1698
R. D. Clark et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15 (2005) 1697–1700
dictated structural modification. Previous work had
demonstrated steric tolerance in the piperidine N-substi-
tuent of 1; hence, this was an attractive position for
modification. A series of compounds 4–6 was selected
based on novelty, synthetic accessibility, and opportu-
nity for variation in the pendant piperidine and pipera-
zine rings.
with a general trend toward higher binding with in-
creased size/lipophilicity of the piperidine and piperazine
4-substituents, culminating in the cyclopentyl deriva-
tives 4d and 6g with binding constants of 10.6 and
10.8, respectively. However, there was a trend toward
decreased microsomal stability for these more lipophilic
analogues.
3
In addition to the liver microsomal data, pharmaco-
kinetic parameters determined using cassette dosing in
the dog were used to identify the most promising com-
pounds for further evaluation. Under the cassette
screening protocol, 7–12 compounds were coadminis-
tered orally or intravenously to two to four dogs per
dose route in a parallel study design. Each dog received
0.25–0.5 mg/kg/compound for a combined drug load of
O
N
H
O
O
N
S
O
N
O
X
4
X = CRR1,
X = O
X = NR
5
6
6
6 mg/kg/study. Serial blood samples were collected
through 24 h post dose from each animal and the result-
ing plasma for each dose route was pooled by time point
prior to quantitative analysis by LC–MS/MS. Pharma-
cokinetic parameters were determined using noncom-
partmental analysis. Selected parameters are presented
in Table 1. Under this protocol, many compounds dem-
onstrated good estimated oral bioavailability (%F >50%
in 12 of 17 shown) even though a wide range of in vivo
clearances were observed. The main differentiating fea-
tures were related to differences in persistence and abso-
lute systemic exposure (as shown with parameters t1/2
and Vz).
The series of compounds 4–6 were prepared as described
7
in Scheme 1. Treatment of 1,4-benzodioxan-5-carbonyl
chloride (7) with amine 8, followed by deprotection with
TFA afforded intermediate 9. Alkylation with chlorides
1
3
0 (prepared by reaction of commercially available
-chloropropanesulfonyl chloride with the requisite
piperidine, morpholine, N-alkylpiperazine, or Boc–
piperazine) furnished final compounds 4a–d, 5, and
6
b–i, as well as intermediate 11. Deprotection of the lat-
ter to 6a followed by derivatization of the piperazine
nitrogen gave analogues 6j–q. Analog 6b was more effi-
ciently prepared by reductive alkylation of 6a with
formaldehyde.
By using the in vitro–in vivo screening cascade during
the optimization process, a total of 74 compounds (not
all shown and some from a related series) were rapidly
screened for metabolic stability. Of these, roughly half
(47) advanced to the cassette PK testing in the dog
which identified nine compounds for advancement into
conventional, more time-consuming pharmacokinetic
studies.
Binding affinity for the human cloned 5-HT receptor,
4
dog and human liver microsomal degradation rates,
and dog pharmacokinetic parameters are presented in
Table 1. All analogs demonstrated high binding affinity
O
O
O
O
H N
2
N
On the basis of the totality of the data, the two closely
related analogues 6b–c appeared to have the most prom-
ise and of these, the N-methyl derivative 6b was chosen
for further development. This decision was based pri-
marily on the lower clearance and longer half life of
Cl
8
Boc
N
H
N
a,b
H
O
O
7
9
6
b relative to 6c.
O
O
N
O
O
Cl
S
1
0
X
When examined in a conventional pharmacokinetic
study in the dog (single-compound iv/po cross-over, ex-
tended to a 72 h collection period), 6b demonstrated a
multiphasic disposition with an initial distribution phase
of approximately 7 h. The inclusion of the late post-dose
time points lead to the improved ability to calculate the
terminal elimination t1/2 (18 h). Mean oral bioavailabil-
ity (n = 4) was 75 %F. When compared to the cassette
dosing regimen, the plasma half life was similar if calcu-
lated within the same time intervals but the shorter col-
lection time used in the screening protocol missed the
terminal elimination phase. Additionally, oral bioavail-
ability, though ranked as good, was underestimated. A
similar underestimate of the t1/2 was observed for the
N-acetyl and N-methanesulfonyl analogs 6j (t1/2 4.6 h)
and 6m (t1/2 3.6 h), respectively, upon oral administra-
tion to the dog under the conventional protocol. Thus
N
H
O
O
c
N
S
N
O
X
4
6
a-d X = CRR1 5 X = O
b-i (X = N-alkyl or aryl) 11 X = NBoc
O
O
N
H
O
O
N
S
b,d
N
O
N
R
6
6
a (R = H) 6b (R = Me)
j-q (R = acyl or sulfonyl)
Scheme 1. Reagents and conditions: (a) 8, TEA, dichloromethane; (b)
O, H
TFA, dichloromethane; (c) TEA, DMF, 80 °C; (d) for 6b: CH
2
2
,
Pd–C, ethanol; for 6j–q: acyl or sulfonyl halide, TEA,
dichloromethane.