to bile micelles. However, no general rule was found for Kbm,+1/Kbm,0. Therefore, Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 is not simply explained by ionic interaction. The positively charged moiety of a drug can be energetically unfavourable for partitioning to the hydrophobic core region of bile micelles; however, favourable for partitioning to the negatively charged head group region of bile micelles (Figure 3B). f u f u f u f u f u f u f u f u ADMET & DMPK 13(4) (2025) 2802 Bile micelle binding of structurally diverse ionized drugs doi: https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2802 7 Table 3. Kbm values of monovalent weak base drugs in the TC/EL bile micelle media (mean ± SD, N = 3) Drug Kbm,0 Kbm, +1 Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 Diphenhydramine 5.40 ± 0.34 × 103 2.30 ± 0.04 × 103 0.43 Papaverine 3.91 ± 0.16 × 103 1.52 ± 0.03 × 103 0.39 Propranolol 9.66 ± 0.20 × 103 9.64 ± 0.40 × 103 1.00 Pyrimethamine 4.61 ± 0.27 × 103 1.66 ± 0.16 × 103 0.36 Talinolol 4.75 ± 1.00 × 102 1.19 ± 0.11 × 103 2.60 Tamsulosin 5.42 ± 1.29 × 102 5.89 ± 0.39 × 102 1.13 Verapamil 1.60 ± 0.02 × 104 3.87 ± 0.23 × 103 0.24 Vibegron 1.67 ± 0.06 × 103 5.80 ± 1.80 × 102 0.35 The balance of these two factors can determine the Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 value. In the case of Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 > 1.0, the sulfonate group of taurocholates (R-SO3 -) and the ammonium moiety of a drug (R3NH+) might have a strong attractive electrostatic interaction [29]. However, in the cases of Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 < 1.0, the cationic charge is less favourable for partitioning into the hydrophobic core region of bile micelles. In the present study, Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 of propranolol and talinolol were ≥ 1.0 (1.0 and 2.6, respectively). Previously, Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 of atenolol and nadolol in deoxycholate/EL micelles were also reported to be > 1.0 (1.3 and 1.7, respectively) [16]. For β- blockers, Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 may be generally ≥ 1.0. Divalent weak bases Figure 5 shows the pH-fu profiles of divalent weak base drugs. The theoretical equations (Eqs. (6) and (7)) appropriately described the pH-fu profiles. The Kbm,z values are summarized in Table 4. In the case of the divalent weak base drugs (quinidine and quinine), the bile micelle binding decreased (the fu value increased) step by step with decreasing pH below each pKa (Figure 4). The Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 and Kbm,+2/Kbm,0 ratios were about 0.8 to 0.9 and 0.3, respectively (Table 4). In these cases, the first and second positive charges are both unfavourable for bile micelle binding. The Kbm values of quinidine and quinine are almost the same, suggesting that diastereomers may show similar Kbm values, even though TC and EL are chiral. Figure 5. pH-fu profile of divalent weak base drugs in the TC/EL bile micelle media (mean ± S.D., N = 3). The solid line is the fitted theoretical curve Table 4. Kbm values of divalent base drugs in the TC/EL bile micelle media (mean ± S.D., N = 3) Drug Kbm,0 Kbm,+1 Kbm,+2 Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 Kbm,+2/Kbm,0 Quinidine 1.47 ± 0.08 × 103 1.15 ± 0.03 × 103 3.75 ± 1.23 × 102 0.79 0.26 Quinine 1.58 ± 0.07 × 103 1.47 ± 0.02 × 103 5.27 ± 0.43 × 102 0.93 0.34 Zwitterionic drugs Figure 6 shows the pH-fu profiles of zwitterionic drugs. The theoretical equations (Eqs. (8) and (9)) appropriately described the pH-fu profiles. The Kbm,z values are summarized in Table 5. In the case of the zwitterionic drugs (cetirizine and olopatadine), the anionic (z = -1) and cationic (z = +1) species were bound to bile micelles greater than the zwitterionic species (z = ±0). f u f u https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2802 M. Konishi and K. Sugano ADMET & DMPK 13(4) (2025) 2802 8 Figure 6. pH-fu profile of zwitterionic drugs in the TC/EL bile micelle medium (mean ± SD, N = 3). The solid line is the fitted theoretical curve Table 5. Kbm values of zwitterionic drugs in the TC/EL bile micelle media (mean ± S.D., N = 3) Drug Kbm,±0 Kbm,-1 Kbm,+1 Kbm,-1/Kbm,±0 Kbm,+1/Kbm,±0 Cetirizinea 5.34 ± 0.33 × 103 5.77 ± 0.61 × 103 2.09 ± 0.10 × 104 1.09 3.93 Olopatadinea 5.47 ± 0.38 × 102 1.26 ± 0.15 × 103 1.11 ± 0.04 × 104 2.33 20.5 a See text for the explanation of z = ±0. The equilibrium of zwitterionic drugs is expressed by Equation (10), COOHHN+ COO-NH+ + COOHN COO-N (10) where COOH is a carboxylic group, and N is an amino group. In the pH region of pKa1 (acid) < pH < pKa2 (base), these drugs can exist as un-ionized (z = 0, COOH∙N) and zwitterionic species (z = ±0, COO-∙NH+), the latter being predominant [30,31]. The zwitterionic form contains both negative (z = -1) and positive (z = +1) charge moieties. In cetirizine and olopatadine, these two moieties are distant from each other and not electrically conjugated. The negatively charged moiety can be energetically unfavourable for partitioning to both the hydrophobic core region and the negatively charged head group region of the bile micelle. On the other hand, the positively charged moiety can be energetically unfavourable for partitioning to the hydrophobic core region; however, favourable for partitioning to the negatively charged head group region. The balance of these factors determines the Kbm,z/ Kbm,±0 value. Kbm,+1/Kbm,±0 was 3.9 and 20 for cetirizine and olopatadine, respectively (Table 4). These values are greater than the Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 value for monovalent weak base drugs (0.24 to 2.6). When changing pH from pH < pKa1 to pH > pKa1, a negative charge is added to the cationic species. (i.e. z = +1 + (-1) = ±0). The large Kbm,+1/Kbm,±0 values suggested that the addition of a negative charge is markedly unfavourable for the bile micelle partitioning, like the cases of monovalent weak acids. Kbm,+1/ Kbm,±0 can be rearranged as Equation (11) bm,+1 bm,+1 bm,0 bm,±0 bm,0 bm,±0 K K K K K K = (11) Therefore, Equation (12) bm,0 bm,+1 bm,±0 bm,±0 bm,0 bm,+1 K K K K K K = (12) If the average Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 value for monovalent weak base drugs (0.81) is applied to Eq. 12, Kbm,0/Kbm,±0 becomes 0.21 and 0.041 for cetirizine and olopatadine, respectively. This may suggest that, for bile micelle binding, the zwitterionic species (z = ±0, COO--NH+) is significantly less favourable than the un-ionized species (z = 0, COOH-N). However, a more detailed investigation is required to conclude this point [13]. The Kbm,-1/Kbm,±0 ratios were also greater than 1.0 (1.1 and 2.3 for cetirizine and olopatadine, respectively). The removal of one positive charge from the zwitterion (i.e. z = ±0 - (+ 1) = -1) by changing pH from pH < pKa2 to f u f u ADMET & DMPK 13(4) (2025) 2802 Bile micelle binding of structurally diverse ionized drugs doi: https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2802 9 pH > pKa2 increased the bile micelle partitioning for these drugs. As discussed above, the removal of a positive charge from a drug can be both favourable and unfavourable for bile micelle partitioning, in this case, favourable. Relationship between Kbm,0 and Poct Previously, Glomme et al. [11] reported a good correlation between Kbm,0 and Poct,0 (logKbm,0 = 0.74 logPoct,0 + + 2.29). In that study, Kbm,0 was obtained from the solubility data in bile micelle media for poorly soluble un- ionizable drugs. However, in the present study, only a poor correlation was found between Kbm,0 and Poct,0 (logKbm,0 = 0.62 logPoct,0 + 1.55, r = 0.68) (Figure 7). The slope and intercept deviated from the previous report. The reason for this discrepancy is not clear. For high solubility drugs, it is difficult to measure fu from the solubility values in bile micelle media. Therefore, dynamic dialysis was used in the present study. This might be one of the reasons for the discrepancy. log Poct Figure 7. Correlation between log Poct,0 and log Kbm,0 for TC/EL bile micelles. Solid line: the fitted line in this study, dotted line: the correlation line previously reported by Glomme et al. [11] Suggestions for food effect prediction by PBBM The results of this study suggested that, when predicting the food effect for highly soluble weak acid drugs, Kbm,-1 can be negligible. In contrast, for highly soluble weak base drugs, Kbm,+1 should be considered. It was previously reported that the fu value at pH 6.5 correlated with the clinical negative food effect for high solubility weak base drugs [4]. At pH 6.5, a weak base drug with pKa > 7.5 mainly exists as cationic species (> 90%). It was recently reported that quaternary ammonium compounds (permanent cations) can also bind to bile micelles [25,26]. Since there is no general rule for Kbm,+1/Kbm,0, Kbm,+1, and Kbm,0 should be experimentally measured from the pH-fu profile. The oral absorption of quinine is reduced by bile micelles in vivo [32], in good agreement with the result of this study. At pH 6.5, quinine mainly exists as z = +1 species. The fu values of the zwitterionic drugs (z = ±0) are less than 1 at pH 6.5, in good agreement with the negative food effect [25], suggesting that Kbm,±0 should also be considered. Dynamic dialysis would be a suitable tool to measure fu for high solubility drugs [33]. Conclusions The bile micelle partitioning of anionic species (z = -1) of highly soluble weak acid drugs was negligible. On the other hand, Kbm,+1 /Kbm,0 ranged from 0.24 to 2.6 for highly soluble weak base drugs. In about half of the cases, the mono-cationic species (z = +1) were bound to bile micelles equal to or greater than the un-ionized species (Kbm,+1/Kbm,0 ≥ 1.0). Di-cationic (z = +2) and zwitterionic species (z = ±0) also bound to the bile micelles to some extent. Therefore, the bile micelle binding of z=+1, +2 and ±0 species should be considered in food effect prediction. lo g K b m ,0 https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2802 M. Konishi and K. Sugano ADMET & DMPK 13(4) (2025) 2802 10 Funding: No funding support Conflict of interest: The Author(s) declare(s) that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Author contributions: Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Mayu Konishi. Kiyohiko Sugano supervised all phases of the study, including the manuscript writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Data availability: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on request. References [1] D.M. Mudie, G.L. Amidon, G.E. Amidon. Physiological parameters for oral delivery and in vitro testing. Molecular Pharmaceutics 7 (2010) 1388-1405. https://doi.org/10.1021/mp100149j [2] D. Riethorst, R. Mols, G. Duchateau, J. Tack, J. Brouwers, P. Augustijns. Characterization of Human Duodenal Fluids in Fasted and Fed State Conditions. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 105 (2016) 673-681. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.24603 [3] L.G.A.-A. Santos, H. Musther, N. Bala, N. Deferm, G. Patel, J. Brouwers, D.B. Turner. Gastrointestinal Bile Salt Concentrations in Healthy Adults Under Fasted and Fed Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Mechanistic Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modelling. The AAPS Journal 27 (2025) 31. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-025-01016-x [4] Y. Akiyama, S. Ito, T. Fujita, K. Sugano. Prediction of negative food effect induced by bile micelle binding on oral absorption of hydrophilic cationic drugs. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 155 (2020) 105543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2020.105543 [5] K. Sugano, M. Kataoka, C. da Costa Mathews, S. Yamashita. Prediction of food effect by bile micelles on oral drug absorption considering free fraction in intestinal fluid. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 40 (2010) 118-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2010.03.011 [6] B. Wuyts, D. Riethorst, J. Brouwers, J. Tack, P. Annaert, P. Augustijns. Evaluation of fasted and fed state simulated and human intestinal fluids as solvent system in the Ussing chambers model to explore food effects on intestinal permeability. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 478 (2015) 736-744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2014.12.021 [7] B. Wuyts, D. Riethorst, J. Brouwers, J. Tack, P. Annaert, P. Augustijns. Evaluation of fasted state human intestinal fluid as apical solvent system in the Caco-2 absorption model and comparison with FaSSIF. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 67 (2015) 126-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2014.11.010 [8] T. Yamaguchi, C. Ikeda, Y. Sekine. Intestinal Absorption of β-Adrenergic Blocking Agent Nadolol. I.: Comparison of Absorption Behaivor of Nadolol with Those of Other β-Blocking Agents in Rats. Chemical and Pharmaceutical Bulletin 34 (1986) 3362-3369. https://doi.org/10.1248/cpb.34.3362 [9] F.G.J. Poelma, R. Breäs, J.J. Tukker, D.J.A. Crommelin. Intestinal Absorption of Drugs. The Influence of Mixed Micelles on on the Disappearance Kinetics of Drugs from the Small Intestine of the Rat. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 43 (1991) 317-324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042- 7158.1991.tb06697.x [10] F. Ingels, B. Beck, M. Oth, P. Augustijns. Effect of simulated intestinal fluid on drug permeability estimation across Caco-2 monolayers. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 274 (2004) 221-232 [11] A. Glomme, J. Mrz, J.B. Dressman. Predicting the Intestinal Solubility of Poorly Soluble Drugs. in: B. Testa, S.D. Krmer, H. Wunderli-Allenspach, G. Folkers (Eds.), Pharmacokinetic Profiling in Drug Research, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany, 2006: pp. 259-280. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783906390468.ch16 [12] A. Avdeef. Absorption and Drug Development: Solubility, Permeability, and Charge State, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118286067 [13] G.P. van Balen, G. Caron, G. Ermondi, A. Pagliara, T. Grandi, G. Bouchard, R. Fruttero, P.-A. Carrupt, B. Testa. Lipophilicity behaviour of the zwitterionic antihistamine cetirizine in phosphatidylcholine https://doi.org/10.1021/mp100149j https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.24603 https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-025-01016-x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2020.105543 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2010.03.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2014.12.021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2014.11.010 https://doi.org/10.1248/cpb.34.3362 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7158.1991.tb06697.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7158.1991.tb06697.x https://doi.org/10.1002/9783906390468.ch16 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118286067 ADMET & DMPK 13(4) (2025) 2802 Bile micelle binding of structurally diverse ionized drugs doi: https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2802 11 liposomes/water systems. Pharmaceutical Research 18 (2001) 694-701. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011049830615 [14] A. Avdeef, K.J. Box, J.E.A. Comer, C. Hibbert, K.Y. Tam. pH-Metric logP 10. Determination of liposomal membrane-water partition coefficients of lonizable drugs. Pharmaceutical Research 15 (1998) 209- 215. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011954332221 [15] M.A. Schwarz, R.H.H. Neubert, G. Dongowski. Characterization of interactions between bile salts and drugs by micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatography. Part I. Pharmaceutical Research 13 (1996) 1174-1180. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016051917608 [16] B.D. Castro, P. Gameiro, C. Guimarães, J.L.F.C. Lima, S. Reis. Partition coefficients of β-blockers in bile salt/lecithin micelles as a tool to assess the role of mixed micelles in gastrointestinal absorption. Biophysical Chemistry 90 (2001) 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4622(01)00126-0 [17] S. Modi, B.D. Anderson. Determination of drug release kinetics from nanoparticles: overcoming pitfalls of the dynamic dialysis method. Molecular Pharmaceutics 10 (2013) 3076-3089. https://doi.org/10.1021/mp400154a [18] K. Yano, Y. Masaoka, M. Kataoka, S. Sakuma, S. Yamashita. Mechanisms of membrane transport of poorly soluble drugs: role of micelles in oral absorption processes. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 99 (2010) 1336-1345. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.21919 [19] A. Fuchs, M. Leigh, B. Kloefer, J.B. Dressman. Advances in the design of fasted state simulating intestinal fluids: FaSSIF-V3. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics 94 (2015) 229- 240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpb.2015.05.015 [20] K. Box, J. Comer. Using Measured pKa, LogP and Solubility to Investigate Supersaturation and Predict BCS Class. Current Drug Metabolism 9 (2008) 869-878. https://doi.org/10.2174/138920008786485155 [21] T. Gramatté, R. Oertel, B. Terhaag, W. Kirch. Direct demonstration of small intestinal secretion and site-dependent absorption of the β-blocker talinolol in humans. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 59 (1996) 541-549. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9236(96)90182-4 [22] Astellas Pharma Inc. Tamsulosin Drug Product Infomation. https://amn.astellas.jp/common/pdfviewer.html/content/dam/jp/amn/jp/ja/di/doc/Pdfs/DocNo202 412103_y.pdf. [23] KYORIN Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Beova Drug Product information. https://www.kyorin- pharm.co.jp/prodinfo/medicine/pdf/i_beova.pdf. [24] Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd. Olopatadine Drug Product Information. https://medical.kyowakirin.co.jp/site/drugpdf/interv/alk_in.pdf. [25] R. Takeuchi, K. Sugano. Food and bile micelle binding of zwitterionic antihistamine drugs. ADMET and DMPK 12 (2024) 649-656. https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2454 [26] T. Sumiji, K. Sugano. Food and bile micelle binding of quaternary ammonium compounds. ADMET and DMPK 11 (2023) 409-417. https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2023 [27] K. Sugano. Biopharmaceutics modeling and simulations: theory, practice, methods, and applications, John Wiley & Sons, 2012. ISBN: 978-1-118-35432-2 [28] N. Sun, A. Avdeef. Biorelevant pK a (37°C) predicted from the 2D structure of the molecule and its pK a at 25°C. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 56 (2011) 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2011.05.007 [29] S. Reis, C.G. Moutinho, E. Pereira, B. de Castro, P. Gameiro, J.L. Lima. β-Blockers and benzodiazepines location in SDS and bile salt micellar systems: an ESR study. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 45 (2007) 62-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2007.05.023 [30] A. Pagliara, P.A. Carrupt, G. Caron, P. Gaillard, B. Testa. Lipophilicity profiles of ampholytes. Chemical Reviews 97 (1997) 3385-3400. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr9601019 [31] A. Ebert, C. Dahley. Can membrane permeability of zwitterionic compounds be predicted by the solubility diffusion model? European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (2024) 106819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2024.106819 https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2802 https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011049830615 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011954332221 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016051917608 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4622(01)00126-0 https://doi.org/10.1021/mp400154a https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.21919 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpb.2015.05.015 https://doi.org/10.2174/138920008786485155 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9236(96)90182-4 https://amn.astellas.jp/common/pdfviewer.html/content/dam/jp/amn/jp/ja/di/doc/Pdfs/DocNo202412103_y.pdf https://amn.astellas.jp/common/pdfviewer.html/content/dam/jp/amn/jp/ja/di/doc/Pdfs/DocNo202412103_y.pdf https://www.kyorin-pharm.co.jp/prodinfo/medicine/pdf/i_beova.pdf https://www.kyorin-pharm.co.jp/prodinfo/medicine/pdf/i_beova.pdf https://medical.kyowakirin.co.jp/site/drugpdf/interv/alk_in.pdf https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2454 https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2011.05.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2007.05.023 https://doi.org/10.1021/cr9601019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2024.106819 M. Konishi and K. Sugano ADMET & DMPK 13(4) (2025) 2802 12 [32] G. Dongowski, B. Fritzsch, J. Giessler, A. Härtl, O. Kuhlmann, R.H.H. Neubert. The influence of bile salts and mixed micelles on the pharmacokinetics of quinine in rabbits. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics 60 (2005) 147-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpb.2005.01.003 [33] F.L. Holzem, R.L. Mikkelsen, J.P. Schaffland, C. Stillhart, M. Brandl, A. Bauer-Brandl. A high- throughput micro-scale workflow to quantify molecularly dissolved drug concentrations under solubilizing conditions. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 114 (2025) 1485-1494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2024.12.027 ©2025 by the authors; licensee IAPC, Zagreb, Croatia. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpb.2005.01.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2024.12.027 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/