Neurochemical Research

, Volume 33, Issue 10, pp 2142–2150 | Cite as

In Vivo Characterization of (−)(−)MCL-144 and (+)(−)MCL-193: Isomeric, Bivalent Ligands with Mu/Kappa Agonist Properties

  • Jennifer L. Mathews
  • Brian S. Fulton
  • S. Stevens Negus
  • John L. Neumeyer
  • Jean M. Bidlack
Original Paper


Once opioid receptor dimers were postulated, a goal has been to synthesize and screen novel opioids, with the hope of furthering our knowledge of the structure-activity relationship of opioid ligands with the opioid receptors. The aim of the current study was to address whether two isomeric bivalent ligands would have pharmacological differences after central administration, in vivo. The two compounds, (−) bis(N-cyclobutylmethyl-morphinan-3-yl) sebacoylate dihydrochloride (MCL-144) and 1−((+)N-cyclobutylmethylmorphinan-3-yl)-10-((−) N-cyclobutylmethylmorphinan-3-yl)sebacolyate (MCL-193) are each linked by a 10-carbon chain ester. The active (−) enantiomer for both ligands is 3-hydroxy-N-cyclobutylmethyl morphinan ((−)MCL-101), a N-cyclobutylmethyl analogue of cyclorphan (J Med Chem 43:114–122, 2000). MCL-144 contains two active levo rotatory (−)(−) pharmacophores, while MCL-193 contains one active (−) and one inactive (+) pharmacophore of MCL-101. In vitro analysis demonstrated that all three compounds, (−)(−)MCL-144, (+)(−)MCL-193 and (−)MCL-101 were κ agonists and μ partial agonists. (−)(−)MCL-144 and (−)MCL-101 had much higher affinity for both the μ and κ opioid receptors compared to (+)(−)MCL-193. In vivo, (−)(−)MCL-144 and (+)(−)MCL-193 produced full dose–response curves, in the 55°C tail-flick test, with each compound having an ED50 value of 3.0 nmol after intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) administration. The analgesic properties of both compounds were antagonized by the μ-selective antagonist, β-funaltrexamine and the κ-selective antagonist nor-binaltorphimine. Concomitant, i.c.v., administration of either (−)(−)MCL-144 or (+)(−)MCL-193 with morphine, did not significantly antagonize morphine-induced antinociception at any dose tested. In antinociceptive tests, (−)(−)MCL-144 and (+)(−)MCL-193 had the same pharmacological properties, demonstrating that having two active pharmacophores separated by a 10-carbon spacer group did not increase the antinociceptive efficacy of the compound. Additionally, it was also of interest to compare (−)(−)MCL-145 and (−)(−)MCL-144, as the only difference between these bivalent ligands is the spacer region connecting the two pharmacophores, yet (−)(−)MCL-145 produced an ED50 value 10-fold lower than (−)(−)MCL-144 (ED50 values = 0.3 nmol and 3.0 nmol, respectively).


Opioid dimers Mu opioid Partial agonist Enantiomers 



We thank Mr. Matthew Gardner and Dr. Frank Tarazi of McLean Hospital for assistance in preparation of the rat brain homogenate. Financial Support: This work was supported by grants K05-DA00360 (JMB), R01-DA14251 (JLN), T32 DA07232 (JLM), and T32 DA007252 (BSF) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.


  1. 1.
    Neumeyer JL, Zhang A, Xiong W, Gu X-H, Hilbert JE, Knapp BI, Negus SS, Mello NK, Bidlack JM (2003) Design and synthesis of novel dimeric morphinan ligands for κ and μ opioid receptors. J Med Chem 46:5162–5170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daniels DJ, Kulkarni A, Xie Z, Bhushan RG, Portoghese PS (2005) A bivalent ligand (KDAN-18) containing δ-antagonist and κ-agonist pharmacophores bridges δ2 and κ1 opioid receptor phenotypes. J Med Chem 48:1713–1716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hazum E, Chang K-J, Cuatrecasas P (1979) Opiate (enkephalin) receptors of neuroblastoma cells: occurrence in clusters on the cell surface. Science 206:1077–1079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cvejic S, Devi L (1997) Dimerization of the δ opioid receptor: implication for a role in receptor internalization. J Biol Chem 272:26959–26964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    George SR, Fan T, Xie Z, Tse R, Tam V, Varghese G, O’Dowd BF (2000) Oligomerization of mu- and delta-opioid receptors. Generation of novel functional properties. J Biol Chem 275:26128–26135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gomes I, Jordan BA, Gupta A, Trapaidze N, Nagy V, Devi LA (2000) Heterodimerization of mu and delta opioid receptors: a role in opiate synergy. J Neurosci 20(22):RC110Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gomes I, Gupta A, Filipovska J, Szeto HH, Pintar JE, Devi LA (2004) A role for heterodimerization of μ and δ opiate receptors in enhancing morphine analgesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:5135–5139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Devi LA (2001) Heterodimerization of G-protein-coupled receptors: pharmacology, signaling and trafficking. Trends Pharmacol Sci 22:532–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jordan BA, Devi LA (1999) G-protein-coupled receptor heterodimerization modulates receptor function. Nature 399:697–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peng X, Knapp BI, Bidlack JM, Neumeyer JL (2006) Synthesis and preliminary in vitro investigation of bivalent ligands containing homo- and heterodimeric pharmacophores at the μ, δ, and κ opioid receptors. J Med Chem 49:256–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neumeyer JL, Bidlack JM, Zong R, Bakthavachalam V, Gao P, Cohen DJ, Negus SS, Mello NK (2000) Synthesis and opioid receptor affinity of morphinan and benzomorphan derivatives. Mixed κ agonists and μ agonists/antagonists as potential pharmacotherapeutics for cocaine dependence. J Med Chem 43:114–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mathews JL, Peng X, Xiong W, Zhang A, Negus SS, Neumeyer JL, Bidlack JM (2005) Characterization of a novel bivalent morphinan possessing κ agonist and μ agonist/antagonist properties. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 315:821–827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haley TJ, McCormick WG (1957) Pharmacological effects produced by intracerebral injection of drugs in the conscious mouse. Br J Pharmacol Chemother 12:12–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jannsen PA, Niemegeers CJ, Dorg JG (1963) The inhibitory effect of fentanyl and other morphine-like analgesics on the warm water induced tail withdrawal reflex in rats. Arzneim-Forsch 13:502–507Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ward SJ, Portoghese PS, Takemori AE (1982) Pharmacological characterization in vivo of the novel opiate, beta-funaltrexamine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 220:494–498PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bilsky EJ, Calderon SN, Wang T, Bernstein RN, Davis P, Hruby VJ, McNutt RW, Rothman RB, Rice KC, Porreca F (1995) SNC 80, a selective, nonpeptidic and systemically active opioid delta agonist. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 273:359–366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horan P, Taylor J, Yamamura HI, Porreca F (1992) Extremely long-lasting antagonistic actions of nor-binaltorphimine (nor-BNI) in the mouse tail-flick test. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 260:1237–1243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Halazay S, Perez M, Fourrier C, Pallard I, Pauwels PJ, Palmier C, John GW, Valentin J-P, Bonnafous R, Martinez J (1996) Serotonin dimers: application of the bivalent ligand approach to the design of new potent and selective 5-HT1B/1D agonists. J Med Chem 39:4920–4927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rajeswaran WG, Cao Y, Huang X-P, Wroblewski ME, Colclough T, Lee S, Liu F, Nagy PI, Ellis J, Levine BA, Nocka KH, Messer WS Jr (2001) Design, synthesis, and biological characterization of bivalent 1-methyl–1, 2, 5, 6-tetrahydropyridyl-1, 2, 5-thiadiazole derivatives as selective muscarinic agonists. J Med Chem 44:4563–4576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lalchandani SG, Lei L, Zheng W, Suni MM, Moore BM, Leggett SB, Miller DD, Feller DR (2002) Yohimbine dimers exhibiting selectivity for the human α2c-adrenoceptor subtype. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 303:979–984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Takemori AE, Portoghese PS (1992) Selective naltrexone-derived opioid receptor antagonists. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 32:239–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xie Z, Bhushan RG, Daniels DJ, Portoghese PS (2005) Interaction of bivalent ligand KDN21 with heterodimeric δ-κ opioid receptors in human embryonic kidney 293 cells. Mol Pharmacol 68:1079–1086PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martin WR (1967) Opioid antagonists. Pharmacol Rev 19:464–521Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Portoghese PS (2001) From models to molecules: opioid receptor dimers, bivalent ligands, and selective opioid receptor probes. J Med Chem 44:2259–2269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Portoghese PS, Larson DL, Yim CB, Sayre LM, Ronsisvalle G, Lipkowski AW, Takemori AE, Rice KC, Tam SW (1985) Stereo-structure activity relationship of opioid agonist and antagonist bivalent ligands. Evidence for bridging between vicinal opioid receptors. J Med Chem 28:1140–1141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer L. Mathews
    • 1
    • 3
  • Brian S. Fulton
    • 2
  • S. Stevens Negus
    • 2
    • 4
  • John L. Neumeyer
    • 2
  • Jean M. Bidlack
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology and PhysiologyUniversity of Rochester, School of Medicine and DentistryRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Alcohol and Drug Abuse Research Center, McLean HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBelmontUSA
  3. 3.Department of Pharmaceutical SciencesWegmans School of Pharmacy at St. John Fisher CollegeRochesterUSA
  4. 4.Department of Pharmacology and ToxicologyVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations