2880
S. Tasler et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15 (2005) 2876–2880
8. Kunishima, N.; Shimada, Y.; Tsuji, Y.; Sato, T.; Yamam-
oto, M.; Kumasaka, T.; Nakanishi, S.; Jingami, H.;
Morikawa, K. Nature 2000, 407, 971.
prediction allowed for an identification of a compound
with an activity above 35% inhibition at 10 lM.
9. Parmentier, M.-L.; Prezeau, L.; Bockaert, J.; Pin, J. P.
Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2002, 23, 268.
10. Pin, J. P.; De Colle, C.; Bessis, A.-S.; Acher, F. Eur. J.
Pharmacol. 1999, 375, 277.
11. Gasparini, F.; Andres, H.; Flor, P. J.; Heinrich, M.;
In summary, a highly potent class of new mGluR5
inhibitors was identified using 4SCanÒ in silico technol-
ogy, with activities down to KiÕs of around 100 nM.
Numerous derivatives synthesized allowed for a conclu-
sive SAR study, offering a few possibilities for substitu-
tion at either portion I or II of the molecule, retaining
adequate activity but providing different influences on
physicochemical properties. A chemical stabilization of
these substrates failed so far but is still under
investigation.
Inderbitzin, W.; Lingenho¨hl, K.; Muller, H.; Munk, V. C.;
¨
Omilusik, K.; Stierlin, C.; Stoehr, N.; Vranesic, I.; Kuhn,
R. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2002, 12, 407.
12. Van Wagenen, B. C.; Stormann, T. M.; Moe, S. T.;
Sheehan, S. M.; McLeod, D. A.; Smith, D. L.; Isaac, M.
B.; Slassi, A. WO Patent 01/12627 A1, 2001.
13. For a pharmacophore alignment, compounds of a virtual
library are partitioned into fragments, an anchor fragment
is selected and aligned on the parent structure, for
example, MMPEP (1), and adjusted in a way that similar
electrostatic and hydrophobic interaction possibilities
become superimposed (unlike a structural alignment, in
which similar parts of the molecules are superimposed).
Next fragment is then connected to the first one and again
adjusted for maximal interaction identities based on the
position chosen for the first fragment. Several permuta-
tions of starting fragments are evaluated, resulting in a
pharmacophore alignment of maximal similarities in
interaction possibilities. For details, see: Seifert, M. H.
J.; Wolf, K.; Vitt, D. Biosilico 2003, 1, 143.
14. Affinity of compounds at mGlu5 receptors was evaluated
utilizing rat brain membranes and the ligand [3H]MMPEP
according to: Mutel, V.; Ellis, G. J.; Adam, G.; Chaboz,
S.; Nilly, A.; Messer, J.; Blueuel, Z.; Metzler, V.;
Malherbe, P.; Schlaeger, E.-J.; Roughley, B. S.; Faull, R.
L. M.; Richards, G. J. Neurochem. 2000, 75, 2590.
15. If not commercially available, synthesized according to:
Organikum, 21st ed.; Schwetlick, K., Ed.; Wiley-VCH:
Weilheim, 2001, pp 613–614.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank Cathal Meere and Oliver
Muller for their synthetic contributions, Dr. Babett
¨
Krauss for her sophisticated NMR input, Dr. Thomas
Herz for performing semi-empirical calculations, Karin
Tentschert and Ingo No¨renberg for investigations on
plasma stability, and Carla Destefani for the skillful
technical assistance in binding experiments. Discussions
with and support by Dr. Daniel Vitt were highly
appreciated.
References and notes
1. Neugebauer, V. Expert Rev. Neurother. 2001, 1, 89.
2. Watkins, J. C. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2000, 28, 297.
3. Bra¨uner-Osborne, H.; Egebjerg, J.; Nielsen, E. O.; Mad-
sen, U.; Krogsgaard-Larsen, P. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43,
2609.
16. Clark, J. H.; Miller, J. M. Tetrahedron Lett. 1977, 599.
17. Products showed >95% purity as determined by LC–MS
and NMR spectroscopy.
4. Pellicciari, R.; Costantino, G. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol.
1999, 3, 433.
5. Schoepp, D. D.; Jane, D. E.; Monn, J. A. Neuropharma-
cology 1999, 38, 1431.
6. Conn, P. J.; Pin, J. P. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol.
1997, 37, 205.
7. Hermans, E.; Challiss, R. A. J. Biochem. J. 2001, 359, 465.
18. Functional effects of the compounds were evaluated in a
FLIPR assay on CHO cells transfected with mGlu5
receptors.
19. All compounds tested were completely stable in physio-
logical buffer (PBS) for at least 24 h.