The discovery of a series of N-substituted 3-(4-piperidinyl)-1,3- benzoxazolinones and oxindoles as highly brain penetrant, selective muscarinic M1 agonists

Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters

Volumn 20, Issue 18, 2010, Pages 5434-5438

  Johnson, Dale J ^a   Forbes, Ian T ^a   Watson, Steve P ^a   Garzya, Vincenzo ^a   Stevenson, Graeme I ^a   Walker, Graham R ^a   Mudhar, Harminder S ^a   Flynn, Sean T ^a   Wyman, Paul A ^a   Smith, Paul W ^a   Murkitt, Graham S ^a   Lucas, Adam J ^a   Mookherjee, Claudette R ^a   Watson, Jeannette M ^a   Gartlon, Jane E ^a   Bradford, Andrea M ^a   Brown, Fiona ^a  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Allosteric; Benzoxazolinone; Central nervous system penetration; Cognitive enhancer; Muscarinic M1 agonist; Oxidole

Indexed keywords

2 BENZOXAZOLONE DERIVATIVE; INDOLE DERIVATIVE; MUSCARINIC M1 RECEPTOR AGONIST;

AMNESIA; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; BRAIN; COGNITION; DRUG PENETRATION; DRUG STRUCTURE; LIPOPHILICITY; NONHUMAN; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; RAT; RECOGNITION;

ANIMALS; BENZOXAZOLES; BRAIN; INDOLES; MEMORY DISORDERS; MUSCARINIC AGONISTS; NOOTROPIC AGENTS; RATS; RECEPTOR, MUSCARINIC M1;

RATTUS;

EID: 77956177282     PISSN: 0960894X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2010.07.097     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. M.P. Caulfield, and N.J.M. Birdsall Pharmacol. Rev. 50 1998 279
2. R.M. Eglen Prog. Med. Chem. 43 2005 105
3. E.C. Hulmes, N.J.M. Birdsall, and N.J. Buckley Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 30 1990 633
4. R.M. Eglen Auton. Autacoid Pharmacol. 26 2006 219
5. T.J. Raedler, F.P. Bymaster, R. Tandon, D. Copolov, and B. Dean Mol. Psychiatry 12 2007 232
6. A. Fisher Neurotherapeutics 5 2008 433
7. C.J. Langmead, V.A.H. Fry, I.T. Forbes, C.L. Branch, A. Christopoulos, M.D. Wood, and H.J. Herdon Mol. Pharmacol. 69 2006 236
8. J.N. Heinrich, J.A. Butera, T. Carrick, A. Kramer, D. Kowal, T. Lock, K.L. Marquis, M.H. Pausch, M. Popiolek, S. Sun, E. Tseng, A.J. Uveges, and S.C. Mayer Eur. J. Pharmacol. 605 2009 53
9. P. Sauerberg, P.H. Olesen, S. Nielsen, S. Treppendahl, M.J. Sheardown, T. Honore, C.H. Mitch, J.S. Ward, A.J. Pike, F.P. Bymaster, B.D. Sawyer, and H.E. Shannon J. Med. Chem. 35 1992 2274
10. J.M. Loudon, S.M. Bromidge, F. Brown, M.S. Clark, J.P. Hatcher, J. Hawkins, G.J. Riley, G. Noy, and B.S. Orlek J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 283 1997 1059
11. N.C. Bodick, W.W. Offen, A.I. Levey, N.R. Cutler, S.G. Gauthier, A. Satlin, H.E. Shannon, G.D. Tollefson, K. Rasmussen, F.P. Bymaster, D.J. Hurley, W.Z. Potter, and S.M. Paul Arch. Neurol. 54 1997 465
12. T.A. Spalding, C. Trotter, N. Skjaerbaek, T.L. Messier, E.A. Currier, E.S. Burstein, D. Li, U. Hacksell, and M.R. Brann Mol. Pharmacol. 61 2002 1297
13. T.M. Bridges, A.E. Brady, J.P. Kennedy, R.N. Daniels, N.R. Miller, K. Kim, M.L. Breininger, P.R. Gentry, J.T. Brogan, C.K. Jones, P.J. Conn, and C.W. Lindsley Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18 2008 5439
14. Budzik, B.; Garzya, V.; Shi, D.; Foley, J. J.; Rivero, R. A.; Langmead, C. L.; Watson, J.; Wu, Z.; Forbes, I. T.; Jin, J. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2010.04.128.
15. Budzik, B.; Garzya, V.; Shi, D.; Walker, G. W.; Lauchart, Y.; Lucas, A. J.; Rivero, R. A.; Langmead, C. L.; Watson, J.; Wu, Z.; Forbes, I. T.; Jin, J. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2010.04.127.
16. Garzya, V. Presented at SCI-RSC International Symposium on Medicinal Chemistry, Cambridge, UK, Sept 2009.
17. Budzik, B.; Garzya, V.; Shi, D.; Walker, G.; Woolley-Roberts, M.; Pardoe, J.; Lucas, A.; Tehan, B.; Rivero, R. A.; Langmead, C. J.; Watson, J.; Wu, Z.; Forbes, I. T.; Jin, J. ACS Med. Chem. Lett., doi:10.1021/ml100105x.
18. D.S. Noyce, and H.I. Weingarten J. Am. Chem. Soc. 79 1957 3093
19. I.T. Forbes Tetrahedron Lett. 42 2001 6943
20. For full experimental procedures and NMR and LC/MS characterisation see Cooper, D. G.; Forbes, I. T.; Garzya, V.; Johnson, D. J.; Stevenson, G. I.; Wyman, P. A. WO2009/037294.
21. 4 cells also stably express Gqi5 chimaeric G-protein. 11 point concentration-response curves were generated. Values are average of at least five experiments.
22. Antagonist selectivity was not investigated due to agonist induced desensitisation of the FLIPR assay.
23. A. Seelig Eur. J. Biochem. 251 1998 252
24. K.D. Read, and S. Braggio Expert Opinion on Drug Metabol. & Toxicol. 6 2010 337
25. S.G. Summerfield, A.J. Stevens, L. Cutler, M.D. Carmen-Osuna, B. Hammond, S. Tang, A. Hersey, D.J. Spalding, and P. Jeffrey J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 316 2006 1282
26. For a full list of assays tested see http://www.cerep.fr/cerep/users/ pages/catalog/Profiles/catalog.asp.
27. The novel object recognition (NOR) model was used to assess the effects on recognition memory in rats. Ennaceur and Delacour (Behavioural Brain. Res., 1988, 31, 47) and is a non-rewarded test of spontaneous behaviour based on the differential exploration of novel and familiar objects. The NOR test comprised of two sessions, T1 and T2, each lasting 3 min. On the first test day (T1), following a 3 min habituation to the empty test box, the rat was placed into the annex and 2 identical objects were placed into the test arena. The rat was then returned to the test area and allowed to freely explore the objects for 3 min. On the second day (T2), a similar protocol was adopted, except that one of the 'familiar' objects was substituted for a novel one of the same colour, material and similar size but different shape. In order to detect a potential cognition-enhancing effect an inter-trial interval (ITI) of 24 h between T1 and T2 was used to induce a performance deficit. The objects comprised of black hardened plastic geometric shapes, such as towers and pyramids, that were approximately 6.5 cm high × 6 cm diameter. Exploration was scored as time spent sniffing or licking the objects. Sitting on or climbing over the objects was not considered to be exploratory behaviour. Between trials, objects were cleaned with 70% ethanol to remove olfactory cues. All trials were recorded via camera. Exploration was scored retrospectively by an experimenter blind to the novel object. The presentation of objects was balanced across days, trials and box position (left/right) to minimise bias. Data were expressed as a d1 index (time spent exploring novel object - time spent exp exploring familiar object) and d2 index ([time exploring novel object - time exploring familiar object]/total exploration time). T1 exploration times were also considered since hyperactivity or sedation may confound the results. The d1 and d2 index scores were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA, object × treatment) followed by planned comparisons for between groups analysis using Statistica version 6 (Statsoft Inc., Tulsa). Data are expressed as mean ± SEM and were considered significant when p <0.05.