• Jerri M Rook, Masahito Abe, Hyekyung P Cho, Kellie D Nance, Vincent B Luscombe, Jeffrey J Adams, Jonathan W Dickerson, Daniel H Remke, Pedro M Garcia-Barrantes, Darren W Engers, Julie L Engers, Sichen Chang, Jarrett J Foster, Anna L Blobaum, Colleen M Niswender, Carrie K Jones, P Jeffrey Conn, and Craig W Lindsley.
• Department of Pharmacology, ‡Department of Chemistry, §Vanderbilt Center for Neuroscience Drug Discovery, ∥Vanderbilt Kennedy Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine , Nashville, Tennessee 37232-6600, United States.
• Acs Chem Neurosci. 2017 Apr 19; 8 (4): 866-883.

AbstractBoth historical clinical and recent preclinical data suggest that the M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor is an exciting target for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and the cognitive and negative symptom clusters in schizophrenia; however, early drug discovery efforts targeting the orthosteric binding site have failed to afford selective M1 activation. Efforts then shifted to focus on selective activation of M1 via either allosteric agonists or positive allosteric modulators (PAMs). While M1 PAMs have robust efficacy in rodent models, some chemotypes can induce cholinergic adverse effects (AEs) that could limit their clinical utility. Here, we report studies aimed at understanding the subtle structural and pharmacological nuances that differentiate efficacy from adverse effect liability within an indole-based series of M1 ago-PAMs. Our data demonstrate that closely related M1 PAMs can display striking differences in their in vivo activities, especially their propensities to induce adverse effects. We report the discovery of a novel PAM in this series that is devoid of observable adverse effect liability. Interestingly, the molecular pharmacology profile of this novel PAM is similar to that of a representative M1 PAM that induces severe AEs. For instance, both compounds are potent ago-PAMs that demonstrate significant interaction with the orthosteric site (either bitopic or negative cooperativity). However, there are subtle differences in efficacies of the compounds at potentiating M1 responses, agonist potencies, and abilities to induce receptor internalization. While these differences may contribute to the differential in vivo profiles of these compounds, the in vitro differences are relatively subtle and highlight the complexities of allosteric modulators and the need to focus on in vivo phenotypic screening to identify safe and effective M1 PAMs.

21 keywords...

hide…