4.5 Review

Recent developments in adenosine receptor ligands and their potential as novel drugs

期刊

BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-BIOMEMBRANES
卷 1808, 期 5, 页码 1290-1308

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2010.12.017

关键词

Adenosine receptor; Agonist; Antagonist; Clinical trial; Medicinal chemistry; G protein-coupled receptor

资金

  1. NIH, National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases
  2. BMBF (BioPharma - Neuroallianz)
  3. DFG
  4. DAAD
  5. European Commission (ERANET Neuron)
  6. State of North-Rhine Westfalia (NRW International Research Graduate Schools BIOTECH-PHARMA and Chemical Biology)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Medicinal chemical approaches have been applied to all four of the adenosine receptor (AR) subtypes (A(1), A(2A), A(2B), and A(3)) to create selective agonists and antagonists for each. The most recent class of selective AR ligands to be reported is the class of A(2B)AR agonists. The availability of these selective ligands has facilitated research on therapeutic applications of modulating the ARs and in some cases has provided clinical candidates. Prodrug approaches have been developed which improve the bioavailability of the drugs, reduce side-effects, and/or may lead to site-selective effects. The A(2A) agonist regadenoson (Lexiscan (R)), a diagnostic drug for myocardial perfusion imaging, is the first selective AR agonist to be approved. Other selective agonists and antagonists are or were undergoing clinical trials for a broad range of indications, including capadenoson and tecadenoson (A(1) agonists) for atrial fibrillation, or paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, respectively, apadenoson and binodenoson (A(2A) agonists) for myocardial perfusion imaging, preladenant (A(2A) antagonist) for the treatment of Parkinson's disease, and CF101 and CF102 (A(3) agonists) for inflammatory diseases and cancer, respectively. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Adenosine Receptors. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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