| Literature DB >> 36139079 |
Abstract
Despite various advantages, opioid peptides have been limited in their therapeutic uses due to the main drawbacks in metabolic stability, blood-brain barrier permeability, and bioavailability. Therefore, extensive studies have focused on overcoming the problems and optimizing the therapeutic potential. Currently, numerous peptide-based drugs are being marketed thanks to new synthetic strategies for optimizing metabolism and alternative routes of administration. This tutorial review briefly introduces the history and role of natural opioid peptides and highlights the key findings on their structure-activity relationships for the opioid receptors. It discusses details on opioid peptidomimetics applied to develop therapeutic candidates for the treatment of pain from the pharmacological and structural points of view. The main focus is the current status of various mimetic tools and the successful applications summarized in tables and figures.Entities:
Keywords: analgesic drugs; bioavailability; locally constrained peptides; opioid receptors; peptide backbone modifications; peptidomimetic
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36139079 PMCID: PMC9496382 DOI: 10.3390/biom12091241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomolecules ISSN: 2218-273X
Natural opioid peptides and their selectivities for the opioid receptors.
| Peptides | Structure | Selectivity |
|---|---|---|
| β-Endorphin (END) | YGGFMTSEKSQTPLVTLFKNAIIKNAYKKGE | MOR > DOR |
| Enkephalins (ENKs) | YGGFL | DOR > MOR |
| YGGFM | DOR > MOR | |
| YGGFMRF | MOR > DOR > KOR | |
| YGGFMRGL | MOR > DOR > KOR | |
| Dynorphin (DYN) A | YGGFLRRIRPKLKWDNQ | KOR > MOR > DOR |
| DYN B | YGGFLRRQFKVVT | KOR > MOR > DOR |
| Endomorphin (EM)-1 | YPWF-NH2 | MOR |
| EM-2 | YPFF-NH2 | MOR |
| Dermorphines (DERs) | YaFGYPS-NH2 | MOR |
| YaFGYPK | MOR | |
| YaFWYPN | MOR | |
| Deltorphine (DLT) A | YmFHLMD-NH2 | DOR |
| DLT-1 | YaFDVVG-NH2 | DOR |
| DLT-2 | YaFEVVG-NH2 | DOR |
Figure 1Subtype selective opioid peptidomimetics developed from endogenous opioid peptides.
Figure 2Various modifications to optimize metabolic stability, BBB permeability, and oral bioavailability.
Figure 3Multifunctional opioid peptidomimetics: MOR/DOR agonist, MOR agonist/DOR antagonist.
Figure 4Message and address regions of natural opioid peptides.
Figure 5Structures of selective opioid peptidomimetic.
In vitro biological activities of representative opioid peptides and peptidomimetics at MOR, DOR, and KOR .
| Binding Affinity, IC50 (or | Inhibitory Potency, IC50 [nM] | Refs. | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOR | DOR | KOR | MOR | DOR | KOR | ||
| DAMGO | 1.86 | 345 | 6090 | 4.50 | 32.8 | 105 | [ |
| EM-1 | 0.36 | 1506 | 5430 | 4.03 | 283 | - | [ |
| EM-2 | 0.69 | 9233 | 5240 | 6.88 | 344 | - | [ |
| [( | 0.04 | >1000 | - | 0.0002 | >1000 | - | [ |
| [Tmp3]-EM-2 | 0.44 | 1400 | - | 1.90 | >10,000 | - | [ |
| DER | 0.76 | 73.5 | >1000 | 1.07 | 23.2 | - | [ |
| ADAMB | 12.9 | >1000 | >1000 | - | - | - | [ |
| DALDA | 1.69 | 19,200 | 4230 | 254 | 781 | - | [ |
| Dmt-DALDA | 0.143 | 2100 | 22.3 | 1.41 | 23.1 | - | [ |
| Dmt-NMe- | 14.8 | 5.0 | >100,000 | 0.00174 | 0.016 | - | [ |
| JOM-6 | 0.29 | 24.8 | 2000 | 2.93 | 338 | - | [ |
| Morphiceptin | 79.4 | >1000 | - | 318 | 4800 | - | [ |
| PL017 | 2.9 | 4200 | - | 21 | 1250 | - | [ |
| PL032 | 5.5 | >10,000 | - | 29 | 1510 | - | [ |
| H-Tyr-Pro- | 1.9 | >1000 | - | 9.57 | 35.4 | - | [ |
| H-Dmt- | 0.34 | 238 | 1750 | 7.94 | inactive | inactive | [ |
| H-Dmt- | 0.05 | 1.04 | 11.2 | 3.55 | 89.1 | 224 | [ |
| Met-ENK | 9.5 | 0.91 | 4440 | 190 | 19 | - | [ |
| Leu-ENK | 9.43 | 2.53 | 8210 | 35.6 | 1.73 | 550 | [ |
| DADLE | 13.8 | 2.06 | 16,000 | 8.9 | 0.73 | 134 | [ |
| DPDPE | 713 | 2.72 | >15,000 | 3000 | 4.14 | >10,000 | [ |
| DPLPE | 659 | 2.80 | >15,000 | 2350 | 2.77 | >10,000 | [ |
| [Phe( | 1600 | 0.43 | - | 740 | 0.016 | - | [ |
| JOM-13 | 51.5 | 0.74 | - | 460 | 4.2 | [ | |
| DSLET | 31 | 3.8 | - | 360 | 0.58 | - | [ |
| DLT-1 | 2140 | 0.60 | - | 2890 | 0.36 | - | [ |
| DLT-2 | 1680 | 0.73 | - | 3180 | 0.67 | - | [ |
| [(2 | 63,000 | 2.14 | - | 32,500 | 1.23 | - | [ |
|
c[ | 3760 | 2.2 | - | 1100 | 0.25 | - | [ |
|
c[ | 5.15 | 0.87 | - | 2.98 | 0.23 | - | [ |
| [DAla2,Ac6c4]-DLT | 2.45 | 0.045 | - | 558 | 0.52 | - | [ |
| β-END | 1.0 | 1.0 | 52 | 3.5 | 2.1 | - | [ |
| biphalin | 1.4 | 2.6 | - | 8.8 | 27 | - | [ |
| DYN A | 5.04 | 2.54 | 0.23 | 2.5 | 22.5 | 12.6 | [ |
| DYN A-(1-13)- NH2 | 1.29 | 4.07 | 0.15 | 1.7 | 78 | 63.1 | [ |
| DYN A-(1-11)-NH2 | 1.08 | 6.99 | 0.077 | 7.5 | 104 | 0.376 | [ |
| [ | 67 | 407 | 0.36 | - | - | 2.38 | [ |
| E-2078 | 4.51 | 27.2 | 1.91 | 0.3 | 7.4 | 2.6 | [ |
| CR665 | 4050 | 20,300 | 0.24 | - | - | 0.03 | [ |
| CR845 | - | - | 0.32 | - | - | 0.16 | [ |
| CTOP | 4.3 | 5600 | - | 426 | - | - | [ |
| CTAP | 2.1 | 5310 | - | 75.8 | - | - | [ |
| TIPP | 1720 | 1.22 | - | inactive | 4.80 | - | [ |
| TIPP-NH2 | 78.8 | 3.00 | - | 1700 | 18.0 | - | [ |
| DIPP-NH2 | 1.19 | 0.118 | - | 18.2 | 0.209 | - | [ |
| DIPP-NH2[ψ] | 0.943 | 0.447 | - | 7.71 | 0.537 | - | [ |
| Dmt-Tic | 1360 | 1.84 | - | inactive | 6.55 | - | [ |
| Dmt-Tic-NH-(CH2)3-Ph | 0.386 | 0.0871 | - | 102 | 1.69 | - | [ |
| [Pro3]-DYN A-(1-11)- NH2 | 5700 | 8800 | 2.7 | - | - | 244 | [ |
| 31.7 | 149 | 3.60 | 228 | - | 97 | [ | |
| dynantin | 135 | 354 | 20.7 | 925 | 3220 | 0.632 | [ |
| Arodyn | 1740 | 5830 | 10.0 | - | - | - | [ |
| Zyklophin | 5880 | >10,000 | 30.3 | - | - | 84 ( | [ |
The variability in the binding and functional data between various laboratories may be attributed to differences in the synaptosomal preparations, the concentration, type of radioligand, and specific activity used, and the method of reporting binding. Refer to the citations for the details. Ca Assay, EC50; cAMP Assay, EC50; GTP assay, EC50; Antagonist mode, Ke; GPI: guinea pig ilem; MVD: mouse vas deferens; RVD: rat vas deferens.
Figure 6Various tools for peptidomimetics.
Binding affinities of potent cyclic opioid peptidomimetics at MOR, DOR, and KOR .
| Structure | Ref. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOR | DOR | KOR | ||
| Tyr-c2,4[ | 0.21 | 461 | 684 | [ |
| Tyr-c2,5[ | 0.35 | 171 | 1.12 | [ |
| Tyr-c2,5[ | 0.05 | 0.4 | 1.6 | [ |
| Tyr-c2,4[ | 0.51 | >1000 | >1000 | [ |
| Tyr-c2,5[ | 3.2 | >1000 | - | [ |
| Dmt-c2,5[ | 0.04 | >1000 | >1000 | [ |
| Dmt-c[ | ||||
| Tyr-c2,5(-SCH2S-)[ | 0.47 | 0.48 | 1.3 | [ |
| cN,C[Tyr- | 34 | - | - | [ |
| Tyr-c2,5(-S-)[ | 630 | 0.93 | 1600 | [ |
| Tyr-c2,5(-S-)[ | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1600 | [ |
| Tyr-c2,5(-CH2CH2-)[ | 2.3 | 5.9 | 309 | [ |
| Tyr c2,5(- | 1.35 | 0.43 | 576 | [ |
| Tyr-c2,5(-NHCSNH-)[ | 0.4 | 5.4 | - | [ |
| Dcp-c2,5[ | 2.84 | 25.8 | 980 | [ |
| c2,2′(Tyr- | 0.60 | 0.87 | - | [ |
| c2,2′(Dmt- | 0.27 | 0.36 | 0.87 | [ |
| c2,5[ | 3.89 | 139 | 0.21 | [ |
| c5,8(- | 36.0 | 460 | 2.46 | [ |
| cN,5[Trp3,Trp4,Glu5]-DYN A (1–11)-NH2 | 331 | >8900 | 26.8 | [ |
The variability in the binding data (Ki or IC50) between various laboratories may be attributed to differences in the synaptosomal preparations, the concentration, type of radioligand, and specific activity used, and the method of reporting binding. Refer to the citations for the details. Antagonist.
Figure 7Structures of β-amino acids (upper) and alicyclic β-amino acids (lower). * Chiral.
Figure 8Structures of constrained amino acids and dipeptidic scaffolds. * Chiral.
Figure 9Cβ-substituted amino acids. * Chiral.
Figure 10Structures of Leucine derivatives.