don’t be disappointed but allometric scaling relies on a lot (!!) of assumptions. Are you sure that the “best models” are not artifacts (i.e., too high LLOQ where you “see” only one compartment)? Are you sure the drug is metabolized by the same enzyme system – and to a similar extent – across species? Since you are modeling EV data, transporters may also come into play (quite different between rodents and dog). Did you administer the same dose / body weight? If not, nonlinear PK might be another reason for different models. Did you use serial sampling in mice? If yes, did you take this into account?
In many cases allometric scaling is like comparing cats and elephants by counting their hairs/cm ². Just my two cents.
The intestinal permeability (and fa) in rat has been correlated with human Peff and human fa (salphati 2001; JPP 2001, 53: 1007–1013; Zakeri-milani, J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci (www. cspsCanada.org) 10 (3): 368-379, 2007). There are sparse references of correlations between Mouse intestinal Peff and human Peff or Human fa but they seem to be weaker compared to rat correlations (Escribano 2012; International Journal of Pharmaceutics 436 (2012) 472–477) .
As for the Dog GI tract, though the beagle is used as a biopharmaceutical model for studying formulation differences for humans, there are marked structural and morphological differences leading to differences in permeability of drugs compared ot human and there is no literature on the intestinal Peff determination in dogs, thus such correlations are limited or absent.
Hence the best choice in such a situation is the rat ka that would be a better bet compared to mouse/ dog.