Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Physical-chemical properties of chenodeoxycholic acid and ursodeoxycholic acid

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Gastroenterologia Japonica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

It is now relatively well established that chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA) and ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), which are 7-OH epimer, are cholesterol gallstone dissolving agent.

We investigated physical-chemical properties of CDCA and UDCA with respect to critical micellar concentration (CMC), micellar molecular weight (MMW) and solubilizing power of cholesterol.

CMCs of CDCA and UDCA, measured by surface tension method, were 3.6 mM and 6.4 mM respectively.

Light scattering technique revealed the MMW as 7700 in CDCA and 7400 in UDCA of only one molecule’s difference per micelle in the aggregation number.

Solubilization of cholesterol in model bile system disclosed remarkable difference. The degree of solubilized cholesterol by UDCA was smaller than that of CDCA by a factor of about 19. Addition of lecithin produced a greater increment of solubilized cholesterol in UDCA, but the solubilizing power was still larger in CDCA.

It is curious and of interest that there exists much difference in the aspects of solubilizing efficiency for cholesterol in thein vitro model system, inspite of their little difference in the molecular structure, CMC and MMW between CDCA and UDCA. 7Β-OH might affect the function of micelle against solubilization in UDCA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Danzinger RG, Hofmann AF, Schoenfield LJ, Thistle JL: Dissolution of cholesterol gallstone by chenodeoxycholic acid. New Eng J Med 286: 1–8, 1972

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hofmann AF: Desaturation of bile and cholesterol gallstone dissolution with chenodeoxycholic acid. Am J Clin Nut 30: 993–1000, 1977

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Thistle JL, Hofmann AF, Ott BJ, Stephens DH: Chenotherapy for gallstone dissolution: 1. Efficacy and safety. JAMA 239: 1041–1046, 1978

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Makino I., Shinozaki K., Yoshino K., Nakagawa S.: Dissolution of cholesterol gallstones by ursodeoxycholic acid. Jpn J Gastroenterol 72: 690–701, 1975

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nair PP, Kritchevsky D.: The Bile Acids; vol. 1. Chemistry. Plenum Press, New York, 1971

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hanahan DJ, Turner MB, Jayko ME: The isolation of egg phosphatidyl choline by an adsorption column technique. J Biol Chem 192: 623–628, 1951

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Glasstone S., Lewis D.: Elements of Physical Chemistry. Maruzen, Tokyo, 1961

    Google Scholar 

  8. Debye P.: Molecular-weight determination by light scattering. J Phys Chem 51: 18–24, 1947

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Stacey KA: Light Scattering in Physical Chemistry. Butterworths, London, 1956

    Google Scholar 

  10. Furusawa T., Nakama T., Hisadome T., Itoh H.: Basic studies on cholesterol solubilization in bile salt solution. Gastroenterol Jpn 11: 356–362, 1976

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Furusawa T., Nakama T., Itoh H., Hisadome T.: Reappraisal of cholesterol solubilization in bile salt-lecithin solution and the stability of bile, ibid Gastroenterol Jpn 12: 253–262, 1977

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sperry WM, Webb M.: A revision of the Schoenheimer-Sperry method for cholesterol determination. J Biol Chem 187: 97–106, 1950

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Miles GD: Minima in surface tension and interfacial tension curves. J Phys Chem 49: 71–75, 1945

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fedorowski T., Salen G., Zaki FG, Shefer S., Mosbach EH: Comparative effects of ursodeoxycholic acid and chenodeoxycholic acid in the rhesus monkey; biochemical and ultrastructural studies. Gastroenterology 74: 75–81, 1978

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Maton PN, Murphy GM, Dowling RH: Ursodeoxycholic acid treatment of gallstones; dose-response study and possible mechanism of action. Lancet 2: 1297–1301, 1977

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stiel A., Czygan P., Kommerell B., Weis HJ, Holter-müller KH: Ursodeoxycholic acid versus chenodeoxycholic acid; comparison of their effects on bile acid and bile lipid composition in patients with cholesterol gallstones. Gastroenterology 75: 1016–1020, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  17. Carey MC, Small DM: Micelle formation by bile salts; physical-chemical and thermodynamic considerations. Arch Intern Med 130: 506–527, 1972

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hisadome T., Nakama T., Itoh H., Furusawa T.: Surface tension measurement of bile salt solutions with automatic-electro-surface-balance. J Jpn Med Soc Biol Interface 8: 115–117, 1977

    Google Scholar 

  19. Small DM: Size and structure of bile salt micelles. Advances Chem Ser 84: 31–52, 1968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Oakenfull DG, Fisher LR: The role of hydrogen bonding in the formation of bile salt micelles. J Phys Chem 81: 1838–1841, 1977

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hisadome, T., Nakama, T., Itoh, H. et al. Physical-chemical properties of chenodeoxycholic acid and ursodeoxycholic acid. Gastroenterol Jpn 15, 257–263 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02774276

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02774276

Key Words

Navigation