D. C. Blakemore et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 20 (2010) 362–365
365
Table 2
CO2H
CO2H
H2N
H2N
R
R
A
B
R
Compound
IC50 (nM)
Me
Et
n-Pr
Me
Et
A
A
A
B
B
B
88
53
29
1300
706
1200
n-Pr
*
Figure 2. = P <0.05, significantly different compared to vehicle.
sured at different doses. The more anxiety that the animals feel,
the less they drink and the less shocks they receive. For an effective
compound, as the dose of compound increases then the number of
shocks received by the animals should also increase. The minimum
effective dose (MED) for activity for pregabalin in this model is
10 mg/Kg. Compound (16) had an MED of 3 mg/Kg while com-
pound (22) proved to have poor efficacy in this model having an
MED of 30 mg/Kg.
The difference between the two compounds is surprising and
shows that binding affinity alone is not a good indicator of
in vivo activity. The fact that (16) is only effective in the CITH
model on intrathecal dosing but effective in the Vogel conflict
model on oral dosing shows that there are some subtle effects
at work and that pain and anxiety effects may be mediated differ-
ently. Notwithstanding, we have identified one compound with
similar efficacy to pregabalin in an in vivo model of pain and
one compound with superior efficacy to pregabalin in a model
of anxiety.
Acknowledgements
*
**
Figure 1. = P <0.05, = P <0.01, significantly different compared to vehicle.
We would like to thank Jane McGuffog for GC/HPLC analysis
(including enantiopurity analysis) and Giles Ratcliffe for NMR stud-
ies (including diastereoisomer analysis).
hyperalgesia had fully formed the time to paw withdrawal had
reduced to 2.5 s. At this point the compound to be assessed was
dosed orally and any reversal of the hyperalgesia was assessed
by measuring the time to paw withdrawal.
References and notes
Compound (22) showed good levels of efficacy in this model
with a 30 mg/kg dose reversing the hyperalgesia and giving a sim-
ilar effect to that of pregabalin. Compound (16) showed no effect in
this model on oral dosing but did reverse the hyperalgesia on intra-
thecal dosing (direct into the spinal cord). This data suggested that
compound (16) did not penetrate the blood–brain barrier. Gaba-
pentin itself is a substrate for the Large amino acid transporter
1. Bryans, J. S.; Wustrow, D. J. Med. Res. Rev. 1999, 19, 149.
2. Pan, H. L.; Eisenach, J. C.; Chen, S. R. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1999, 288, 1026.
3. Hunter, J. C.; Gogas, K. R.; Hedley, L. R.; Jacobsen, L. O.; Kassotakis, L.;
Thompson, J.; Fontana, D. J. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 1997, 324, 153.
4. Singh, L.; Field, M. J.; Ferris, P.; Hunter, J. C.; Oles, R. J.; Williams, R. G.;
Woodruff, G. N. Psychopharmacology 1997, 127, 1.
5. de-Paris, F.; Busnello, J. V.; Vianna, M. R. M.; Salgueiro, J. B.; Quevedo, J.;
Izquierdo, I.; Kapczinski, F. Behav. Pharmacol. 2000, 11, 169.
6. Rice, A. S. C.; Maton, S. Pain 2001, 94, 215.
7. Dworkin, R. H.; Kirkpatrick, P. Nat. Rev. Drug Disc. 2005, 4, 455.
8. Zareba, G. Drugs Today 2005, 41, 509.
9. Guay, D. R. P. Am. J. Geriatr. Pharmacother. 2005, 3, 274.
10. Gee, N. S.; Brown, J. P.; Dissanayake, V. U. K.; Offord, J.; Thurlow, R.; Woodruff,
G. N. J .Biol. Chem. 1996, 271, 5768.
11. Stahl, S. M. J. Clin. Psychiatry 2004, 65, 1033. and references cited therein.
12. Field, M. J.; Li, Z.; Schwarz, J. B. J. Med. Chem. 2007, 50, 2569. and references
cited therein.
13. Carlsen, Per H. J.; Katsuki, T.; Martin, V. S.; Sharpless, K. B. J. Org. Chem. 1981, 46,
3936.
14. Deardorff, D. R.; Myles, D. C. Org. Synth. 1989, 67, 114.
15. Deardorff, D. R.; Windham, C. Q.; Craney, C. L. Org. Synth. 1995, 73, 25.
16. Johnson, C. R.; Bis, S. J. Tetrahedron Lett. 1992, 33, 7287.
(System-L
amino acid transporter)11 and it has been assumed that
it is this transporter that conveys these highly polar compounds
into the CNS. It is possible that different diastereoisomers have dif-
ferent affinities for the transporter and this could explain the dif-
ference seen between the two compounds in the CITH model.
However, this hypothesis was undermined by the data for com-
pound (16) from the water-lick (Vogel) conflict model of anxiety
(Fig. 2). In this model, a group of rats were dosed orally with com-
pound and were then placed in a cage containing a drinking tube
from which they received a shock each time they drank. The mean
number of shock episodes received per rat over 10 min was mea-
17.
Sato, M.; Hattori, H.; Murakami, M.; Kaneko, C. Chem. Lett. 1993, 1919.