| Literature DB >> 33282822 |
Alaa Talhami1, Avi Swed2, Shmuel Hess3, Oded Ovadia2, Sarit Greenberg2, Adi Schumacher-Klinger2, David Rosenthal1, Deborah E Shalev4,5, Mattan Hurevich1, Philip Lazarovici2, Amnon Hoffman2, Chaim Gilon1.
Abstract
Painkillers are commonly used medications. NativeEntities:
Keywords: TAPS; backbone cyclization; cycloscan; peripheral painkiller; reductive alkylation
Year: 2020 PMID: 33282822 PMCID: PMC7689096 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2020.532577
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.221
Figure 1Cyclic peptides and their building blocks. (A) Linear peptide; (B) Side chain to side chain cyclic peptide; (C) Backbone cyclic peptide that employs N-Alkylated Gly amino acids; (D) Backbone cyclic peptide that employs non Gly N-Alkylated amino acid.
Figure 2Schematic representation of the steps used for converting an active linear peptide into a backbone-cyclic peptide with drug-like properties. BN-AE, backbone nitrogen to amino end; BN-BN, backbone nitrogen to backbone nitrogen; BN-CE, backbone nitrogen to carboxy end; BN-SC, backbone nitrogen to side chain.
Figure 3TAPS and β-Endorphin linear tetrapeptide analogs.
Figure 4Design of backbone-cyclic TAPS analog. The TAPS linear peptide and building block (left). The backbone-cyclic TAPS analog and building blocks (right).
Figure 5Synthesis of Gly-BU and TAPS c(n-m) backbone-cyclic peptide library. Reagents and conditions. a. Alloc-Cl, DCM. b. Glyoxylic acid, Sodium cyanoborohydride. c. Fmoc-OSu, Et3N. d. 20% piperidine/DMF. e. AA, HATU, DIPEA, DMF. f. Alloc-aminoalkyl aldehyde, NMP/MeOH, NaCNBH3. g. Pd(PPh3)4, PhSiH, DCM. h. BTC, DIPEA, DCM. i. TFA/TDW/TIS.
Opioid receptor activity screening of cyclic TAPS analogs.
| – | 14 | 10 | 90 | 1 | |
| 15 | nd | 2 | 24 | 1 | |
| 18 | 11 | 6 | 48 | 0 | |
| 16 | 14 | 11 | 1 | 2 | |
| 19 | nd | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| 17 | 11 | 0 | 63 | 4 | |
| 20 | nd | 3 | 1 | 1 | |
| 19 | 19 | 8 | 75 | 0 | |
| 22 | 1 | 6 | 21 | 3 |
Ring size was determined by including the backbone and bridge atoms.
At 10.
Between 10.
At 10.
Between 10.
All values lower than 25% are not significant.
Significance p ≤ 0.01 compared to control.
nd, not determined.
Figure 6BBMV stability test. The cyclic peptides (high values, various colors) show stability to intestinal enzyme degradation compared to the linear analog (blue).
Figure 7Permeability results in the Caco-2 permeability assay: assessment of directionality in the absorption of TAPS c(2-6) (60 μg/ml) across the epithelial monolayer. (A) AB vs. BA absorption of TAPS c(2-6) compared to the paracellular absorption marker, atenolol. (A insert) The Papp value of metoprolol, the marker for transcellular absorption. Values are presented as average ±SEM (n = 3). (B) Permeability results in the Caco-2 permeability assay. Papp values of TAPS c(2-6) (60 μg/ml) with and without the addition of PC (1 μg/ml) to the transport medium, compared to atenolol (10 μg/ml), the marker for paracellular diffusion. Values are presented as average ± SEM (n ≥ 6). *Significant difference (p < 0.05) from compound Papp without PC.
Figure 8The kinetic pattern of the reductive alkylation of arginine with Alloc-6-aminohexanal. (A) HPLC time course of the reductive alkylation step on Arginine-peptidyl-resin using Alloc-6-aminohexanal. (B) The graph shows that reaction times of <20 min result in incomplete conversion. Prolonged reaction times, over 30 min, lead to a significant increase in the dialkylated side product.
Figure 9Latency time to tail flick of mice following IP administration of TAPS c(2-6) (5 or 15 mg/kg), morphine (5 mg/kg), or vehicle (PBS). Values are presented as mean ± SEM. *Significant difference (p < 0.05) from vehicle.
Figure 10Distance of movement of mice over a 5-min period in the open-field apparatus following IP administration of TAPS c(2-6) (5 or 15 mg/kg), morphine (5 mg/kg), or vehicle (PBS). Values are presented as mean ± SEM. *Significant difference (p < 0.05) from vehicle.
Figure 11Speed of movement of mice over a 5-min period in the open-field apparatus following IP administration of TAPS c(2-6) (5 or 15 mg/kg), morphine (5 mg/kg), or vehicle (PBS). Values are presented as mean ± SEM. *Significant difference (p < 0.05) from vehicle.
Figure 12Low energy conformational ensembles of TAPS c(2-6) showing the entire ensemble colored by the lower energy (green) and higher energy (cyan) conformation ensembles (A). These two groups differed in the relative orientation of the C-terminal amide and urea carbonyl (B). Both conformations had hydrogen-bonds (in yellow) between the C-terminal amide and urea carbonyl (C).
Figure 13BU72 bound to the murine μ-opioid receptor determined by X-ray in orange (Huang et al., 2015) and the lowest energy structure of the TAPS c(2-6) ensemble (in green) superimposed on the pharmacophoric moieties at 1.2Å RMSD, showing similar positioning of the two aromatic rings and the N-terminal amide.