Help with identifying new research noids with coded names

[BestU8]

A trend is breaking out where newer noids are being sold under coded names without providing basic chemical information such as IUPAC and chemical structure.
This is being done purposefully to prevent the chemicals from getting banned too quickly.
But the problem is that as professional researchers it's impossible to carry out research without at least properly identifying the chemical.

To researchers encountering this problem www.caymanchem.com can be of great help although not always updated.
Any information about the following new cannabinoids would be of great help to me and the like-minded community;

• 7-AFF
• 7-ADB (IUPAC: (S)-2-(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide)-3,3-dimethylbutanoic acid) Chemical structure unknown.
• SGT-507 (Described as similar to 5F SGT-151 by vendor...)
• 6TP/SGT (IUPAC: N-(5-bromo-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-1,2-dihydropyridin-3-yl)cyclohexanecarboxamide) Chemical structure unknown.

Happy safe researching!

 

[sekio]

Specifying the IUPAC name describes the structure. Do you mean "not verified"?

 

[BestU8]

Specifying the IUPAC name describes the structure. Do you mean "not verified"?

Some of the above compounds are completely unknown as not even the IUPAC name is available.
I can see how one would assume IUPAC = Chemical Structure, which might be true if you're deep into chemistry. But even though I have a considerably good chemistry background I wouldn't trust myself in drawing it myself and was also unable to find it online (Even when I tried to use professional convertors from IUPAC to Chemical structure).

If you're able to extrapolate the chemical structure from IUPAC for these molecules go ahead

 

[sekio]

If you're able to extrapolate the chemical structure from IUPAC for these molecules go ahead

Luckily I have a cool piece of software called ChemDraw / ChemOffice that can both convert IUPAC to a structure, it can do the reverse too - draw a structure and it produces an IUPAC name (or SMILES/InChI).

Here are at least two:

The lower is apparently aka CH-FUBBMPDORA (just rolls off the tongue), analysis available [pdf]

And I see now I was beaten to this by a reddit post.

They are all lame boring novel full agonist cannabinoids.

 

[BestU8]

Luckily I have a cool piece of software called ChemDraw / ChemOffice that can both convert IUPAC to a structure, it can do the reverse too - draw a structure and it produces an IUPAC name (or SMILES/InChI).

Here are at least two:

The lower is apparently aka CH-FUBBMPDORA (just rolls off the tongue), analysis available [pdf]

And I see now I was beaten to this by a reddit post.

They are all lame boring novel full agonist cannabinoids.

Very cool software I'll utilize it for sure in the future.
Thanks for your reply, may I know what makes you believe that these are 'lame & boring'? Have you researched these chems yourself?

The complex molecules these synthetic cannabinoids are evolving into is ludicrous!

 

[sekio]

I recall when JWH-018 and friends first hit the scene, they seemed sort of interesting initially but rather quickly presented some nasty downsides compared to THC, namely, as full agonists of CB₁ (THC is a partial agonist only) they could cause much more intense psychosis in susceptible individuals (and generally more intense/unpleasant experiences overall), were less forgiving in overdose, and produced actual physical dependency with a withdrawal syndrome in overuse.
Then they got banned and the analogue arms race happened: more and more elaborate (and toxicologically questionable) analogues were made, sold, and banned, and the cycle repeated, until the present day when we have 18 million similar cannabinoids with structures that are simple permutations of various elements. Pick an aromatic core, some sort of bulky "head", a means to link the two, and add a "tail", and you have a new cannabinoid.
The problem is that this has made the black/grey market "synthetic cannabis" market into a minefield of a million products containing undisclosed amounts of unlabeled, untested, wildly different active ingredients (or mixtures thereof) with different dosages, different CB₁ / CB₂ / off-target affinities, different metabolisms, different half lives, different decomposition products, different impurities etc.
And any new compounds are, at best, provided with binding affinities, but no relevant biological or safety data.
You will have to excuse my disinterest because I live in a country with legalized Cannabis. THC and analogs have more interesting effects IMO anyway.