4.5 Review

Novel Technologies for Dipeptide Drugs Design and their Implantation

期刊

CURRENT PHARMACEUTICAL DESIGN
卷 24, 期 26, 页码 3020-3027

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1381612824666181008105641

关键词

Dipeptide; drug design; tripeptoid analogue; noopept; dilept; GB-115; GK-2

资金

  1. Russian Science Foundation [18-15-00381]
  2. Russian Science Foundation [18-15-00381] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article is an overview of author's data obtained in the framework of the project The Creation of dipeptide preparations at the V.V. Zakusov Institute of Pharmacology, Moscow, Russia. Advantages of dipeptides over longer peptides consist in that they are orally active owing to higher stability and ability to penetrate biological barriers due to the presence of specific ATP-dependent transporters in enterocytes and blood-brain barrier. Two original approaches for dipeptide drugs design have been developed. Both of them are based on the idea of a leading role of central dipeptide fragment of the peptide chain beta-turn in the peptide-receptor interaction. The first approach, named peptide drug-based design represents the transformation of known nonpeptide drug into its dipeptide topological analog. The latter usually corresponds to a beta-turn of some regulatory peptide. The second approach represents the design of tripeptoide mimetic of the beta-turn of regulatory peptide or protein. The results of the studies, which led to the discovery of endogenous prototypes of the known non-peptide drugs piracetam and sulpiride, are presented herein. The paper discusses the process, based on the abovementioned principles, that was used in designing of nontoxic, orally available, highly effective dipeptide drugs: nootropic noopept, dipeptide analog of piracetam; antipsychotic dilept, neurotensin tripeptoid analog; selective anxiolytic GB-115, tripeptoid analog of CCK-4, and potential neuroprotector GK-2, homodimeric dipeptide analog of NGF.

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

4.5
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