4.7 Article

Improving the Gastrointestinal Stability of Linaclotide

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 64, 期 12, 页码 8384-8390

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.1c00380

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union [714366]
  2. Australian Research Council (ARC) [DE150100784, DP190101667]
  3. Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) [LS18053]
  4. NHMRC Career Development Fellowship [APP1162503]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The high susceptibility to proteolytic degradation in the gastrointestinal tract limits the therapeutic application of peptide drugs, such as linaclotide, for gastrointestinal disorders. Improvements in gastrointestinal stability through strategic modifications of linaclotide analogues can significantly enhance their therapeutic efficacy and create potential for the development of the next generation of orally administered peptide drugs for gastrointestinal disorders.
High susceptibility to proteolytic degradation in the gastrointestinal tract limits the therapeutic application of peptide drugs in gastrointestinal disorders. Linaclotide is an orally administered peptide drug for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) and abdominal pain. Linaclotide is however degraded in the intestinal environment within 1 h, and improvements in gastrointestinal stability might enhance its therapeutic application. We therefore designed and synthesized a series of linaclotide analogues employing a variety of strategic modifications and evaluated their gastrointestinal stability and pharmacological activity at its target receptor guanylate cyclase-C. All analogues had substantial improvements in gastrointestinal half-lives (>8 h vs linaclotide 48 min), and most remained active at low nanomolar concentrations. This work highlights strategic approaches for the development of gut-stable peptides toward the next generation of orally administered peptide drugs for the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders.

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