5696
P. A. Tuthill et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 14 (2004) 5693–5697
hydrocarbon ring atoms in the anti- versus the syn-lig-
ands in the active site of the receptor. Another discern-
ible SAR trend was the preference for lipophilic
substituents present in the aromatic group attached to
the azepinone ring. For example, 4a (3,4-dichlorophen-
yl), 11a (4-chlorophenyl), and 13 (4-trifluoromethylphe-
nyl) possessed potent j binding ranging from 0.34 to
2nM. This is in contrast to the more hydrophilic aryl
ring substituents, for example, 12a (4-methoxyphenyl)
and 14 (3-pyrollidinylsulfonylphenyl) that were 10- to
1000-fold less active. This same preference toward lipo-
philic aryl ring substitution was also observed in the acy-
clic series.7 Lastly, the 3,4-dichlorophenoxy-substituted
azepin-2-one 15 also demonstrated significant potency
and high selectivity for the j receptor (Ki = 2.6nM,
>10,000 selectivity versus l and d). This again under-
scores the preference for a lipophilic aryl substituent
and indicates that the receptorÕs binding pocket is able
to accommodate an extended aryl ring unit.18
preference for lipophilic aromatic substituents. j Agon-
ist 4a (Ki = 0.3nM) was orally active in rodent models of
antinociception and may be regarded as possessing some
measure of peripheral selectivity as evidenced by the ca.
30-fold separation observed between antinociception
and sedation and ataxia.
References and notes
1. (a) Scopes, D. I. C. Exp. Opin. Invest. Drugs 1994, 3, 369–
376; (b) Dhawan, B. N.; Cesselin, F.; Raghubir, R.;
Reisine, T.; Bradley, P. B.; Portoghese, P. S.; Hamon, M.
Pharmacol. Rev. 1996, 48, 567–592.
2. (a) Barber, A.; Gottschlich, R. Exp. Opin. Invest. Drugs
1997, 6, 1351–1368; (b) Costello, G. F.; Main, B. G.;
Barlow, J. J.; Carroll, J. A.; Shaw, J. S. Eur. J. Pharmacol.
1988, 151, 475–478; (c) Von Voigtlander, P. F.; Lahti,
R. A.; Ludens, J. H. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1983, 224,
7–12.
3. (a) Dionne, R. A.; Dobbins, K. R.; Hargreaves, K. M.
Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 1991, 49, 183; (b) Pande, A. C.;
Pyke, R. E.; Greiner, M.; Cooper, S. A.; Benjamin, R.;
Pierce, M. W. Clin. Neuropharmacol. 1996, 19, 92–97; (c)
Pande, A. C.; Pyke, R. E.; Greiner, M.; Wideman, G. L.;
Benjamin, R.; Pierce, M. W. Clin. Neuropharmacol. 1996,
19, 451–456.
In further studies, compound 4a was evaluated in sev-
eral in vivo animal models of antinociception (Table
2). Compound 4a displayed potent antinociceptive activ-
ity in the mouse and rat after oral administration. The
ED50 values of inhibition of acetic acid-induced writhing
in mice and inhibition of formalin-induced flinching in
rats after oral administration were 1.6 and 2.7mg/kg,
respectively. There was a clear separation between anti-
nociceptive activity and sedation and ataxia in both the
mice and rats following oral administration of 4a, with a
30-fold separation between the ED50 values for sedation
and the ED50 values for antinociception. Separation of
these in vivo activities is one indicator of peripheral
selectivity, suggesting that the azepinone class of j agon-
ists may represent a good starting point for the further
design and optimization of peripherally acting agents.
4. Zhang, Q.; Schafer, M.; Elde, R.; Stein, C. Neuroscience
1998, 85, 281–291.
5. For a review regarding peripherally acting opioid agonists
as analgesics, see: DeHaven-Hudkins, D. L.; Dolle, R. E.
Curr. Pharm. Des. 2004, 10, 743–757.
6. Eisenach, J. C.; Carpenter, R.; Curry, R. Pain 2003, 101,
89–95.
7. Kumar, V.; Marella, M. A.; Cortes-Burgos, L.;
Chang, A.-C.; Cassel, J. A.; Daubert, J. D.; DeHaven,
R. N.; DeHaven-Hudkins, D. L.; Gottshall, S. L.;
Mansson, E.; Maycock, A. L. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett.
2000, 10, 2567–2570.
8. Costello, G. F.; James, R.; Shaw, J. S.; Slater, A. M.;
Stutchbury, N. C. J. J. Med. Chem. 1991, 34, 181–189.
9. For the crystal structure of 1, see: Subramanian, G.;
Paterlini, M. G.; Larson, D. L.; Portoghese, P. S.;
Ferguson, D. M. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41, 4777–4789.
10. Tuthill, P. A., Sr.; Seida, P.; Dolle, R. E.; Cassel, J. A.;
DeHaven, R. N. Abstracts of Papers, 226th ACS National
Meeting, New York, NY, September 7–11, 2003, MEDI
151.
11. To ensure chiral integrity, diamine 8 was acylated with 2-
naphthoyl chloride. The corresponding amide was then
subjected to chiral HPLC analysis (Chiralpak AD) and
was determined to be 96% ee, indicating that no significant
racemization had occurred at the carbon atom bearing the
phenyl ring.
In summary, the azepin-2-one was hypothesized as a
conformational constraint for j-opioid ligands based
on near coincident backbone overlay of 4a,b with the
crystal structure of the archetypal arylacetamide j agon-
ist 1. The hypothesis was confirmed upon the synthesis
and evaluation of the series 4a,b, and 11–15, demon-
strating potent, selective j-receptor binding affinity.
Structure–activity relationships in vitro clearly indicated
a predilection for syn- versus anti-stereochemistry and a
Table 2. Antinociceptive and sedative effects of 4a upon oral
administration
Mouse
Rat
12. (a) All new compounds showed physical and spectroscopic
properties consistent with their structures; (b) For
4a: 1H NMR CDCl3 (400MHz) d 11.95–11.89 (1H, br
s), 7.71–7.70 (1H, d, J = 1.8Hz), 7.61–7.59 (1H, dd,
J = 1.8, 8.3Hz), 7.42–7.40 (1H, d, J = 8.3Hz), 7.39–7.34
(3H, m), 7.27–7.23 (2H, m), 6.42–6.38 (1H, dd, J = 3.0,
12.5Hz), 5.60–5.55 (1H, m), 5.28–5.20 (2H, m), 4.96–4.85
(1H, dd, J = 3.3, 13.6Hz), 4.13–4.05 (1H, m), 3.96–3.88
(2H, m), 3.24–3.14 (2H, m), 2.95–2.68 (3H, m), 2.41–2.36
(1H, m), 2.35–2.29 (1H, m), 2.24–2.14 (1H, m), 2.31–1.95
(2H, m). For 4b: 1H NMR CDCl3 (400MHz) d 12.40–
12.34 (1H, s), 7.48–7.46 (2H, m), 7.42–7.35 (5H, m), 7.19–
7.16 (1H, dd, J = 1.9, 8.3Hz), 5.77–5.67 (2H, m), 5.39–5.36
(1H, t, J = 6.4Hz), 4.82–4.78 (1H, d, J = 8.1Hz), 4.42–4.38
(1H, dd, J = 3.4, 12.8Hz), 4.28–4.23 (1H, m), 3.80–3.59
Acetic
Sedation
(ED50
(mg/kg))
Formalin-
induced
flinching
Rotarod
(% inhibition)c
acid-induced
writhing
(ED50 (mg/kg))
(ED50 (mg/kg))
1.6
(1.1–2.4)a,b
48 2.7
(25.3–90.7) (1.2–4.5)
54%
@ 100mg/kg
For the assay descriptions, see Ref. 20.
a Values in parentheses are the 95% confidence intervals.
b The oral ED50 of 1 in writhing = 0.17mg/kg (0.05–0.52) and the
platform sedation ED50 = 7.5mg/kg (3.6–18.3).
c Value represents the percent decrease in rotarod performance after
drug treatment based on the comparison of baseline and post-treat-
ment rotarod latencies.