4.6 Article

Separation and characterization of modified pregabalins in terms of cyclodextrin complexation, using capillary electrophoresis and nuclear magnetic resonance

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2009.10.010

关键词

Enantioseparation; Synthesis; Lyrica; Capillary electrophoresis; NMR

资金

  1. Hungarian Scientific Research Found [0TKA K73804]
  2. Jedlik Anyos Program [00180/2007 NKFP_07_A3_NATURSEP]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The (S)-(+)-isomer of 3-isobutyl-GABA (pregabalin), the blockbuster drug in the treatment of neuropathic pain has been separated from its R isomer by cyclodextrin modified capillary zone electrophoresis (CZE) using uncoated fused-silica capillary. Derivatization of the single isomer and the racemate with tosyl- and dansyl-chloride was carried out to introduce strong UV chromophores of different size. CE-pH titrations were performed to determine the dissociation constants for both derivatives. 30 cyclodextrin (CD) derivatives as chiral agents were used at four different pH values to study the enantioseparation of the differently protonated guest molecules. The separation was optimized as a function of CD concentration, buffer type and concentration, pH and applied voltage. For the tosylated derivate the best resolution (R-s = 2.76) was found with 6-monodeoxy-6-mono-(3-hydroxy)-propylamino-beta-cyclodextrin hydrochloride (PAP-beta D) at pH 6.8, while with the same selector at pH 7.2 enantioseparation with an R-s value of 4.32 could be achieved for the dansylated pregabalin. At pH 2.5 for the dansylated derivative trimethylated alpha- and beta-CD systems resulted the most significant separation (R-s = 7.38 and R-s = 7.74, respectively). Experiments with dual CD systems were carried out as well. The stoichiometry of the complexes was determined using the job plot method and resulted in a 1: 1 complex in both cases. The structures of the inclusion complexes were elucidated using 2D ROESY NMR experiments. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据