SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Dopamine Receptor Ligand Selectivity-An In Silico/In Vitro Insight.

Biomedicines · 2023-05-17

DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11051468PMID: 37239139

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

Different dopamine receptor (DR) subtypes are involved in pathophysiological conditions such as Parkinson's Disease (PD), schizophrenia and depression. While many DR-targeting drugs have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), only a very small number are truly selective for one of the DR subtypes. Additionally, most of them show promiscuous activity at related G-protein coupled receptors, thus suffering from diverse side-effect profiles. Multiple studies have shown that combined in silico/in vitro approaches are a valuable contribution to drug discovery processes. They can also be applied to divulge the mechanisms behind ligand selectivity. In this study, novel DR ligands were investigated in vitro to assess binding affinities at different DR subtypes. Thus, nine D2R/D3R-selective ligands (micro- to nanomolar binding affinities, D3R-selective profile) were successfully identified. The most promising ligand exerted nanomolar D3R activity (Ki = 2.3 nM) with 263.7-fold D2R/D3R selectivity. Subsequently, ligand selectivity was rationalized in silico based on ligand interaction with a secondary binding pocket, supporting the selectivity data determined in vitro. The developed workflow and identified ligands could aid in the further understanding of the structural motifs responsible for DR subtype selectivity, thus benefitting drug development in D2R/D3R-associated pathologies such as PD.

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.