The fused quinuclidine-valerolactone system Synthesis and conformation of 4-alkyl or 4-aryl-6-oxa-1-azatricyclo (4.2.2.027) dodecan-5-one

A study of muscarinic receptor heterogeneity with weak antagonists

A study of heterogeneity among muscarinic receptors was carried out with new rigid molecules, comprising structures in the fused quinuclidine-valerolactone, quinuclidine-cyclohexenone, quinuclidine-cyclohexanone and quinuclidine-cyclohexane derivatives. These are structurally related to the potent muscarinic agent, 3-acetoxyquinuclidine but substantially different from in it conformation. All proved to antagonize acetylcholine-like activity, but to a different extent in different systems. The equipotent molar ratio with respect to atropine (as 1) was: isolated guinea pig ileum, 10,000-1,000; salivary gland (mouse), 1,000-100; superior cervical ganglion (cat), 100-10; CNS (mouse), approximately 10. It is suggested that the rigid structure induces a three-point constrained fit in the receptor (onium group, hydrophobic moiety and carbonyl group), but that not all muscarinic receptors are capable of responding equally. In this case, receptor specificity of the drug is a direct consequence of its graded departure from the preferred conformation of acetycholine and, therefore, is necessarily associated with partial loss of potency.

A new probe for heterogeneity in muscarinic receptors: 2-methyl-spiro-(1, 3-dioxolane-4, 3')-quinuclidine

The title compound (MSDQ) is a new muscarinic agonist related to 3-acetoxyquinuclidine (3-AcQ) but also of a highly rigid structure. In view of this, it may constitute a probe for the detection of heterogeneity among muscarinic receptors. Indeed, equipotent molar ratios (EPMR) for ACh, 3-AcQ and MSDQ were as follows: guinea pig ileum, 1 : 14 : 240; vasodepressor effect in the cat, 1 : 6 : 188. But EPMR for 3-AcQ and MSDQ as stimulants of the superior cervical ganglion in the cat were 1 : 1 and for the induction of tremors in mice, 9 : 5. No such subtle differences in receptor specificity were detected when the probe used was the 2, 2-diphenyl analogue (DiPSDQ) of MSDQ which was a powerful competitive antagonist in all systems, more potent than atropine, but with a CNS/PNS activity of 1.1 compared to 26 for atropine. In view of this, the use of potent antagonists as probes for muscarinic receptor heterogeneity is questionable.