All reports Open PDF

Simulaite Report

Bioavailability Simulation — Fenugreek Extract + Shatavari Extract Capsule

Population-Level Pharmacokinetics for Menopausal Health

May 19, 2026

Executive Summary

We simulated oral bioavailability (F) for seven bioactive compounds across Fenugreek (500 mg) and Shatavari (300 mg) extracts using the Simulaite PBPK engine. Two fed-state Asian virtual populations were modeled: a general adult cohort (n=100, 50% female, ages 18-60y) and the target demographic, Menopausal Women age 45–55 (n=100, 100% female, ages 45-55y). The six-run matrix isolates compound baselines, extract self-DDI, and cross-extract PK interactions.

    Key Takeaways

  • Menopausal Women show lower systemic exposure across the full combined formulation; the mean saponin F shift is -16.9% relative to general adults.
  • Trigonelline stands out for Menopausal Women: high predicted bioavailability (42.1% F) plus reported picomolar phytoestrogen activity (Allred et al. (2009)).
  • 4-Hydroxyisoleucine remains the most systemically available active: 92.9% F in general adults and 91.7% in Menopausal

Women.

  • Saponin parent-compound exposure is low but non-zero: general combined-run F spans 0.70–0.91%; Menopausal Women spans 0.58–0.76%.
  • Cross-extract DDI is still modest for saponins, but flavonoids respond: Quercetin rises 1.30× and Rutin rises 1.21× in the combined general-adult formulation versus Shatavari alone.
Molecules
NameDose in Combined CapsuleMW g/ molSMILES
Protodioscin20.00 mg1049.2C[C@H]1[C@H]2[C@H](C[C@@H]3[C@@]2(CC[C@H]4[C@H]3CC=C5[C@@]4(CC[C@@H](C5)O[C@H]6[C@@H]
([C@H]([C@@H]([C@H](O6)CO)O[C@H]7[C@@H]([C@@H]([C@H]([C@@H](O7)C)O)O)O)O)O[C@H]8[C@@H]
([C@@H]([C@H]([C@@H](O8)C)O)O)O)C)C)O[C@@]1(CC[C@@H](C)CO[C@H]9[C@@H]([C@H]([C@@H]([C@H]
(O9)CO)O)O)O)O
Trigonelline4.00 mg137.1C[N+]1=CC=CC(=C1)C(=O)[O-]
4-Hydroxyisoleucine2.00 mg147.2C[C@H]([C@@H](C(=O)O)N)C(C)O
Shatavarin IV21.00 mg887.1C[C@H]1CC[C@@]2([C@H]([C@H]3[C@@H]
(O2)C[C@@H]4[C@@]3(CC[C@H]5[C@H]4CC[C@H]6[C@@]5(CC[C@@H](C6)O[C@H]7[C@@H]([C@H]([C@@H]
([C@H](O7)CO)O[C@H]8[C@@H]([C@@H]([C@H]([C@@H](O8)C)O)O)O)O)O[C@H]9[C@@H]([C@H]([C@@H]([C@H]
(O9)CO)O)O)O)C)C)C)OC1
Shatavarin I9.00 mg1067.2C[C@H]1[C@H]2[C@H](C[C@@H]3[C@@]2(CC[C@H]4[C@H]3CC[C@H]5[C@@]4(CC[C@@H](C5)O[C@H]6[C@@H]
([C@H]([C@@H]([C@H](O6)CO)O[C@H]7[C@@H]([C@@H]([C@H]([C@@H](O7)C)O)O)O)O)O[C@H]8[C@@H]([C@H]
([C@@H]([C@H](O8)CO)O)O)O)C)C)O[C@@]1(CC[C@H](C)CO[C@H]9[C@@H]([C@H]([C@@H]([C@H]
(O9)CO)O)O)O)O
Quercetin1.50 mg302.2C1=CC(=C(C=C1C2=C(C(=O)C3=C(C=C(C=C3O2)O)O)O)O)O
Rutin1.20 mg610.5C[C@H]1[C@@H]([C@H]([C@H]([C@@H](O1)OC[C@@H]2[C@H]([C@@H]([C@H]([C@@H]
(O2)OC3=C(OC4=CC(=CC(=C4C3=O)O)O)C5=CC(=C(C=C5)O)O)O)O)O)O)O)O

We use our suite of graph neural networks to predict relevant molecular properties and interactions with liver enzymes, plasma proteins, and the gut wall to inform the simulations.

Extracts

Fenugreek Extract (500 mg)

MoleculeStandardization
Protodioscin4%
MoleculeStandardization
Trigonelline0.8%
4-Hydroxyisoleucine0.4%

Shatavari Extract (300 mg)

MoleculeStandardization
Shatavarin IV7%
Shatavarin I3%
Quercetin0.5%
Rutin0.4%
Formulations
Protodioscin Alone
Delivery Type
Capsule
Subtype
Powder
Protodioscin Dose

20 mg

Particle Radius Mean
50.0 µm
Shatavarin-IV Alone
Delivery Type
Capsule
Subtype
Powder
Shatavarin IV Dose

21 mg

Particle Radius Mean
50.0 µm
Protodioscin + Shatavarin-IV Pair
Delivery Type
Capsule
Subtype
Powder
Protodioscin Dose

20 mg

Shatavarin IV Dose
21 mg
Particle Radius Mean
50.0 µm
Fenugreek Extract (Full)
Delivery Type
Capsule
Subtype
Powder
Fenugreek Extract Dose

500 mg

Particle Radius Mean
50.0 µm
Shatavari Extract (Full)
Delivery Type
Capsule
Subtype
Powder
Shatavari Extract Dose

300 mg

Particle Radius Mean
50.0 µm
Fenugreek + Shatavari Combined
Delivery Type
Capsule
Subtype
Powder
Fenugreek Extract Dose

500 mg

Shatavari Extract Dose
300 mg
Particle Radius Mean
50.0 µm
Population Settings
ParameterGeneral PopulationMenopausal Women
EthnicityAsianAsian
Sample Size100100
Sex50 female, 50 male100 female, 0 male
Age Range18.1–59.7 y (mean 40.3)45.1–55.0 y (mean 50.2)
Body Weight40.2–75.4 kg (mean 56.1)38.3–97.9 kg (mean 51.6)
ParameterGeneral PopulationMenopausal Women
Height139.5–184.0 cm (mean 161.5)141.2–166.7 cm (mean 151.8)
BMI Range16.8–30.2 (mean 21.5)17.1–43.5 (mean 22.4)
Prandial StateFedFed
Simulation Design — 6-Run Comparison Matrix

Each population ran the same six-scenario matrix to isolate single-compound baselines, pair DDI, extract self-DDI, and full cross-extract DDI.

RunScenario# CompoundsPurpose
#1Protodioscin alone1Isolated baseline
#2Shatavarin-IV alone1Isolated baseline
#3Proto + Shat-IV pair2Pair DDI
#4Fenugreek extract3Extract self-DDI
#5Shatavari extract4Extract self-DDI
#6Fenugreek + Shatavari combined7Full formulation
Bioavailability Results
Combined Formulation F% Plot
Full formulation bioavailability by compound. Bars compare the general adult reference population against Menopausal Women;

error bars show ±1 SD.

Plasma curve plot 1 from page 6
Per-Compound Bioavailability — General Population
Asian, 50% female, ages 18–60, fed state. Evaluable n range: 99–100.
CompoundAlone (#1, #2)#3 Pair#4 Fenugreek#5 Shatavari#6 Combined
Protodioscin0.90 ± 0.55%0.91 ± 0.56%0.91 ± 0.56%0.91 ± 0.56%
Trigonelline46.20 ± 13.51%46.23 ± 13.51%
4-Hydroxyisoleucine92.90 ± 4.33%92.90 ± 4.33%
Shatavarin IV0.69 ± 0.42%0.69 ± 0.42%0.69 ± 0.42%0.70 ± 0.43%
Shatavarin I0.80 ± 0.49%0.81 ± 0.49%
Quercetin5.02 ± 2.93%6.52 ± 3.66%
Rutin2.63 ± 1.52%3.19 ± 1.82%
Per-Compound Bioavailability — Menopausal Women
Asian, 100% female, fed state. Age range defined in Population Settings.
CompoundAlone (#1, #2)#3 Pair#4 Fenugreek#5 Shatavari#6 Combined
Protodioscin0.75 ± 0.41%0.75 ± 0.41%0.76 ± 0.41%0.76 ± 0.41%
Trigonelline42.21 ± 12.28%42.13 ± 12.29%
4-Hydroxyisoleucine91.69 ± 4.40%91.65 ± 4.40%
Shatavarin IV0.58 ± 0.31%0.58 ± 0.31%0.58 ± 0.31%0.58 ± 0.32%
Shatavarin I0.67 ± 0.37%0.67 ± 0.37%
Quercetin4.22 ± 2.18%5.48 ± 2.77%
CompoundAlone (#1, #2)#3 Pair#4 Fenugreek#5 Shatavari#6 Combined
Rutin2.19 ± 1.15%2.67 ± 1.41%

Population Delta — Combined Formulation

CompoundGeneral F%Menopausal Women F%Relative ΔGeneral CVWomen CV
Protodioscin0.91 ± 0.56%0.76 ± 0.41%-16.5%62%54%
Trigonelline46.23 ± 13.51%42.13 ± 12.29%-8.9%29%29%
4-Hydroxyisoleucine92.90 ± 4.33%91.65 ± 4.40%-1.3%5%5%
Shatavarin IV0.70 ± 0.43%0.58 ± 0.32%-17.1%61%55%
Shatavarin I0.81 ± 0.49%0.67 ± 0.37%-17.3%60%55%
Quercetin6.52 ± 3.66%5.48 ± 2.77%-16.0%56%51%
Rutin3.19 ± 1.82%2.67 ± 1.41%-16.3%57%53%

PK Parameter Table — Combined Formulation

AUC is oral AUC over the simulated 24 h horizon, calculated from individual plasma curves and converted to ng/mL·h using each compound molecular weight from the result JSON. Cmax is ng/mL; Tmax is hours.

CompoundPop.AUC ng/mL·hAUC CVCmax ng/mLTmax hF%
ProtodioscinGen.3172.3 ± 1862.559%5.25 ± 3.153.36 ± 0.200.91 ± 0.56
Menopaus al2689.3 ± 1446.854%4.41 ± 2.413.38 ± 0.180.76 ± 0.41
TrigonellineGen.8421.6 ± 2407.729%65.03 ± 19.750.85 ± 0.1646.23 ± 13.51
Menopaus al7778.5 ± 2258.929%60.26 ± 18.530.85 ± 0.1642.13 ± 12.29
4-HydroxyisoleucineGen.33128.5 ± 3649.511%73.15 ± 9.961.93 ± 0.4592.90 ± 4.33
Menopaus al33184.2 ± 4365.013%72.12 ± 11.102.04 ± 0.4591.65 ± 4.40
Shatavarin IVGen.4270.4 ± 2502.159%4.17 ± 2.578.12 ± 1.260.70 ± 0.43
Menopaus al3663.7 ± 1973.254%3.55 ± 1.958.41 ± 1.240.58 ± 0.32
Shatavarin IGen.1130.8 ± 661.959%2.03 ± 1.172.98 ± 0.130.81 ± 0.49
Menopaus al958.9 ± 519.454%1.71 ± 0.962.98 ± 0.130.67 ± 0.37
QuercetinGen.2530.1 ± 1351.253%3.57 ± 1.934.45 ± 0.216.52 ± 3.66
Menopaus al2173.0 ± 1076.450%3.05 ± 1.544.47 ± 0.205.48 ± 2.77
RutinGen.248.7 ± 135.755%0.85 ± 0.491.91 ± 0.183.19 ± 1.82
CompoundPop.AUC ng/mL·hAUC CVCmax ng/mLTmax hF%
Menopaus al212.4 ± 109.452%0.73 ± 0.371.91 ± 0.182.67 ± 1.41

Cross-Extract DDI Analysis — General Population

CompoundAloneOwn ExtractCombinedCombined / Own
Protodioscin0.90%0.91%0.91%1.00×
Trigonelline46.20%46.23%1.00×
4-Hydroxyisoleucine92.90%92.90%1.00×
Shatavarin IV0.69%0.69%0.70%1.01×
Shatavarin I0.80%0.81%1.01×
Quercetin5.02%6.52%1.30×
Rutin2.63%3.19%1.21×

The n=100 results show minimal cross-extract PK enhancement for saponins. Quercetin and Rutin increase more clearly in the combined extract, consistent with UGT1A1 interaction and extract context, but this does not rescue parent saponin exposure.

Plasma Concentration–Time Profiles — Combined Formulation

Median plasma concentration-time profiles for the full combined extract formulation with P5–P95 uncertainty bands.

Protodioscin: Plasma Concentration-Time Curve

Plasma curve plot 1 from page 8

Trigonelline: Plasma Concentration-Time Curve

Plasma curve plot 1 from page 9

4-Hydroxyisoleucine: Plasma Concentration-Time Curve

Plasma curve plot 2 from page 9

Shatavarin IV: Plasma Concentration-Time Curve

Plasma curve plot 3 from page 9

Shatavarin I: Plasma Concentration-Time Curve

Plasma curve plot 1 from page 10

Quercetin: Plasma Concentration-Time Curve

Plasma curve plot 2 from page 10

Rutin: Plasma Concentration-Time Curve

Plasma curve plot 3 from page 10
Comparison with Naveencharan et al. (2025)

Reference: Naveencharan, R. et al. "Validation of combination of protodioscin and shatavarin IV from medicinal extracts for alleviating menopausal symptoms by computational deep learning models." Talanta Open, 2025, 100552. doi:10.1016/ j.talo.2025.100552

Their study emphasizes pharmacodynamic modeling and static ADME flags for the two headline compounds, Protodioscin and Shatavarin IV. This report answers the complementary PK question: after the real extract-standardized oral capsule dose, what plasma exposure is achievable across a virtual target population?

    Most Important New Findings

  • Parent saponin exposure remains low in the combined formulation: Shatavarin IV is 0.70% F in general adults and 0.58% in Menopausal Women.
  • The highest systemic exposure comes from 4-Hydroxyisoleucine and Trigonelline, which were not the main focus of the reference paper.
  • Trigonelline may be especially relevant to menopausal symptom biology: Allred et al. (2009) identified it as a novel phytoestrogen with ER activity at picomolar concentrations via a non-classical mechanism.
  • Cross-extract PK enhancement is modest for saponins, so any strong in-vivo benefit likely depends more on pharmacodynamic complementarity and/or metabolite biology than parent-compound bioavailability alone.
Metabolic Fingerprint

CYP and UGT enzyme contributions to total intrinsic clearance, plus P-glycoprotein efflux substrate status. Values are derived from our GNN suite predictions and integrated into the PBPK simulation. The GNN models predict substrate probability, intrinsic clearance per enzyme, and inhibition probability — all applied during simulation.

Substrate Profile — Enzymes & Transporters

Intrinsic clearance (CLint) fractions per compound, predicted by our GNN suite from molecular structure. Bold teal = dominant clearance enzyme.

CompoundCYP1A2CYP3A4CYP2D6CYP2C9CYP2C19UGT1A1SULT1A1P-gp Efflux
Protodioscin41.5%5.9%52.6%Yes
Trigonelline29.7%22.2%20.8%27.3%
4-Hydroxyisoleucine
Shatavarin IV35.1%7.4%57.4%Yes
Shatavarin I35.2%5.1%59.7%Yes
Quercetin0.3%0.1%0.2%50.0%49.4%
Rutin0.6%0.2%50.2%49.1%

Inhibition Profile — Enzymes & Transporters

Inhibition probabilities predicted by our GNN suite. Cross-compound DDI factors are computed from these values and applied during simulation.

CompoundCYP1A2CYP3A4CYP2D6CYP2C9CYP2C19UGT1A1P-gp
Protodioscin
TrigonellineYes
4-Hydroxyisoleucine
Shatavarin IV
Shatavarin I
QuercetinYesYes
RutinYes

    Metabolic Insights

  • UGT1A1 glucuronidation remains the dominant modeled pathway for saponins and flavonoids.
  • 4-Hydroxyisoleucine is handled as an amino-acid-like molecule with effectively zero CYP/UGT clearance, supporting its high

F%.

  • Saponins are modeled as P-gp substrates with very low permeability, explaining high variability and low parent exposure.
  • Quercetin and Rutin inhibit UGT1A1 in the model; their co-formulation increases flavonoid exposure more than saponin exposure.