Comparison of chromatographic and spectroscopic methods used to rank compounds for aqueous solubility

Rapid methods for ranking the solubility of compounds in aqueous media using commercial, 96‐well ultraviolet–visible (UV–vis) and nephelometric plate readers are described. The methods were evaluated using commercially available compounds from a variety of structural classes as well as a series of s...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of pharmaceutical sciences Vol. 90; no. 4; pp. 521 - 529
Main Authors Pan, Lin, Ho, Quynh, Tsutsui, Ken, Takahashi, Lori
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York Elsevier Inc 01.04.2001
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Wiley
American Pharmaceutical Association
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Rapid methods for ranking the solubility of compounds in aqueous media using commercial, 96‐well ultraviolet–visible (UV–vis) and nephelometric plate readers are described. The methods were evaluated using commercially available compounds from a variety of structural classes as well as a series of structurally related compounds derived from combinatorial synthesis. Samples were predissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and then added to the study solvent to attain a final concentration of DMSO in the aqueous solution of 5%. Comparison of filtration of the samples through nylon and poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE) membranes is also described. The solubility of the compounds determined using the UV–vis plate reader in the absorption mode (with samples filtered with the PTFE filter) as well as in the light scattering mode was in good agreement with that determined by high‐performance liquid chromatography, with an average correlation of 0.95. Solubility data obtained using a 96‐well nephelometer was also comparable (r2 = 0.97). The nonequilibrium methods described in this study can be used to rapidly rank compounds from combinatorial libraries for solubility and can also give a general assessment of solubility prior to running additional high throughput screens in a drug discovery environment. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. and the American Pharmaceutical Association J Pharm Sci 90:521–529, 2001
Bibliography:istex:AB8EE10C2EF50B9FEFA664884BC44E81F88C25B5
ark:/67375/WNG-QPX0FCJK-7
ArticleID:JPS1009
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0022-3549
1520-6017
DOI:10.1002/1520-6017(200104)90:4<521::AID-JPS1009>3.0.CO;2-B