4.2 Article

Novel 11,12H-dihydronaphthalene[1,2-b] quinoline as Atypical Antipsychotic

期刊

LETTERS IN DRUG DESIGN & DISCOVERY
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 294-303

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1570180814666170704144246

关键词

Dopamine; schizophrenia; atypical antipsychotic; stereotypy; quinoline; molecular dynamics simulations

资金

  1. CONDES-LUZ [VAC-CONDES-CC-0379-15, VAC-CONDES-CC-0376-15, FDI 02-2017, VAC-CONDES-CC-0239-17]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Neurodegenerative, neurological and mental disorders, as well as substance abuse have a worldwide high incidence rate, becoming relevant factors that contribute to premature morbidity and mortality. Dopamine is well known to be involved in these pathologies. The key focus in the search for new drugs, that alleviate or cure these diseases, is pursuing the design of compounds with both efficacy and fewer adverse effects in order to obtain novel agents capable of restoring the homeostasis in the CNS of dopaminergic neurotransmission and counteracting some of neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia, Huntington's chorea and drug addictions. Methods: the compounds 11,12H-dihydronaphthalene[1,2-b] quinoline 2a and 9-methoxy-11,12H-dihydronaphthalene [1,2-b] quinoline 2b were designed and synthesized. The organic synthesis was performed according to the outlined synthesis strategies, together with a pharmacological evaluation of the male Sprague-Dawley rats. Results: Compound structures were confirmed by H-1, C-13, DEPT and HETCOR NMR. Pharmacological testing and computational studies validated the asserted medicinal-chemical approach for their design, showing compound 2a acting as an atypical dopamine antagonist. Conclusion: The study showed that compound 2a has an atypical antagonistic action on the central dopaminergic system. These pharmacological and computational-theoretical results support the suitability of the medicinal chemical approach in the design of this compound.

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

4.2
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