SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Evaluation of Substituted <i>N</i>-Phenylpiperazine Analogs as D3 vs. D2 Dopamine Receptor Subtype Selective Ligands.

Molecules · 2021-05-26

DOI: 10.3390/molecules26113182PMID: 34073405

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

N-phenylpiperazine analogs can bind selectively to the D3 versus the D2 dopamine receptor subtype despite the fact that these two D2-like dopamine receptor subtypes exhibit substantial amino acid sequence homology. The binding for a number of these receptor subtype selective compounds was found to be consistent with their ability to bind at the D3 dopamine receptor subtype in a bitopic manner. In this study, a series of the 3-thiophenephenyl and 4-thiazolylphenyl fluoride substituted N-phenylpiperazine analogs were evaluated. Compound 6a was found to bind at the human D3 receptor with nanomolar affinity with substantial D3 vs. D2 binding selectivity (approximately 500-fold). Compound 6a was also tested for activity in two in-vivo assays: (1) a hallucinogenic-dependent head twitch response inhibition assay using DBA/2J mice and (2) an L-dopa-dependent abnormal involuntary movement (AIM) inhibition assay using unilateral 6-hydroxydopamine lesioned (hemiparkinsonian) rats. Compound 6a was found to be active in both assays. This compound could lead to a better understanding of how a bitopic D3 dopamine receptor selective ligand might lead to the development of pharmacotherapeutics for the treatment of levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LID) in patients with Parkinson's disease.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.