A. J. Morrison et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 21 (2011) 506–509
509
Table 5
Effects of 1 and 24 following intravenous dosing in the tail flick test in the mouse
Test compound
Dose (
l
mol/kg)
%MPEa
ED50
(l
mol/kg)
DofAb (min)
Vehicle (10% Tween 80)
Compound 1
Compound 1
10 ml/kg
0.1
0.3
2.9 2.8
14.5 3.7
72.3 9.7c
100 0c
Compound 1
1.0
Compound 1
0.2
50
Vehicle (10% Tween 80)
Compound 24
Compound 24
Compound 24
Compound 24
CP 55,940
10 ml/kg
0.35
1.17
2.01 4.9
29.3 8.3
54.1 15.4
100 0c
3.52
0.8
0.11
1.7
160
110
90
WIN 55,212-2
a
%MPE: %maximum possible effect, see Ref. 11.
Dofa: duration of action, time taken for the tail flick latency to return within the mean plus three standard deviations of the
b
baseline value following a twice ED50 dose.
c
Denotes that the effect was significantly greater than in vehicle treated mice (P <0.01, Dunn’s post-test)
D., Lawton, G., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2006; Vol. 44, pp 207–329;
(b)Pertwee, R. G., Ed.Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology; Springer:
Heidelberg, 2005; Vol. 168, (c) Huffman, J. W.; Padgett, L. W. Curr. Med.
Chem. 2005, 12, 1395.
for further profiling based on its overall potency and stability in
microsomes.
Compound 24 exhibited high affinity for both CB1 (pKi 8.2) and
CB2 (pKi 8.5) cannabinoid receptors, as determined by radioligand
competition binding assays using [3H]-CP 55,940 binding to either
hCB1 or hCB2 receptors expressed in insect Sf9 membranes. Fur-
thermore, compound 24 was screened at 10ꢁ5 M against a panel
of 63 unrelated molecular targets and showed no activity against
any other targets.
2. (a) Adam, J.; Cairns, J.; Caulfield, W.; Cowley, P.; Cumming, I.; Easson, M.;
Edwards, D.; Ferguson, M.; Goodwin, R.; Jeremiah, F.; Kiyoi, T.; Mistry, A.; Moir,
E.; Morphy, R.; Tierney, J.; York, M.; Baker, J.; Cottney, J.; Houghton, A.;
Westwood, P.; Walker, G. Med. Chem. Commun. 2010, 1, 54; (b) Moir, E. M.;
Yoshiizumi, K.; Cairns, J.; Cowley, P.; Ferguson, M.; Jeremiah, F.; Kiyoi, T.;
Morphy, R.; Tierney, J.; Wishart, G.; York, M.; Baker, J.; Cottney, J. E.; Houghton,
A. K.; McPhail, P.; Osprey, A.; Walker, G.; Adam, J. A. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett.
2010, 20, 7327.
The in vitro and in vivo DMPK profile of 24 and 1 (for compar-
ison) is summarized in Table 4. In comparison to the carboxamide,
24 is cleared less rapidly as was predicted from the in vitro micro-
somal stability results. Furthermore, 24 had a slightly lower vol-
ume of distribution but overall a longer half-life than 1. In stark
contrast, the brain levels were markedly different with 24 having
3. Wermuth, C. G.; Ciapetti, P.; Giethlen, B.; Bazzini, P. In Comprehensive Medicinal
Chemistry II; Taylor, J. B., Triggle, D. J., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, 2006; Vol. 2, pp
649–711.
4. Superposition analysis was carried out with SYBYL7.3 and GASP as distributed by
Tripos Inc., 1699 South Hanley Road, St. Louis, MO 63144-2913, USA. Image
created with PyMOL 0.99, DeLano, M. L. The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System
5. Einsiedel, J.; Thomas, C.; Hübner, H.; Gmeiner, P. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2000,
10, 2041.
a much lower B:P ratio and a delayed brain tmax
.
6. Srivastava, P. C.; Pickering, M. V.; Allen, L. B.; Streeter, D. G.; Campbell, M. T.;
Witowski, J. T.; Sidwell, R. W.; Robins, R. K. J. Med. Chem. 1977, 20, 256.
7. (a) Morrison, A. J.; Paton, R. M.; Sharp, R. D. Synth. Commun. 2005, 35, 807; (b)
Fordyce, E. A. F.; Morrison, A. J.; Sharp, R. D.; Paton, R. M. Tetrahedron 2010, 66,
7192.
8. Brain, C. T.; Paul, J. M.; Loong, Y.; Oakley, P. J. Tetrahedron Lett. 1999, 40, 3275.
9. Price, M. R.; Baillie, G. L.; Thomas, A.; Stevenson, L. A.; Easson, M.; Goodwin, R.;
McLean, A.; McIntosh, L.; Goodwin, G.; Walker, G.; Westwood, P.; Marrs, J.;
Thomson, F.; Cowley, P.; Christopoulos, A.; Pertwee, R. G.; Ross, R. A. Mol.
Pharmacol. 2005, 68, 1484.
Based on its enhanced stability in vivo, 24 was progressed for test-
ing in the mouse tail flick test.10,11 Intravenous administration of 24
increased tail flick latency in a dose-dependent manner, Table 5,
but with a lower ED50 than the starting compound 1, this may be
due to the differences in CNS penetration between the two com-
pounds. Having demonstrated that the compound is efficacious in
this model the duration of action was measured, the time taken for
the tail flick latency to return within the mean plus three standard
deviations of the baseline value following a twice ED50 dose. Pleas-
ingly it was found that the duration of action of 24 was 160 min over
three times longer than the duration of action observed with 1, Table
5 and that our strategy of improving metabolic stability by replace-
ment of the carboxamide with an bioisosteric heterocycle had real-
ized the goal of improving duration of action in vivo.
In summary, a series of indole-3-heterocyclic derivatives were
synthesized and found to be agonists of the CB1 receptor. In addi-
tion, these heterocyclic derivatives had improved mouse micro-
somal stability when compared to our previously reported
indole-3-carboxamides. A systematic SAR study of the heterocycle,
amine, and 7-position of the indole identified a highly potent and
relatively stable CB1 receptor agonist 24. This compound was
found to have an improved duration of action after intravenous
administration in the mouse tail flick test, a preclinical model of
nociception.
10. Whiteside, G. T.; Gottshall, S. L.; Boulet, J. M.; Chaffer, S. M.; Harrison, J. E.;
Pearson, M. S.; Turchin, P. I.; Mark, L.; Garrison, A. E.; Valenzano, K. J. Eur. J.
Pharmacol. 2005, 528, 65.
11. Determination of tail flick latency in mice; male ICR mice weighing 20–34 g
were trained to sit still in a tail flick apparatus (Ugo Basile, Italy) whilst tail flick
latency was measured. The tail was exposed to a focused beam of radiant heat
at a point approximately 2.5 cm from the tip. Tail flick latency was defined as
the interval between the appliance of the thermal stimulus and withdrawal of
the tail. A 12 second cut-off was employed to prevent tissue damage. Four
groups of eight mice were treated with vehicle or one of three doses of the test
compound. Tail flick latency was measured before administration of the test
compound and at 20, 40, and 60 min after compound administration. Data
were plotted as mean SEM and expressed as % maximum possible effect
(%MPE).
ðpost drug latency ꢁ baseline latencyÞ
%MPE ¼
ꢂ 100
ðCut off latency ꢁ baseline latencyÞ
The time of maximum effect for each mouse in the two top dose groups was
determined and these values averaged to calculate the mean time of maximum
effect. For analytical purposes Tmax was defined as the time point closest to this
averaged value. Tmax data were then compared between groups using the Krus-
kal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance, a non-parametric statistical test. If sta-
tistical significance (P <0.05) was observed with this test, the vehicle group and
each of the treatment groups were compared using the non-parametric Dunn’s
test (Unistat 5.0 software).
References and notes
1. Recent reviews for cannabinoid receptor agonists: (a) Adam, J.; Cowley, P. M.;
Kiyoi, T.; Morrison, A. J.; Mort, C. J. W. In Progress in Medicinal Chemistry; King, F.