Structure-activity relationship studies and sleep-promoting activity of novel 1-chloro-5,6,7,8-tetrahydroimidazo[1,5-a]pyrazine derivatives as dual orexin receptor antagonists. Part 2

Discovery and optimisation of 1-acyl-2-benzylpyrrolidines as potent dual orexin receptor antagonists

The evolution of our lead compound1into thein vivoactive, competitive, dual orexin receptor antagonist27, is described.

Orexin/hypocretin based pharmacotherapies for the treatment of addiction: DORA or SORA?

Addiction is a chronic relapsing disorder which presents a significant global health burden and unmet medical need. The orexin/hypocretin system is an attractive potential therapeutic target as demonstrated by the successful clinical trials of antagonist medications like Suvorexant for insomnia. It is composed of two neuropeptides, orexin-A and orexin-B and two excitatory and promiscuous G-protein coupled receptors, OX1 and OX2. Orexins are known to have a variety of functions, most notably in regulating arousal, appetite and reward. The orexins have been shown to have a role in mediating the effects of several drugs of abuse, such as cocaine, morphine and alcohol via projections to key brain regions such as the ventral tegmental area, nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex. However, it has not yet been demonstrated whether the dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs) under development for insomnia are ideal drugs for the treatment of addiction. The question of whether to use a DORA or single orexin receptor antagonist (SORA) for the treatment of addiction is a key question that will need to be answered in order to maximize the clinical utility of orexin receptor antagonists. This review will examine the role of the orexin/hypocretin system in addiction, orexin-based pharmacotherapies under development and factors affecting the selection of one or both orexin receptors as drug targets for the treatment of addiction.

Asymmetric synthesis of tetrahydroisoquinolines by enzymatic Pictet–Spengler reaction

Norcoclaurine synthase (NCS) catalyzes the stereoselective Pictet–Spengler reaction between dopamine and 4-hydroxyphenylacetaldehyde as the first step of benzylisoquinoline alkaloid synthesis in plants. Recent studies suggested that NCS shows relatively relaxed substrate specificity toward aldehydes, and thus, the enzyme can serve as a tool to synthesize unnatural, optically active tetrahydroisoquinolines. In this study, using an N-terminally truncated NCS from Coptis japonica expressed in Escherichia coli, we examined the aldehyde substrate specificity of the enzyme. Herein, we demonstrate the versatility of the enzyme by synthesizing 6,7-dihydroxy-1-phenethyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline and 6,7-dihydroxy-1-propyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline in molar yields of 86.0 and 99.6% and in enantiomer excess of 95.3 and 98.0%, respectively. The results revealed the enzyme is a promising catalyst that functions to stereoselectively produce various 1-substituted-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinolines.

Distinct effects of IPSU and suvorexant on mouse sleep architecture

Dual orexin receptor (OXR) antagonists (DORAs) such as almorexant, SB-649868, suvorexant (MK-4305), and filorexant (MK-6096), have shown promise for the treatment of insomnias and sleep disorders. Whether antagonism of both OX₁R and OX₂R is necessary for sleep induction has been a matter of some debate. Experiments using knockout mice suggest that it may be sufficient to antagonize only OX₂R. The recent identification of an orally bioavailable, brain penetrant OX₂R preferring antagonist 2-((1H-Indol-3-yl)methyl)-9-(4-methoxypyrimidin-2-yl)-2,9-diazaspiro[5.5]undecan-1-one (IPSU) has allowed us to test whether selective antagonism of OX₂R may also be a viable strategy for induction of sleep. We previously demonstrated that IPSU and suvorexant increase sleep when dosed during the mouse active phase (lights off); IPSU inducing sleep primarily by increasing NREM sleep, suvorexant primarily by increasing REM sleep. Here, our goal was to determine whether suvorexant and IPSU affect sleep architecture independently of overall sleep induction. We therefore tested suvorexant (25 mg/kg) and IPSU (50 mg/kg) in mice during the inactive phase (lights on) when sleep is naturally more prevalent and when orexin levels are normally low. Whereas IPSU was devoid of effects on the time spent in NREM or REM, suvorexant substantially disturbed the sleep architecture by selectively increasing REM during the first 4 h after dosing. At the doses tested, suvorexant significantly decreased wake only during the first hour and IPSU did not affect wake time. These data suggest that OX₂R preferring antagonists may have a reduced tendency for perturbing NREM/REM architecture in comparison with DORAs. Whether this effect will prove to be a general feature of OX₂R antagonists vs. DORAs remains to be seen.