slashdave

slashdave t1_jc2e8px wrote

Atoms repel each other quite strongly using what is described as "Van der Waals" forces (electrostatic in nature). The length of bonds between atoms are relatively inflexible and keep bonded atoms close enough to prevent other atoms from slipping between.

For example, proteins often fold around and trap water molecules within their structure. Many of these water molecules remain trapped until the protein decays.

1

slashdave t1_jbz9uck wrote

>Why on earth would we be only interested in simple cases?

We aren't. The statement "we don't have a good way of modeling the dynamics of proteins" isn't correct. If you want to amend that to "complex systems", you might have an argument, but there are also accelerated MD methods that are quite effective.

1

slashdave t1_jbvx27g wrote

You need to think in terms of statistical mechanics. These systems happen in an ensemble. The system has many allowed states, some bound, some not bound. The occupancy of these states depend on the free energy difference of the two states. So we are really talking about probability. In many cases, it is the solubility of the ligand that matters most (how much the ligand prefers to be surrounded by water).

3

slashdave t1_jbvw6c1 wrote

>But the scale is far too small for those sorts of concepts of rigidity or even solidity, right?

No, atoms are solid, and the bonds in the molecules are usually quite strong. The lock-and-key analogy is not very good, however. For one thing, molecules and proteins are not rigid. And the binding is a statistical process. It's just that the protein and molecule prefer (by favorable energy and entropy) to be together then apart in solution.

2

slashdave t1_j9e4lww wrote

Depends on the force that is applied. For gaseous pressure (equal force on all sides), sure (you can argue this from symmetry). For compression force (like a vice), the cube is stronger, because all the force in this case would be applied at just two points on a sphere.

33

slashdave t1_j6do6do wrote

Not sure where you are going. Given the choice of any type of construct, of course it is possible. After all, if you could somehow move astronomical masses around, you could just create your own galaxy.

1

slashdave t1_j6ahtf1 wrote

Galaxies are not dense on average, because of the space between stars. If you want something galaxy sized but denser, there is the serious issue of where you could obtain enough material, since the space between galaxies is quite vast.

6

slashdave t1_j2n71jj wrote

>Pharmaceutical companies typically test multiple methods of drug delivery during the development process for a new prescription drug.

No, that would be unusual.

>some drugs may be more effective when delivered intravenously (through an injection) because they can be quickly absorbed into the bloodstream and distributed to the target tissue.

Speed is rarely a concern. Exposure (duration of effect) is the common issue. Here oral delivery can have an advantage, since a pill formulation can reside in the digestive system for hours, extending the time for absorption.

1

slashdave t1_j2l1bxu wrote

Every method? No, that just wastes money.

Standard practice is to have a "target product profile" which guides development. The mode of delivery is typically established in advance. Since clinical studies are very expensive, it is normal to initially focus on one method of delivery. After initial market introduction, additional methods could be added to expand the market.

12

slashdave t1_iuoxvz3 wrote

Absorption is effected by many factors, and varies person-to-person. So it is possible that gelcaps work better for you, but there probably isn't a good reason to suspect that this is generally true for other people or for other drugs.

Benadryl already has high oral bioavailablity (40-60% by reports). It's a little hard to get better than that, no matter the type of formulation.

1