4.7 Article

Synthesis and nicotinic binding studies on enantiopure diazine analogues of the novel (2-chloro-5-pyridyl)-9-azabicyclo[4.2.1]non-2-ene UB-165

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 1064-1072

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jm010936y

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As part of our program aimed at optimizing therapeutic effects over toxic effects (as observed in the naturally occurring nicotinic acetylcholine receptor modulators (-)-nicotine, (-)epibatidine, (-)-ferruginine, and (+)-anatoxin-a), we investigated the bioisosteric potential of diazines in the field of (+)-anatoxin-a-type structures. In the series of diazine analogues of deschloro-UB-165 (DUB-165, 6), bioisosteric replacement of the 3-pyridyl pharmacophoric element by a 4-pyridazinyl, 5-pyrimidinyl, or 2-pyrazinyl moiety resulted in novel nAChR ligands 7, 8, and 9. A palladium-catalyzed Suzuki cross-coupling of the 3-diethylboranylpyridine (14) and a Stille cross-coupling of the corresponding tributylstannyl diazines 15-17 with the vinyl triflate 13 of the N-protected 9-azabicyclo[4.2.1]nonan-2-one 12 constitute the key steps in the syntheses of these enantiopure anatoxinoids 6-9. Studies of the in vitro affinity for (alpha4)(2)(beta2)(3), alpha3beta4*, and alpha7* nAChR subtypes by radioligand binding assays demonstrated that the diazine analogues 7-9 can be considered as pharmacologically attractive bioisosteres of DUB-165 (6) but with different effects on the binding affinity with regard to the diazine moiety. The pyrimidine-containing bioisostere 8 turned out to be the most active diazine analogue, which interacts potently (K-i = 0.14 nM) with the (alpha4)(2)(beta(2))(3) subtype and differentiates significantly among the nAChR subtypes investigated. The nitrogens in this anatoxinoid 8 show by far the most negative atomic charges (calculated using the AM1 Hamiltonian). This qualitatively correlates with the highest binding affinity observed for 8 for all subtypes under consideration.

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