WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND: : Many general anesthetics were discovered empirically, but primary screens to find new sedative-hypnotics in drug libraries have not used animals, limiting the types of drugs discovered. The authors hypothesized that a sedative-hypnotic screening approach using zebrafish larvae responses to sensory stimuli would perform comparably to standard assays, and efficiently identify new active compounds. METHODS: The authors developed a binary outcome photomotor response assay for zebrafish larvae using a computerized system that tracked individual motions of up to 96 animals simultaneously. The assay was validated against tadpole loss of righting reflexes, using sedative-hypnotics of widely varying potencies that affect various molecular targets. A total of 374 representative compounds from a larger library were screened in zebrafish larvae for hypnotic activity at 10 µM. Molecular mechanisms of hits were explored in anesthetic-sensitive ion channels using electrophysiology, or in zebrafish using a specific reversal agent. RESULTS: Zebrafish larvae assays required far less drug, time, and effort than tadpoles. In validation experiments, zebrafish and tadpole screening for hypnotic activity agreed 100% (n = 11; P = 0.002), and potencies were very similar (Pearson correlation, r > 0.999). Two reversible and potent sedative-hypnotics were discovered in the library subset. CMLD003237 (EC50, ~11 µM) weakly modulated γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptors and inhibited neuronal nicotinic receptors. CMLD006025 (EC50, ~13 µM) inhibited both N-methyl-D-aspartate and neuronal nicotinic receptors. CONCLUSIONS: Photomotor response assays in zebrafish larvae are a mechanism-independent platform for high-throughput screening to identify novel sedative-hypnotics. The variety of chemotypes producing hypnosis is likely much larger than currently known.
WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND: : Many general anesthetics were discovered empirically, but primary screens to find new sedative-hypnotics in drug libraries have not used animals, limiting the types of drugs discovered. The authors hypothesized that a sedative-hypnotic screening approach using zebrafish larvae responses to sensory stimuli would perform comparably to standard assays, and efficiently identify new active compounds. METHODS: The authors developed a binary outcome photomotor response assay for zebrafish larvae using a computerized system that tracked individual motions of up to 96 animals simultaneously. The assay was validated against tadpole loss of righting reflexes, using sedative-hypnotics of widely varying potencies that affect various molecular targets. A total of 374 representative compounds from a larger library were screened in zebrafish larvae for hypnotic activity at 10 µM. Molecular mechanisms of hits were explored in anesthetic-sensitive ion channels using electrophysiology, or in zebrafish using a specific reversal agent. RESULTS:Zebrafish larvae assays required far less drug, time, and effort than tadpoles. In validation experiments, zebrafish and tadpole screening for hypnotic activity agreed 100% (n = 11; P = 0.002), and potencies were very similar (Pearson correlation, r > 0.999). Two reversible and potent sedative-hypnotics were discovered in the library subset. CMLD003237 (EC50, ~11 µM) weakly modulated γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptors and inhibited neuronal nicotinic receptors. CMLD006025 (EC50, ~13 µM) inhibited both N-methyl-D-aspartate and neuronal nicotinic receptors. CONCLUSIONS: Photomotor response assays in zebrafish larvae are a mechanism-independent platform for high-throughput screening to identify novel sedative-hypnotics. The variety of chemotypes producing hypnosis is likely much larger than currently known.
Authors: Suwei Dong; Katharine J Cahill; Moon-Il Kang; Nancy H Colburn; Curtis J Henrich; Jennifer A Wilson; John A Beutler; Richard P Johnson; John A Porco Journal: J Org Chem Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 4.354
Authors: Pavel Y Savechenkov; Xi Zhang; David C Chiara; Deirdre S Stewart; Rile Ge; Xiaojuan Zhou; Douglas E Raines; Jonathan B Cohen; Stuart A Forman; Keith W Miller; Karol S Bruzik Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2012-07-17 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Achintya K Bandyopadhyaya; Brad D Manion; Ann Benz; Amanda Taylor; Nigam P Rath; Alex S Evers; Charles F Zorumski; Steven Mennerick; Douglas F Covey Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Lett Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 2.823
Authors: Xiaoxuan Yang; Youssef Jounaidi; Kusumika Mukherjee; Ryan J Fantasia; Eric C Liao; Buwei Yu; Stuart A Forman Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Ana-Maria Oprişoreanu; Hannah L Smith; Sophia Krix; Helena Chaytow; Neil O Carragher; Thomas H Gillingwater; Catherina G Becker; Thomas Becker Journal: Dis Model Mech Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 5.758
Authors: Michael J Venincasa; Owen Randlett; Sureni H Sumathipala; Richard Bindernagel; Matthew J Stark; Qing Yan; Steven A Sloan; Elena Buglo; Qing Cheng Meng; Florian Engert; Stephan Züchner; Max B Kelz; Sheyum Syed; Julia E Dallman Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Andrew R McKinstry-Wu; Andrzej Z Wasilczuk; Benjamin A Harrison; Victoria M Bedell; Mathangi J Sridharan; Jayce J Breig; Michael Pack; Max B Kelz; Alexander Proekt Journal: Elife Date: 2019-12-03 Impact factor: 8.140