4.7 Article

Preparation of novel analogs of 2-arylpiperidines and evaluation of their sigma receptor binding affinities

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2022.114310

关键词

Sigma receptors; Scaffold simplification; Synthesis; Binding affinities and selectivities; Computational docking

资金

  1. Robert A. Welch Foundation [F-0652]
  2. US National Institute of Mental Health's Pyschoactive Drug Screening Program of the (NIMH PDSP) [HHSN-271-2018-00023-C]
  3. NIH
  4. [1 S10 OD021508-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Simplified analogs of norbenzomorphans show promise as high affinity ligands for s2R/TMEM97, but developing selective modulators remains challenging.
A number of substituted norbenzomorphans have been previously identified as high affinity ligands for the two known sigma receptors s1R and s2R/TMEM97, and some norbenzomorphans that are selective for s2R/TMEM97 exhibit promise in animal models of several neurological disorders. Toward further assessing the effects of simplifying the norbenzomorphan scaffold, sets of 6-membered heterocycles were designed and prepared, and their binding affinities for s1R and s2R/TMEM97 were determined. Consistent with our design strategy, N-acyl-2-arylpiperidines show high affinity for s2R/TMEM97, whereas those derived from morpholine and N-methylpiperazine have lower affinities. However, most of these 6-membered heterocycles unexpectedly exhibit even higher affinity for s1R and are thus s1Rselective. Computational docking studies show that representative 6-membered heterocycles bind and interact with s2R/TMEM97 in a manner similar to that of a docked structure of their norbenzomorphan parent. Collectively, these binding and computational studies support our design strategy for developing simplified analogs of norbenzomorphans as s2R/TMEM97 ligands, but they also underscore the challenges associated with developing selective modulators of s2R/TMEM97. (c) 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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