Reggie Bosma1, Zhiyong Wang1, Albert J Kooistra1, Nick Bushby2, Sebastiaan Kuhne1, Jelle van den Bor1, Michael J Waring3, Chris de Graaf1, Iwan J de Esch1, Henry F Vischer1, Robert J Sheppard4, Maikel Wijtmans1, Rob Leurs1. 1. Amsterdam Institute for Molecules, Medicines and Systems, Division of Medicinal Chemistry, Faculty of Science , VU University Amsterdam , De Boelelaan 1083 , 1081 HV Amsterdam , The Netherlands. 2. Operations, BioPharmaceuticals R&D , AstraZeneca , Alderley Park , Macclesfield SK10 4TG , United Kingdom. 3. Medicinal Chemistry, Research and Early Development, Oncology R&D , AstraZeneca , Alderley Park , Macclesfield SK10 4TG , United Kingdom. 4. Medicinal Chemistry, Research and Early Development, Cardiovascular, Renal and Metabolism, BioPharmaceuticals R&D , AstraZeneca , Gothenburg 431 50 , Sweden.
Abstract
Drug-target binding kinetics are an important predictor of in vivo drug efficacy, yet the relationship between ligand structures and their binding kinetics is often poorly understood. We show that both rupatadine (1) and desloratadine (2) have a long residence time at the histamine H1 receptor (H1R). Through development of a [3H]levocetirizine radiolabel, we find that the residence time of 1 exceeds that of 2 more than 10-fold. This was further explored with 22 synthesized rupatadine and desloratadine analogues. Methylene-linked cycloaliphatic or β-branched substitutions of desloratadine increase the residence time at the H1R, conveying a longer duration of receptor antagonism. However, cycloaliphatic substituents directly attached to the piperidine amine (i.e., lacking the spacer) have decreased binding affinity and residence time compared to their methylene-linked structural analogues. Guided by docking studies, steric constraints within the binding pocket are hypothesized to explain the observed differences in affinity and binding kinetics between analogues.
Drug-target binding kinetics are an important predictor of in vivo drug efficacy, yet the relationship between ligand structures and their binding kinetics is often poorly understood. We show that both rupatadine (1) and desloratadine (2) have a long residence time at the histamine H1 receptor (H1R). Through development of a [3H]levocetirizine radiolabel, we find that the residence time of 1 exceeds that of 2 more than 10-fold. This was further explored with 22 synthesized rupatadine and desloratadine analogues. Methylene-linked cycloaliphatic or β-branched substitutions of desloratadine increase the residence time at the H1R, conveying a longer duration of receptor antagonism. However, cycloaliphatic substituents directly attached to the piperidine amine (i.e., lacking the spacer) have decreased binding affinity and residence time compared to their methylene-linked structural analogues. Guided by docking studies, steric constraints within the binding pocket are hypothesized to explain the observed differences in affinity and binding kinetics between analogues.
Drugs have to bind
a therapeutically relevant target to exhibit
a biological effect and, as such, target binding is well characterized
during the development process of many drugs. The binding affinity
is an often-used parameter to measure drug binding to a target (quantified
as KD or Ki values), implicitly assuming ligand binding occurs under equilibrium
conditions. However, drug pharmacodynamics can also be characterized
by the drug–target binding kinetics, which provide important
details about the mechanism of target binding, unexplained by solely
the binding affinity.[1−3] The drug–target residence time, which is a
measure for the lifetime of a drug–target complex, is currently
discussed as one of the important contributors to the biological efficacy
of drugs in vivo.[3−10] It has been postulated that a suitably long drug–target residence
time might increase the therapeutic window in vivo when clearance
of the drug is faster than the dissociation of the drug from the receptor.[11,12] In such cases, drug action would last longer than the presence of
free drug plasma concentrations (i.e., hysteresis). Thus, duration
of therapeutic action may not only depend on drug absorption, distribution,
metabolism, and excretion (and the nature of its metabolites), but
can also be a direct effect of prolonged target binding.[13−15]As the target of 33% of all small-molecule drugs, G protein-coupled
receptors (GPCRs) are an important class of proteins in drug discovery.[16] The histamine H1 receptor (H1R) is an archetypical GPCR and is successfully targeted by
antagonists for the treatment of, for example, allergic disorders.[17] A long duration of action has been observed
in vivo for second-generation H1R antagonists like levocetirizine
and fexofenadine, which have a long residence time at the H1R.[18,19] Hysteresis was indeed observed for levocetirizine
and fexofenadine.[18−20] A strong hysteresis of H1R antagonism
has also been shown for rupatadine (1), which antagonizes
the histamine-induced flare response up to 72 h after oral administration,
whereas plasma levels could only be detected up to 12 h after administration.[21] This might be explained by the metabolism of
rupatadine to metabolites such as desloratadine (2),
which is a known antihistamine itself with a long H1R residence
time (>1 h) and a long plasma half-life in vivo (human).[19,21−27] Yet, a potentially long drug–target residence time of rupatadine
may also be a crucial contributing factor to its observed long duration
of action.Here, we report the measurement of the residence
times of rupatadine
and desloratadine at the H1R. It was shown that rupatadine
has a ≥10-fold longer residence time at the H1R,
relative to desloratadine. As a consequence, rupatadine completely
antagonized the histamine-induced calcium mobilization in HeLa cells
for >2 h after removal of unbound antagonist, whereas inspected
under
the same conditions, desloratadine allowed a time-dependent gradual
recovery of the histamine-induced response. To understand the structure–kinetics
relationship (SKR) for rupatadine and desloratadine in more detail,
the binding kinetics at the H1R were characterized for
newly synthesized analogues (3–24) that retain the core scaffold of 1 and 2 but contain a diverse set of aromatic and aliphatic N-substituents
on the piperidine ring. It was shown that relatively small aliphatic
N-substitutions were sufficient for a prolonged H1R residence
time compared to desloratadine, unless this was negated by steric
interference in the binding pocket.
Results
Binding Properties
of Rupatadine and Desloratadine at the H1R
Based
on the long duration of action of rupatadine
in vivo,[21] we hypothesized that it would
exhibit a long residence time at the H1R. Therefore, binding
of rupatadine and its structural analogue desloratadine to the humanH1R was investigated, initially using [3H]mepyramine
and standardized competition binding experiments.[26] The H1R binding affinity of desloratadine (pKi 9.1 ± 0.1) determined in these experiments
was consistent with previously reported affinity values (pKi = 8.8–10[24−26]). Rupatadine (pKi 8.4 ± 0.1) was shown to have a 5-fold
lower binding affinity for the H1R than desloratadine.
To the best of our knowledge, the binding affinity of rupatadine on
the humanH1R has not been reported in the literature.
Its H1R activity on guinea pig ileum is known, as well
as that for a series of derivatives.[28]Competitive association experiments were subsequently performed to
examine the binding kinetics of rupatadine and desloratadine at the
H1R. Initially, [3H]mepyramine was selected
as radioligand and experiments were performed at 25 °C with an
80 min incubation time, in the manner described previously.[26] A clear initial overshoot in [3H]mepyramine
binding was observed for both unlabeled ligands (Figure A), which is indicative of
the long residence times of the unlabeled ligands relative to [3H]mepyramine.[29,30] However, since the binding curves
of rupatadine and desloratadine showed similar overshoot patterns,
it was difficult to discern differences in their binding kinetics
using the Motulsky–Mahan analysis.[30] Desloratadine was found to have a residence time of 190 ± 40
min (similar to that reported in the literature[25,26]), but for rupatadine, the koff value
(and thus the residence time) could not be accurately constrained
by the model. To overcome this limitation, it was speculated that
the residence times of desloratadine and rupatadine at the H1R might be better discriminated using a radioligand with a longer
residence time, and one more closely matched to desloratadine and
rupatadine than mepyramine.[100] With this
in mind, levocetirizine was considered a better alternative as it
is known to have a 100-fold longer residence time at the H1R than mepyramine.[25] Radiolabeled levocetirizine
has previously been disclosed but without synthetic details for its
preparation.[25] The radiolabel was prepared
by us using a six-step sequence progressing through intermediates 25–28. Separation of the enantiomers of 28, followed by Pd-catalyzed dehalotritiation of the corresponding
aryl iodide delivered the ligand with a specific activity of 956 GBq
mmol–1 (Scheme and Supporting Information).
Figure 2
Radioligand association binding when co-incubated
with rupatadine
and desloratadine. A homogenate of HEK293T cells expressing the H1R was incubated with: (A) [3H]mepyramine (3.8 nM)
alone, or in the presence of either rupatadine (130 nM) or desloratadine
(4 nM) or (B) [3H]levocetirizine (6.6 nM) alone, or in
the presence of either rupatadine (6 nM) or desloratadine (0.7 nM).
Representative graphs of three experiments are shown depicting individual
measurements with duplicate values per time point.
Scheme 1
Synthesis of [H]Levocetirizine
Key: (a) Et2O, 0 °C
to room temperature (rt), 16 h, 88 %; (b) SOCl2, dichloromethane
(DCM), rt, 20 h, 95 %; (c) 2-(piperazin-1-yl)ethanol, PhMe, 80 °C,
20 h, 21 %; (d) (1) KOH, dimethylformamide (DMF), 0 °C, 90 min;
(2) sodium 2-chloroacetate, DMF, 0 °C, 3 h, 57 %; (e) chiral
separation; (f) T2, Pd/C (10 %), Et3N, EtOH.
Synthesis of [H]Levocetirizine
Key: (a) Et2O, 0 °C
to room temperature (rt), 16 h, 88 %; (b) SOCl2, dichloromethane
(DCM), rt, 20 h, 95 %; (c) 2-(piperazin-1-yl)ethanol, PhMe, 80 °C,
20 h, 21 %; (d) (1) KOH, dimethylformamide (DMF), 0 °C, 90 min;
(2) sodium 2-chloroacetate, DMF, 0 °C, 3 h, 57 %; (e) chiral
separation; (f) T2, Pd/C (10 %), Et3N, EtOH.[3H]Levocetirizine was then employed
in competitive
association experiments to characterize the binding kinetics of rupatadine
and desloratadine using an incubation time of 6 h (to ensure a steady
state in [3H]levocetirizine binding). In the presence of
desloratadine, [3H]levocetirizine binding to the H1R increased gradually over time, whereas in the presence of
rupatadine, a clear initial overshoot in [3H]levocetirizine
binding was observed (Figure ). Based on these curve shapes, it is clear that rupatadine
has a longer residence time on the H1R than desloratadine.
Fitting the data to the Motulsky–Mahan model[30] did not result in a precise fit of the koff values, but indicated the koff of desloratadine at the H1R to be >0.03 min–1 (P = 95% in all three experiments) corresponding
to a residence time of <33 min. In the case of rupatadine, the koff value at the H1R is <0.0033
min–1 (P = 95% in all three experiments),
which corresponds to a residence time of >300 min. Thus, rupatadine
has a very long residence time at the H1R, which is at
least 10-fold longer than that observed for desloratadine.
Design
and Synthesis of Rupatadine Analogues at the H1R
To identify the structural features that drive the longer
residence time of rupatadine compared to desloratadine at the H1R, various analogues were synthesized and pharmacologically
characterized.Rupatadine contains a 5-methylpyridin-3-yl group
connected through a methylene to the basic amine of desloratadine
(Figure ). To study
the SKR, we synthesized analogues with the methyl group on different
positions of the pyridine ring (3–5), and the pyridine analogue without the methyl group (6). Two positional isomers of 6 (7, 8) and two pyrimidines (9–10) were also prepared. Additionally, the pyridine ring of rupatadine
was replaced by a phenyl ring with (11), or without (12), a 3-methyl group. Finally, to gradually bridge the transition
to 2, a set of analogues was synthesized, in which the
basic amine of desloratadine was substituted with a range of alkyl
groups (13–24), varying in size,
level of constrainment, and point of attachment (with or without the
one-carbon spacer). Of these, only 3–8, 12, 23, and 24 have been
reported before.[28,31−34]
Figure 1
Structures of the investigated H1R antagonists and synthesized
structural analogues.
Structures of the investigated H1R antagonists and synthesized
structural analogues.All rupatidine analogues were efficiently obtained in one
step
from commercially available desloratidine (2), as depicted
in Scheme . Compounds 4–8, 11–12, and 16 were obtained via nucleophilic substitution
of the corresponding alkyl bromides in moderate to good yields (36–86%).
Reductive alkylation of 2 with different aromatic aldehydes
afforded 3, 9, and 10 (64–88%
yield). Compounds 13–15, 17–20, 22, and 23 were
synthesized by reductive alkylation using aliphaticcarbonyl compounds
in acceptable to good yields (52–71%). Methyl derivative 24 was obtained as the fumarate salt from aqueous (aq)formaldehyde
and NaBH(OAc)3 in 60% yield. Attempted synthesis of cyclopropyl-substituted
analogue 21 via alkylation of 2 with cyclopropylbromide
failed. However, reductive alkylation of 2 with (1-ethoxycyclopropoxy)triethylsilane
delivered the desired product, albeit in low isolated yield (17%).[35]
All rupatadine analogues
containing an aromatic group (3–12) had comparable binding affinities at the H1R (pKi 7.9–8.5) as rupatadine, which were
4–16-fold lower than the binding affinity of desloratadine
(pKi = 9.1). Substituting the benzene
of 12 for a cyclohexane (13) did not affect
the binding affinity (<2-fold). However, substituting the benzene
of 12 for smaller methylene-linked cycloaliphatic N substituents
(14, 16, and 17) resulted in
2–6-fold higher binding affinities at the H1R, similar
to the binding affinity of desloratadine. Likewise, analogues 22–24 with small acyclic aliphatic substituents
had a high binding affinity at the H1R as well (pKi 9.0–9.4), again similar to that of
desloratadine (pKi 9.1). Interestingly,
the one-carbon linker between the basic amine and the cyclic aliphatic
substituents of 13, 14, 16,
and 17 is important for a high-affinity binding, since
a 2–8-fold reduced binding affinity is observed for analogues
that lack this spacer (18–21, respectively).
Analysis of Binding Kinetics
To explore the relative
residence time of all analogues, a dual-point competition association
was performed to determine the kinetic rate index (KRI).[29] This methodology is based on the initial overshoot
in radioligand binding when co-incubated with an unlabeled ligand,
which is an indicator of a relatively long residence time of the unlabeled
ligand compared to that of the radioligand (Figure ). The overshoot is quantified by measuring the radioligand
binding at two time points. The ratio in [3H]levocetirizine
binding at both time points (1 and 6 h) is >1 for unlabeled ligands
that cause an initial overshoot in [3H]levocetirizine binding
and hence have a relatively long residence time compared to [3H]levocetirizine. Using this assay setup, a KRI value of 0.9
± 0.1 was obtained for unlabeled levocetirizine, demonstrating
that, as expected, it has a residence time essentially the same as
the radioligand. Desloratadine does not cause an initial overshoot
in [3H]levocetirizine binding (Figure B) and has a KRI value of 0.82 ± 0.04.
In contrast, rupatadine binds the H1R with a much longer
residence time (Figure B), which is indeed reflected by its KRI value of 2.3 ± 0.2
(Table ). The KRI
values for all analogues are given in Table . All analogues with an aromatic substituent
(3–12) show KRI values >1, indicative of a
consistently
long residence time at the H1R (Table ). More notably, among the analogues with
aliphatic substitutions on the piperidine ring (1, 2, 13–24), large differences
in the KRI values were observed (Figure ). This intriguing SKR in the aliphatic series,
in combination with the lack thereof in the aromatic series, led us
to focus on the former series.
Table 1
H1R Binding of Rupatadine
and Desloratadine Analoguesc
Fumarate salt.
Previously reported (see text for
references).
Binding affinity
(pKi) values were determined by competition
binding experiments
using [3H]mepyramine, and KRI values were determined by
dual-point competition association experiments using [3H]levocetirizine. Depicted values represent the mean ± standard
error of the mean (SEM) of ≥3 experiments
Figure 3
Aliphatic substituents on the basic amine of desloratadine
cause
differential binding kinetics at the H1R. A homogenate
of HEK293T cells expressing the H1R was incubated with
[3H]levocetirizine and the respective ligands. Binding
of [3H]levocetirizine was determined after 1 and 6 h, and
the KRI value was determined as the ratio in [3H]levocetirizine
binding at both time points (6/1 h). The bars depict the mean and
SEM of ≥3 experiments. The top and bottom dotted lines represent
the KRI of reference ligands 1 and 2, respectively.
Radioligand association binding when co-incubated
with rupatadine
and desloratadine. A homogenate of HEK293T cells expressing the H1R was incubated with: (A) [3H]mepyramine (3.8 nM)
alone, or in the presence of either rupatadine (130 nM) or desloratadine
(4 nM) or (B) [3H]levocetirizine (6.6 nM) alone, or in
the presence of either rupatadine (6 nM) or desloratadine (0.7 nM).
Representative graphs of three experiments are shown depicting individual
measurements with duplicate values per time point.Aliphatic substituents on the basic amine of desloratadine
cause
differential binding kinetics at the H1R. A homogenate
of HEK293T cells expressing the H1R was incubated with
[3H]levocetirizine and the respective ligands. Binding
of [3H]levocetirizine was determined after 1 and 6 h, and
the KRI value was determined as the ratio in [3H]levocetirizine
binding at both time points (6/1 h). The bars depict the mean and
SEM of ≥3 experiments. The top and bottom dotted lines represent
the KRI of reference ligands 1 and 2, respectively.Fumarate salt.Previously reported (see text for
references).Binding affinity
(pKi) values were determined by competition
binding experiments
using [3H]mepyramine, and KRI values were determined by
dual-point competition association experiments using [3H]levocetirizine. Depicted values represent the mean ± standard
error of the mean (SEM) of ≥3 experimentsAnalogues with cycloaliphatic groups
and a one-carbon spacer (13, 14, 16, and 17)
show high KRI values, also indicating a long residence time on the
H1R. However, structural analogues with the same cycloaliphatic
group without the one-carbon spacer (18–21) show similar KRI values to desloratadine, indicative of
a shorter residence time at the H1R. Additionally, analogues
with small acyclic aliphatic substituents (22–24) had an average KRI value slightly larger than 1, implying
an increased residence time at the H1R compared to desloratadine.
The correlation between affinity and residence time parameters of
GPCR ligands and the physicochemical properties of the ligands has
been investigated, including affinities for H1R receptor
antagonists,[36,37] by various research groups.[38−45] Therefore, we investigated whether correlations exist between our
pKi/KRI values and key physicochemical
parameters (log D7.4, polar surface
area, van der Waals volume, pKa value
of the conjugate acid of the piperidinenitrogen atom). However, Figure S1, Tables S1 and S2, show that no strong
correlations are evident.
Duration of Functional H1R Antagonism
Since
large differences were observed in the KRI values of the aliphaticrupatadine analogues, these differences were explored in more detail
by measuring the kinetics of functional H1R antagonism
following a preincubation with the selected analogues of interest.
The functional recovery time (RecT) of the H1R was previously
shown to be correlated with the residence time of antagonists.[46] As such, HeLa cells, with endogenous expression
of the H1R, were preincubated with 10 times the Ki concentration of the respective compound.
Unbound ligands were then depleted by washing the cells, which were
subsequently stimulated after different incubation times with 10 μM
histamine. The intracellular calcium mobilization following administration
of histamine was determined with the calcium-sensitive fluorescent
dye (Fluo4 NW).Preincubating HeLa cells with desloratadine,
which has a low KRI value (<1), resulted in functional recovery
of the H1R over time (Figure A and Table S1). However, cells pretreated with rupatadine were completely unresponsive
to histamine, for at least 2 h after removing unbound rupatadine,
suggesting very persistent target engagement by rupatadine. In Figure B, the functional
recovery of the H1R is compared after pretreating the cells
with analogues containing cycloaliphatic N substituents on the piperidine
with or without a one-carbon spacer. Analogues with a one-carbon spacer
(14, 16, and 17) completely
abolished the histamine-induced calcium response for at least 2 h,
similarly to rupatadine. In contrast, and in line with the measured
KRI values, removing the one-carbon spacer (19–21), allowed a relatively fast functional recovery of the
histamine response.
Figure 4
Functional recovery of histamine-induced calcium mobilization
after
a preincubation with ligands that bind the H1R. HeLa cells
were preincubated for 18–20 h with the respective H1R ligand, reaching stable and high (±90%) occupancy of the endogenously
expressed H1R. The cells were then labeled with Fluo4 NW
in the presence of the respective ligands for 1 h. All excess Fluo4
NW and unbound ligands were removed by wash steps and the cells were
subsequently stimulated with histamine (10–5 M)
after different incubation times. Representative graphs of ≥3
experiments are shown, which depict the normalized calcium mobilization
that was measured at each time point after washout. (A) Cells were
preincubated with the reference H1R antagonists: rupatadine
(1) and desloratadine (2). (B) Cells were preincubated with compounds
having various cycloalkyl substituents on the basic amine with (14, 16, 17) or without (19, 20, 21) a one-carbon spacer.
Functional recovery of histamine-induced calcium mobilization
after
a preincubation with ligands that bind the H1R. HeLa cells
were preincubated for 18–20 h with the respective H1R ligand, reaching stable and high (±90%) occupancy of the endogenously
expressed H1R. The cells were then labeled with Fluo4 NW
in the presence of the respective ligands for 1 h. All excess Fluo4
NW and unbound ligands were removed by wash steps and the cells were
subsequently stimulated with histamine (10–5 M)
after different incubation times. Representative graphs of ≥3
experiments are shown, which depict the normalized calcium mobilization
that was measured at each time point after washout. (A) Cells were
preincubated with the reference H1R antagonists: rupatadine
(1) and desloratadine (2). (B) Cells were preincubated with compounds
having various cycloalkyl substituents on the basic amine with (14, 16, 17) or without (19, 20, 21) a one-carbon spacer.The differences in the combined kinetic/affinity
binding profiles
of the compounds were further explored on a structural level with
docking studies. Using the X-ray crystal structure of the H1R with the structurally related ligand doxepin bound,[47] reference compounds desloratadine, rupatadine,
as well as all analogues (3–24) were
docked using PLANTS.[48]Figure shows the postulated binding
modes of desloratadine, rupatadine, and the representative pair 14/19, in comparison to the binding mode of the
co-crystallized ligand doxepin. Desloratadine likely adopts a similar
binding pose to doxepin in the H1R crystal structure (Figure A). Rupatadine was
also found to adopt a similar binding mode to doxepin, but its (5-methylpyridin-3-yl)methyl
moiety targets an additional area of the H1R binding pocket
toward the extracellular vestibule (Figure B). Since the available space in the H1R pocket next to the amine-binding region is limited by I4547.39 and Y4587.43, it is postulated that the cyclopentyl
substituent of 19 encounters greater steric hindrance
than the cyclopentylmethyl substituent of 14 (Figure C), in line with
the altered H1R binding characteristics of 19 (Figures and 4B). This steric hindrance results in a tilted binding
mode compared to desloratadine, which is not observed for optimal
binding of analogues with a methylene spacer between the desloratadine
scaffold and the cyclopentyl group (14, Figure D). The spacer allows the aliphatic
group to turn toward the extracellular vestibule (in the direction
of H4507.35), where more room is available, possibly preventing
a steric clash with I4547.39 and Y4587.43 (Figure D).
Figure 5
Proposed binding modes
of (A) desloratadine (yellow), (B) rupatadine
(salmon), and (C, D) compound 19 (orange) in comparison
to compound 14 (blue) based on docking[48] into the crystal structure (PDB code 3RZE(47)) of the H1R in complex with doxepin [magenta;
see (A)]. The clipped molecular surface of H1R highlights
the limited space for growing from the amine of desloratadine due
to I4547.39 and Y4587.43. To highlight the fit
of the substituents of rupatadine (2, B), 19 (C), and 14 (D) compared to desloratadine in the H1R binding pocket, they are shown as transparent surfaces.
Proposed binding modes
of (A) desloratadine (yellow), (B) rupatadine
(salmon), and (C, D) compound 19 (orange) in comparison
to compound 14 (blue) based on docking[48] into the crystal structure (PDB code 3RZE(47)) of the H1R in complex with doxepin [magenta;
see (A)]. The clipped molecular surface of H1R highlights
the limited space for growing from the amine of desloratadine due
to I4547.39 and Y4587.43. To highlight the fit
of the substituents of rupatadine (2, B), 19 (C), and 14 (D) compared to desloratadine in the H1R binding pocket, they are shown as transparent surfaces.
Discussion and Conclusions
A long drug–target residence time has been postulated to
benefit the in vivo efficacy
of several drugs for a broad number of drug targets, among which is
the H1R.[3,4,7,49,50] Affinity-based
optimization of drug binding does not necessarily reflect differences
in target residence time,[51,52] and a discrepancy between
affinity and residence time at the H1R was previously described.
Moreover, in the case of ligands that do not reach a binding equilibrium
within the time frame of a binding experiment, i.e., ligands with
a very slow off rate like rupatadine, pKi will be underestimated.[53] The drug–target
residence time can therefore provide additional information for the
optimization of drugs that would be lost by focusing on only the binding
affinity. Since the residence time is not routinely incorporated in
drug development, design strategies for optimizing the drug–target
residence time of lead compounds are not widely available. Since rupatadine
is shown here to have a much longer residence time at the H1R than its close structural analogue desloratadine, despite a reduced
binding affinity, it provides an opportunity for a detailed investigation
of the SKR for this GPCR. Toward this end, we synthesized [3H]levocetirizine, which proved to be a useful tool to map the differences
in the KRIs between the two antihistamines. It was therefore employed
to determine the relative residence times of structural analogues 3–24. Several analogues of rupatadine
were designed to replace the (5-methylpyridin-3-yl)methyl group with
other aromatic moieties (3–12). Interestingly,
the Ki values of 3–12 are within 4-fold of the Ki value of rupatadine. Additionally, all aromatic analogues have a
long apparent residence time, as is reflected by the KRI > 1. Removing
the aromatic character of the functional group of 12 by
replacing it with a cyclohexyl group (13) does not affect
the observed H1R binding properties either. Hence, the
strong effect on the residence time by the (5-methylpyridin-3-yl)methyl
group of rupatadine (compared to desloratadine) cannot be explained
by the aromatic character, nor by the pyridinenitrogen atom and the
methyl substituent.To further probe the SKR between rupatadine
and desloratadine,
a series of analogues were characterized that had different aliphatic
substituents on the piperidine group (13–24). Strikingly, most aliphatic moieties afford an increase
in the KRI compared to desloratadine, whereas the binding affinity
remains similar or even decreases. For example, 13–15 contain relatively large aliphatic substituents (≥6
carbons) and have a slightly reduced binding affinity (pKi 8.6–8.9) and a high KRI (>1.4) compared to
desloratadine.
Moreover, analogues with small (≤3 carbons) acyclic aliphatic
substituents (22–24) have a similar
binding affinity but still a slightly higher KRI compared to desloratadine.
This suggests that growing an aliphatic group from the piperidine
increases the residence time at the H1R. This trend is
disrupted, however, for analogues that contain cycloaliphatic groups
directly substituted on the amine (18–21) instead of being separated from the amine by a one-carbon spacer
(13, 14, 16, and 17). Analogues without the methylene spacer (18–21) are marked by a diminished KRI and binding affinity compared
to analogues with a methylene spacer, whereas the KRI values are of
the same magnitude as desloratadine.This cliff in the SKR trend
was validated for a subset of analogues
by studying the kinetics of functional H1R antagonism,
which is known to reflect differential residence times at the H1R.[46] Representative analogues in
which the cycloaliphatic group is substituted with a one-carbon spacer
(14, 16, and 17) completely
inhibits the functional response of the H1R for at least
2 h after removal of unbound ligands, as was observed for rupatadine.
In contrast, analogues with the same cycloaliphatic groups without
a one-carbon spacer (19–21) allowed
a clear recovery of the H1R functional response, as was
also observed for desloratadine. Hence, the relevance of the methylene
spacer for the binding kinetics of analogues with relatively large
N substituents was confirmed by the duration of functional H1R inhibition.The observed residence time/affinity cliff correlated
with the
binding poses of the representative pair 14 and 19 in the H1R binding pocket. Our docking studies
suggest that the reduced flexibility of the cycloaliphatic group without
a spacer (19) might lead to a suboptimal fit due to steric
hindrance (Figure C,D). The increase in ligand residence time at the H1R,
as was observed for most analogues with an aliphatic group on the
basic amine of desloratadine (vide supra), seems therefore to be mitigated
when the shape of the H1R binding pocket, i.e., the steric
constraints imposed by residues I4547.39 and Y4587.43, is interfering with the binding position of the desloratadine scaffold.Recently, it has been shown that N-methylation of H1R ligands with a primary or secondary amine increased the binding
affinity at the H1R by displacing a water molecule near
I4547.39.[42] However, this effect
on the binding affinity was not observed for analogues with a chlorine
moiety on the aromatic rings. Consistent with this finding, N-methylation
of desloratadine (which contains a chlorine group), affording 24, had only modest effects on the H1R binding
affinity. Interestingly, 24 did have a higher KRI compared
to desloratadine but not to the same extent as was observed for larger
aliphatic substituents (for example, 13–17). Substitution with aliphatic or aromatic groups on the
piperidine possibly reduces the resolvation of both the ligand and
binding site during a dissociation event. For ligand dissociation
from the CRF1R, for example, a low degree of ligand solvation
during egress from the pocket was related to a long residence time
at the receptor.[40] Moreover, hydrophobic
shielding of H bonds can increase the lifetime of such interactions
and consequently result in an increased residence time.[39] This is corroborated by the fact that ligands
with a relatively high KRI (>1.5) were relatively lipophilic (log D7.4, Figure S1).
Considering that N substitution of H1R ligands was shown
to interfere with the water network in the binding site[42] and that the salt bridge between the basic amine
of ligands and D1073.32 is crucial for a high binding affinity
at the receptor,[41] shielding this interaction
pair might prevent a rapid egress of the ligands from the binding
site.In conclusion, compared to desloratadine, rupatadine has
an extremely
long residence time at the H1R despite an apparent loss
in binding affinity, resulting in a longer duration of functional
H1R antagonism. Development of a [3H]levocetirizine
radiolabel allowed a detailed SKR study, which shows that aliphatic
N substitution of the piperidine ring from desloratadine is enough
to obtain antagonists with a long residence time at the H1R without increasing the observed binding affinity. Analogues with
large flexible cycloaliphatic or aromatic substituents, like the (5-methylpyridin-3-yl)methyl
substituent of rupatadine, have a long residence time at the H1R. Notably, analogues with cycloaliphatic substituents required
an additional methylene spacer on the amine for an optimal binding
of the H1R. Modeling studies suggest that the combined
affinity/kinetics profiles of analogues without a methylene spacer
are possibly linked to the steric complementarity in the ligand–H1R complex. Aliphatic N substitution of H1R antagonists
is a new potential strategy to optimize the residence time at the
receptor. The presented SKR highlights that subtle structural changes
of small-molecule ligands can have a profound effect on the binding
kinetics at GPCRs.
Experimental Section
Pharmacological
Assays
All compounds that were tested
in pharmacological assays (1–24, 28) are confirmed to pass a publicly available pan-assay interference
compounds filter.[55,56]
Radioligand Binding Experiments
Radioligand binding
experiments were performed as described before, with minor alterations.[26] Cell pellets were produced from HEK293T cells
expressing the N-terminally HA-tagged H1R, and the pellets
were stored at −20 °C. Upon experimentation, the cells
were thawed, resuspended in radioligand binding buffer [Na2HPO4 (50 mM) and KH2PO4 (50 mM),
pH 7.4], and homogenized with a Branson Sonifier 250 (Branson Ultrasonics,
Danbury, CT). Cell homogenates (0.5–3 μg per well) were
then incubated with the respective ligands under gentle agitation,
as specified for the various assay formats below. After the incubation
time, binding reactions were terminated with the cell harvester (PerkinElmer)
using rapid filtration and wash steps over polyethyleneimine-coated
GF/C filter plates. Filter bound radioligand was then quantified by
scintillation counting using MicroScint-O and the Wallac MicroBeta
counter (PerkinElmer).In competition binding experiments, cell
homogenates were incubated for 4 h at 25 °C with a single concentration
of [3H]mepyramine (1.5–4 nM) and increasing concentrations
unlabeled ligands (10–5–10–13 M). IC50 values were obtained by analyzing the displacement
curves with GraphPad Prism 7.03 (GraphPad Software, San Diego) and
were converted to Ki values using the
Cheng–Prusoff equation.[57]The binding rate constants of [3H]levocetirizine were
determined using the previously described methodology, by using four
different concentrations of [3H]levocetirizine (1–35
nM) for a total incubation time of 360 min, with an incubation temperature
of 37 °C (data not shown).[26] This
resulted in a kon of 3.7 ± 0.4 106 min–1 M–1 and a koff of 0.022 ± 0.003 min–1. In competitive association experiments with [3H]levocetirizine
as radioligand, cell homogenates were incubated at 37 °C for
various incubation times with a single concentration of [3H]levocetirizine (5–8 nM) in the absence of unlabeled ligand
as well as with three different concentrations of either desloratadine
(2–60 nM) or rupatadine (0.1–7 nM). The kon and koff values for the
binding of [3H]levocetirizine are constrained during the
analysis of the H1R binding kinetics of desloratadine and
rupatadine. Kinetic binding rate constants as well as their asymmetrical
95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were determined using GraphPad Prism
7.03. Since the 95% CI values were very broad, the values are depicted
to be higher or lower than the 95% CI boundary value observed over
all individually performed experiments. Graphs depict a representative
graph with mean and standard deviation of duplicate values showing,
for clarity, only a single concentration unlabeled ligand.Competitive
association experiments with [3H]mepyramine
as radioligand were performed as described before, with minor alterations.[26] Briefly, cell homogenates were incubated at
25 °C for various incubation times with a single concentration
of [3H]mepyramine (2.5–5.5 nM) in the absence or
presence of a single concentration unlabeled ligand [desloratadine
(4–8 nM) or rupatadine (80–250 nM)].In dual-point
competition association experiments, the kinetic
rate index (KRI) value at the H1R is determined. Cell homogenates
were incubated on a 96-well plate for 1 and 6 h at 37 °C, with
a single concentration of [3H]levocetirizine (4–11
nM) together with a single concentration of unlabeled ligand that
equals the respective Ki value of that
ligand at the H1R. All conditions were measured in triplicate
per experiment (n = 3). Additionally, for each 96-well
plate, [3H]levocetirizine was incubated with a large excess
of mianserin (10–5 M) to determine nonspecific binding
levels of the radioligand (n = 6) and, as a positive
control, [3H]levocetirizine binding was determined in the
absence of competitor (maximal binding, n = 6). [3H]levocetirizine binding levels were baseline-corrected by
subtracting nonspecific binding levels, and KRI values were then calculated
by the ratio of [3H]levocetirizine binding after a 1 h
incubation time over the [3H]levocetirizine binding after
a 6 h incubation time. KRI is a quantitative measure for the overshoot
in radioligand binding, which results from incubating the radioligand
with an unlabeled ligand that has a relatively low koff.[29,30] It is therefore crucial that
the concentrations of unlabeled ligands are comparable and lead to
a submaximal inhibition of the radioligand binding. Therefore KRI
values were only accepted when the % inhibition of [3H]levocetirizine
binding (compared to the maximal [3H]levocetirizine binding)
was (1) less than 80% after either 1 or 6 h and (2) more than 20%
inhibition after 6 h. In the case that data points had to be excluded,
the concentration unlabeled ligands were attenuated (ranging from
1 × Ki to 3 × Ki concentrations). All experiments were performed in triplicate
or more.
Intracellular Calcium Mobilization Assay
The functional
recovery of the H1R following antagonism was measured as
described before.[46] In short, HeLa cells,
endogenously expressing the H1R, were seeded 2 × 104 cells per well in a clear bottom 96-well plate, which were
preincubated overnight with a concentration antagonist corresponding
to 10 times the respective Ki at the H1R (24 wells per antagonist). After 18–20 h, the cells
were labeled with the Fluo-4NW dye in the presence of the respective
concentration antagonist for an hour. Both the excess dye solution
and the unbound antagonists were removed by washing the cells two
times, and the cells were then reconstituted in Hank’s balanced
salt solution buffer supplemented with probenecid (2.5 mM) (t0). Following the wash step, the cells were
stimulated every 5 min by histamine injection, into a single well,
using the NOVOstar plate reader (BMG Labtech, Ortenberg, Germany),
while simultaneously detecting the calcium-mediated Fluo4 NW fluorescence
(λexcitation = 494 nm and λemission = 516 nm). For each well stimulated with histamine, a consecutive
Triton X-100 injection after 65 s was used to lyse the cells leading
to saturation of the Fluo4 NW with calcium. The histamine-induced
peak response was then normalized to basal levels of fluorescence
(prior to histamine injection; 0) and saturated Fluo4 NW fluorescence
(following Triton X-100 injection; 1). This led to a reproducible
histamine-induced response over time for HeLa cells pretreated with
vehicle condition, which was set to 100%. Histamine-induced peak responses
were plotted against the difference in time between t0 and the subsequent histamine injection. The recovery
time (RecT) was determined for antagonists by nonlinear regression
using the one-phase association model in GraphPad Prism 7.03.
Molecular
Modeling
Simplified molecular-input line-entry
system for compounds 1–24 were obtained
from ChemBioDraw Ultra (version 16.0.1.4) and were subsequently used
as input for ChemAxon’s calculator for protonation (pH = 7.4).
A three-dimensional conformation was then generated using Molecular
Networks’ CORINA (version 3.49) and stored in Tripos MOL2 format
(gold extension). The doxepin-bound H1R structure was obtained
from the protein data bank (PDB code 3RZE), after which the fused T4-lysozyme was
removed from the structure. The complex was further prepared for docking
using Molecular Operating Environment (Chemical Computing Group, version
2016.0802). Using PLANTS (version 1.2),[48] each compound was docked into the H1R binding pocket
three times with the following settings: search speed, 1; cluster
root-mean-square deviation, 1.0; cluster structures, 10; and scored
using the ChemPLP scoring function. The binding site was defined by
the center of the co-crystallized ligand doxepin with a radius of
11 Å. The resulting docking poses were visually inspected, and
the poses with the best overlap with each other as well as the doxepin
reference compound were selected, which were also the highest-ranking
poses for each compound. Moreover, using an interaction fingerprint
similarity analysis,[58] all docking poses
were compared to the binding mode of the co-crystallized compound
doxepin. All selected docking poses have an interaction fingerprint
similarity of at least 0.72 compared to the binding mode of doxepin
and are depicted in the Supporting Information (Figures S2 and S3). The binding mode figures were created
with PyMol (version 1.8.0).
Chemistry
General Procedures
Synthesis
of Rupatadine Analogues 3–24
Anhydrous tetrahydrofuran, DCM, DMF, and Et2O were obtained
by elution through an activated alumina column
prior to use. All other solvents and chemicals were acquired from
commercial suppliers and were used as received. ChemBioDraw Ultra
16.0.1.4 was used to generate systematic names for all molecules.
All reactions were performed under an inert atmosphere (N2). Thin-layer chromatography analyses were carried out with aluminasilica plates (Merck F254) using staining and/or UV visualization.
Column purifications were performed manually using SiliCycle UltraPure
silica gel or automatically using Biotage equipment. NMR spectra (1H, 13C, and two-dimensional) were recorded on a
Bruker 300 (300 MHz), Bruker 500 (500 MHz), or Bruker 600 (600 MHz)
spectrometer. Chemical shifts are reported in parts per million (ppm)
(δ), and the residual solvent was used as internal standard
(δ 1H NMR: CDCl3 7.26; dimethyl sulfoxide
(DMSO)-d6 2.50; CD3OD 3.31;
δ 13C NMR: CDCl3 77.16; DMSO-d6 39.52; CD3OD 49.00). Data are reported as
follows: chemical shift (integration, multiplicity (s = singlet, d
= doublet, t = triplet, q = quartet, br = broad signal, m = multiplet,
app = apparent), and coupling constants (Hz)). A Bruker microTOF mass
spectrometer using electrospray ionization (ESI) in positive-ion mode
was used to record high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) images.
A Shimadzu LC-20AD liquid chromatograph pump system linked to a Shimadzu
SPD-M20A diode array detector with MS detection using a Shimadzu LC-MS-2010EV
mass spectrometer was used to perform liquid chromatography–mass
spectrometry (LC–MS) analyses. An Xbridge (C18) 5 μm
column (50 mm, 4.6 mm) was used. The solvents that were used were
the following: solvent B (acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid) and
solvent A (water with 0.1% formic acid), flow rate of 1.0 mL min–1, start 5% B, linear gradient to 90% B in 4.5 min,
then 1.5 min at 90% B, then linear gradient to 5% B in 0.5 min, then
1.5 min at 5% B; and total run time of 8 min. All compounds have a
purity of ≥95% (unless specified otherwise), calculated as
the percentage peak area of the analyzed compound by UV detection
at 254 nm (values are rounded). Reverse-phase column chromatography
purifications were performed using Buchi PrepChrom C-700 equipment
with a discharge deuterium lamp ranging from 200 to 600 nm to detect
compounds using solvent B (acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid), solvent
A (water with 0.1% formic acid), flow rate of 15.0 mL min–1, and a gradient (start 95% A for 3.36 min, then linear gradient
to 5% A in 30 min, then at 5% A for 3.36 min, then linear gradient
to 95% A in 0.5 min, and then 1.5 min at 95% A).The Supporting Information lists 1H NMR
and 13C NMR spectroscopy data as well as high-resolution
mass spectroscopy and LC–MS images (Figures S4–S69).
Synthesis of [3H]Levocetirizine
(25–28)
Column chromatography
was carried out using prepacked
silica gel cartridges (SiliCycle, Quebec, Canada) on an Isco Companion
(Teledyne Isco, NE). 1H NMR spectra were recorded on a
Bruker (600 or 400 MHz) using the stated solvent. Chemical shifts
(δ) in ppm are quoted relative to CDCl3 (δ
7.26 ppm) and DMSO-d6 (δ 2.50 ppm).
Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS) data
were collected using a Waters Alliance LC (Waters Corporation, MA)
with Waters ZQ mass detector. Analytical high-performance liquid chromatography
(HPLC) data were recorded using Agilent 1200 HPLC system with a β-Ram
Flow Scintillation Analyser, using the following conditions: Waters
Sunfire C18, 3.5 μm, 4.6 × 100 mm2 column at 40 °C, eluting with 5% acetonitrile/water + 0.1%
trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) to 95% acetonitrile/water + 0.1% TFA over
a 32 min gradient. Specific activities were determined gravimetrically
with a Packard Tri-Carb 2100CA Liquid Scintillation Analyser (Packard
Instrument Company Inc., IL) using Ultima Gold cocktail. Reactions
with tritium gas were carried out on a steel manifold obtained from
RC Tritec AG (Teufen, Switzerland). Specific activity was calculated
by comparison of the ratio of tritium/hydrogen or carbon-14/carbon-12
for the tracer against the unlabeled reference. [3H]Methyl
nosylate was obtained from Quotient Bioresearch as a solution in toluene
at 3150 GBq mmol–1. Tritium gas was supplied and
absorbed onto a depleted uranium bed by RC Tritec AG (). All other
reagents and solvents obtained from Sigma-Aldrich and Fisher and were
used without further purification.
To a solution of desloratadine (5.00 g,
16.1 mmol) in DCM (150 mL) were added MeOH (75 mL), aq formaldehyde
solution (ca. 13.4 M, 2.40 mL, 32.2 mmol) and AcOH (1.29 mL, 22.5
mmol), and the resulting mixture was stirred at room temperature for
15 min. Subsequently, NaBH(OAc)3 (5.11 g, 24.1 mmol) was
added and the resulting mixture was stirred for 1.5 h at room temperature.
The reaction mixture was diluted with 1 M aqueous NaOH (600 mL) and
extracted with DCM (2 × 200 mL). The combined organic phases
were washed with brine (200 mL), dried over Na2SO4, filtered, and concentrated in vacuo. Purification by flash column
chromatography (DCM/MeOH/TEA 190:5:5) gave the free base (3.96 g),
which was subsequently converted to the fumaric acid salt to obtain
the title compound as a white solid (4.27 g, 60%).1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6) δ 8.36–8.32
(m, 1H), 7.57 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H), 7.31 (d, J = 2.0 Hz, 1H), 7.24–7.17 (m, 2H), 7.09 (d, J = 8.2 Hz, 1H), 6.55 (s, 2H), 3.37–3.24 (m, 2H),
2.89–2.77 (m, 4H), 2.48–2.38 (m, 4H), 2.36 (s, 3H),
2.31–2.22 (m, 2H). 13C NMR (126 MHz, DMSO-d6) δ 167.0, 156.7, 146.4, 140.2, 137.8,
137.5, 135.3, 134.6, 133.3, 133.2, 131.6, 130.7, 129.0, 125.7, 122.4,
55.1, 44.2, 30.9, 30.6, 29.2, 29.1. HRMS: C20H22ClN2 (M + H)+ calcd: 325.1466, found 325.1452.
LC–MS: tR = 2.9 min, purity >99%
(254 nm), m/z: 324.9 (M + H)+.
(4-Chlorophenyl)(4-iodophenyl)methanol (25)
(4-Chlorophenyl)magnesium bromide (1.0 M in Et2O) (3.23
mL, 3.23 mmol) was added dropwise over 15 min to a stirred solution
of 4-iodobenzaldehyde (500 mg, 2.16 mmol) in Et2O (4 mL)
at 0 °C under nitrogen. The mixture was allowed to warm to room
temperature and stirred for a further 16 h. Satd. aq NH4Cl (1 mL) was added carefully (CAUTION! Exotherm and vigorous bubbling).
After bubbling had ceased, the mixture was partitioned between Et2O (10 mL) and satd. aq NH4Cl (5 mL). The organic
phase was washed with brine (5 mL), dried (MgSO4), filtered,
and evaporated to give the title compound (655 mg, 88%) as a cream
solid.1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3) δ
7.59 (d, J = 8.62 Hz, 2H), 7.27–7.13 (m, 4H),
7.02 (d, J = 8.36 Hz, 2H), 5.68 (s, 1H).
SOCl2 (0.138 mL, 1.89 mmol)
was added dropwise
to a stirred solution of 25 (0.65 g, 1.89 mmol) in DCM
(9.29 mL) at room temperature. After 20 h, the solvent was evaporated
under vacuum to give the product (0.653 g, 1.799 mmol, 95%) as a purple
solid.1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3) δ
7.63–7.58 (m, 2H), 7.27–7.16 (m, 4H), 7.07–7.02
(m, 2H), 5.94 (s, 1H).
A solution of 2-(piperazin-1-yl)ethanol
(0.206 g, 1.58 mmol) in toluene (1 mL) was added to 26 (0.637 g, 1.75 mmol) and the mixture was stirred at 80 °C under
nitrogen for 20 h. The mixture was diluted with DCM and purified by
ion-exchange chromatography (strong cation exchange) eluting with
1 M NH3/MeOH. Fractions containing product were purified
by flash silica chromatography (elution gradient 0–5% MeOH–NH3 (3.5 M) in DCM) to afford the product (165 mg, 0.361 mmol,
21%) as a white solid.1H NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6) 7.65 (d, J = 8.1 Hz, 2H),
7.39 (d, J = 8.4 Hz, 2H), 7.34 (d, J = 8.4 Hz, 2H), 7.20 (d, J = 8.2 Hz, 2H), 4.15 (s,
1H), 4.32 (s, 1H), 3.5–3.42 (m, 2H), 2.48–2.41 (m, 4H),
2.38 (t, J = 6.0 Hz, 2H), 2.33–2.24 (m, 4H).
LC–MS (ESI) m/z 457.
KOH (79 mg, 1.41 mmol) was added to
a stirred solution of 27 (161 mg, 0.35 mmol) in DMF (641
μL) at 0 °C and the mixture was stirred for 90 min. Sodium
2-chloroacetate (82 mg, 0.70 mmol) was added and the mixture was stirred
for 3 h. Water (3 mL) was added and the pH was adjusted to 9–10
with aq HCl (1 M). The mixture was washed with EtOAc (2 × 1 mL)
and the pH was adjusted to 4–5 with aq HCl (1 M). The mixture
was extracted with DCM (3 × 2 mL). The combined DCM phases were
washed with brine (2 mL), dried (MgSO4), filtered, and
evaporated to give, after trituration with Et2O, racemic
product (103 mg, 0.200 mmol, 57%) as an off-white solid.1H NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6) 7.69–7.65
(m, 2H), 7.44–7.4 (m, 2H), 7.38–7.34 (m, 2H), 7.22 (d, J = 8.4 Hz, 2H), 3.87 (s, 2H), 4.39 (s, 1H), 3.62 (t, J = 5.5 Hz, 2H), 2.85–2.63 (m, 6H), 2.46–2.27
(m, 4H). LC–MS (ESI) m/z 515.The stereoisomers were separated by chromatography using a Chiralpak
OD column, 5 μm silica, 20 mm diameter, 250 mm length, eluting
with 95/05/0.2/0.1 mixture of MeCN/MeOH/AcOH/TEA to give the desired
isomer (first eluted) (S)-2-(2-(4-((4-chlorophenyl)(4-iodophenyl)methyl)piperazin-1-yl)ethoxy)acetic
acid (S)-28 (7.8 mg)
Precursor (S)-28 (0.8 mg, 1.55 μmol), Pd (10% on carbon, 0.5
mg, 0.47 μmol), and Et3N (5 μL, 0.04 mmol)
were mixed in EtOH (200 μL). The flask was fitted to the tritium
manifold. The mixture was freeze–pump–thaw degassed
and was then stirred under tritium gas (63.5 GBq) at 162 mbar for
2.5 h. The reaction mixture was filtered through a poly(tetrafluoroethylene)
filter (Whatman 0.45 μm) and washed thoroughly with more EtOH
(5 mL). The solution was lyophilized to remove labile tritium, more
EtOH (5 mL) was addeAmyloid Inhbitorsd, and the mixture was again
lyophilized. Purification by preparative HPLC (Waters XBridge C18
column, 5 μm, 4.6 × 150 mm2) using decreasingly
polar mixtures of water (containing 0.1% TFA) and MeCN as eluents
followed by further preparative HPLC (Waters XBridge C18 column, 5
μm, 4.6 × 150 mm2), using decreasingly polar
mixtures of water (containing 0.1% ammonia) and MeCN as eluents, afforded
[3H]levocetirizine (728 MBq), which was dissolved in EtOH
(10 mL) for storage as a colorless solution.Radiochemical purity
>98% by HPLC. Chiral purity 93% enantiomeric excess by HPLC (obtained
on ethyl ester derivative by standing in ethanol with TFA for 3 days).
LC–MS (ESI) m/z 391 [M +
H]+. 1H NMR (640 MHz, DMSO-d6) 7.20 (t, J = 7.8). Specific activity
by mass spectrometry: 956 GBq mmol–1.
Authors: Michel Gillard; Christy Van Der Perren; Nicole Moguilevsky; Roy Massingham; Pierre Chatelain Journal: Mol Pharmacol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 4.436
Authors: John C Anthes; Helen Gilchrest; Christian Richard; Stephen Eckel; Dave Hesk; Robert E West; Shirley M Williams; Scott Greenfeder; Motasim Billah; William Kreutner; Robert E Egan Journal: Eur J Pharmacol Date: 2002-08-09 Impact factor: 4.432
Authors: Zhi Yuan Kok; Leigh A Stoddart; Sarah J Mistry; Tamara A M Mocking; Henry F Vischer; Rob Leurs; Stephen J Hill; Shailesh N Mistry; Barrie Kellam Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 8.039
Authors: Zhiyong Wang; Reggie Bosma; Sebastiaan Kuhne; Jelle van den Bor; Wrej Garabitian; Henry F Vischer; Maikel Wijtmans; Rob Leurs; Iwan J P de Esch Journal: ACS Omega Date: 2021-05-07
Authors: Tatu Pantsar; Philipp D Kaiser; Mark Kudolo; Michael Forster; Ulrich Rothbauer; Stefan A Laufer Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 17.694