4.7 Article

Structure activity studies of nociceptin/orphanin FQ(1-13)-NH2 derivatives modified in position 5

期刊

BIOORGANIC & MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 23, 期 7, 页码 1515-1520

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bmc.2015.02.008

关键词

Nociceptin/orphanin FQ; Peptide synthesis; NOP receptor; [S-35]GTP gamma S binding assay; Calcium mobilization assay

资金

  1. University of Ferrara

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nociceptin/orphanin FQ (N/OFQ) is a heptadecapeptide acting as the endogenous ligand of the N/OFQ peptide receptor (NOP). N/OFQ(1-13)-NH2 is the shortest N/OFQ sequence maintaining the same potency and efficacy as the natural peptide. Thus N/OFQ(1-13)-NH2 was used as chemical template for investigating the structure activity relationship of threonine in position 5.28 [X-5]N/OFQ(1-13)-NH2 derivatives, in which Thr was substituted with natural and unnatural residues, were synthesized and characterized pharmacologically for their effects at the human NOP receptor. Two different functional assays were used: agonist stimulated [S-35]GTP gamma S binding in cell membranes and calcium mobilization in whole cells co-expressing chimeric G proteins. All [X-5] N/OFQ(1-13)-NH2 derivatives behaved as full NOP agonists showing large differences in their potency. There was an excellent correlation between the results obtained in the two assays. The results of this study suggest that: position 5 does not play a pivotal role in receptor activation; the secondary alcoholic function of Thr is not important for receptor binding; side chain size, lipo/hydrophilic balance as well as hydrogen bond capability are also not crucial for receptor binding; an aliphatic amino function positively charged with at least 3 carbon atom distance from the peptide backbone has a huge disrupting effect on receptor binding. In conclusion this study demonstrates that a simple ethyl side chain as in compound 23 is sufficient in N/OFQ position 5 for maintaining bioactivity. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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