• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

Phenethylamines The best K homologue? (S) o-Methyl 2-chloro-5-methoxy

Feretile

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 2, 2022
Messages
361
Some years ago, while I was researching NMDA antagonists, I systematically went through all of the Parke-Davis patents on PCP US 3097136, all patents that cited it and all related patents. That eventually led to US 3254124, the original ketamine patent.

Now, what one discovers when browsing patents is that they almost all cover multiple compounds. The ketamine patent covers o substitutions of hydrogen, halogen, hydroxy, methyl and methoxy and dozens of different amine substitutions for the simple reason that if you don't cover all possible analogues, another company will quickly issue their own patent covering them.

What they did next was a surprise. They issued a patent for just 1 compound namely 2-chloro-5-methoxy ketamine. I do not know if it has a huge advantage, one assumes so. I can only imagine that since it's opioid activity is much greater, maybe sub-anesthetic doses were superior for treating pain. After all, I think K was licenced purely as an anesthetic.

Their research team then went on to find out if the optional =O could be replaced with a methyl moiety. As it turned out, not only was the compound a more active NMDA antagonist but it also had a much higher affinity for the mu opioid receptors & dopamine transport. Of course, such a modification introduces a second chiral centre, In the end, it turned out that while it was much more active, it's desired effects were no better and it proved to be more euphoric in animal models (or at least they would choose the drug over food for much longer - in fact I think they starved to death(.

This was unexpected because such trials were not common back in the 1970s. I'm sure people are aware of the famous study in which rats would choose cocaine over food until they starved BUT at the time, NMDA antagonists were not believed to cause dependence and/or addiction. I think we know better now.

Anyway, they also tried replacing the =O with a -CH3 in analogues that had a 2-thienyl aromatic rather than a (substituted benzene) and although the NMDA activity was even more pronounced, it did not seem to lead to self-destruction on the part of the test animals.

Lastly, I discovered a 2002 paper in the European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry (I had never even heard of the publication before then!) but they discovered that if the cyclohexane moiety with a 4-thiane, the LogP was significantly higher (3.36 ---> 4.78) AND conveniently, the S can undergo oxidation so the increased duration due to loss of the =O was offset.

Forgive me if this is a little vague. I'm thinking back 11 years and am trying my best. If memory serves, the compound is: 1-[(3R,4R)-4-(2-chloro-5-methoxyphenyl)-3-methylthian-4-yl]piperidine

It seems that their are still researchers in this field but the cyclohexane->thiane may be of pracvtical use because most of the analogue laws I have read specify 'cvyclohexane;' and I presume that all of the cvompounds listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arylcyclohexylamine would be as active if just a -CH2- is replaced by a -S- although I am no expert and strongly recommend that people check local laws AND have the compounds properly tested. We used to use HLS.
 
The moral is - use a thiane ring ;-) In the UK it was legal but isophenidine is just about the easiest & cheapest of AKK drugs to make, I won;t go through the whole thing but know this:

1) 1 step
2) 1 reaction vessel
3) 'friendly solvents i.e. methanol & water
4) room temperature.
5) only impurity us plain salt (sodium chloride) at about 5%.... so clean if if you want, I wouldn't ;-)

BTW the route was discovered in a patent made by an Indian company for the production of sertraline (specifically sertralone to sertraline). I read any and ALL patents on medicines. I doubt that the Indian's thought 'oh, and it could be used to make isophenidine....;

BTW when I say RT, the patent did not mention heating or cooling and so I used Wiki to find the average temperature of the city in which the company is based and night & day, winter and summer..... it's around 30°C±2

But if I have 2 skill.... it's KNOWING that I have to sit through 10000s of patents a year and maybe 50 of them will have something useful. It really is 1% inspiration & 99% perspiration.
 

Good look with the synthesis & resolution of THAT compound. Yes, it's very pretty but it's also very busy & has 2 chiral centres so even if your 6 step synthesis is quantitative, you will only get 25% of the compound in the image.

That is why RC design is a balancing act between what you WANT and what it is possible to GET - especially since really good custom chemical companies are costly. I think pyrazolam cost $20000/Kg and that was only 3 steps from bromazepam (amide to thioamide & then reaction with acetylhydrazine). Finding the appropriate conditions took about 12 attempts & preparative chromatography was required.

Of course, 1Kg = 2 million units.

But in reality you are stuck with 2-4 steps maximum. 2 complex steps optimised by experts or 4 simple name-reactions with high yields that crappy Chinese labs can make.
 
Wait - is this compound an arylcyclohexylamine?

PCP, Ketamine, MXE and so on.... they are ALL arylcvycvlohexylamines.

It took me a whole 2 seconds to Google the answer:


I'm sorry, but if you cannot be bothered to put in ANY effort yourself, why should anybody else put in effort to help you in understanding what are very, very simple chemical terms? We aren't being paid to teach.
 
Hah, chill out dude. Are you being paid anything to post here? ;)

What exactly am I googling? Is "o-Methyl 2-chloro-5-methoxy" an arylcyclohexylamine? Is "1-[(3R,4R)-4-(2-chloro-5-methoxyphenyl)-3-methylthian-4-yl]piperidine" an arylcyclohexylamine? Just, "1-[(3R,4R)-4-(2-chloro-5-methoxyphenyl)-3-methylthian-4-yl]piperidine"? I tried but perhaps I just don't know how to use google. It would seem perhaps that the fact they contain the ketamine group means yes, however the fact that the fleshed out latter molecular name ends with "piperidine" confused me. I am not chemically educated, please forgive my ignorance, that's why I asked. I've since googled "piperidine" in an effort to understand whether a compound can be both an arylcyclohexylamine and a piperidine. After that obviously I'll have to google arylcyclohexylamine again with a focus on understanding it chemically, to the best of my ability. Thanks for the learning opportunity I guess, but while I obviously understand loosely the class of compounds that belong to the arylcyclohexylamine family and their similarities in terms of the their neurological effects, I do not have a deep or even, perhaps, especially shallow understanding of the chemistry behind it.

I'll note you didn't post this in the "Neuroscience and Pharmacology Discussion" forum, even though it is appears to be about a fairly theoretically interesting, based on the available information, group of chemicals into which research was apparently abandoned for unknown reasons. I'm primarily interested in what these variations mean in terms of their effects on human beings, and while I could indeed use google to try to arrive at an educated guess on this, the gaps in my knowledge of chemistry will handicap my ability to do this. It would help if I knew whether or not to think of this compound as an arylcyclohexylamine (because if it was not, that would obviously be particularly interesting - your post is also tagged "Phenethylamines", which I thought I understood but obviously I'm gonna have to refresh my understand of this term as well. because I did not think any arylcyclohexylamines were phenethylamines).

Of course, I could just save a lot of time by just clarifying something about the compound, or compounds(s) you are discussing (other than the commonly known, widely prevalent arylcyclohexylamines) which were unclear to me from your post, by just asking, which is what I did. But directing me to the wikipedia page on arylcyclohexylamines is not going to provide an immediate answer to my question. In fact, "Yes", "No", or "I don't know", would have been sufficient answers, and much quicker ones than either of our most recent posts in this thread. :LOL:
 


I only bothered to read the first sentence you wrote. I'm very chill, but I don't like laziness or excuses.. You SPECIFICALLY asked 'WTF is an arylcyclohexylamine' which took me 2 seconds to find with Google.

- it's ALL available and ALL free on the internet. In future - first use the above resources. Yes, it might take you hours, days or weeks but I spent 7 years studying the subject and like anything else, it requires EFFORT. The above wasn't even available when I studied, so count yourself lucky.

I'm pressing Bluelight to incorporate ChemDoodle into the site, but they very reasonably thing that the signal-to-noise ratio would go through the roof.
 
Not gonna lie they're pretty damn close. The thing about K analogues is they could be almost identical on STP and be totally different IRL. I mean Ethyl-Ketamine was very close on paper but there was absolutely no hole whatsoever, even after 200-300mg (it's also 5x the potency so I would definitely have hoped!).
I was thinking it was the balance between the Chloro and the Methylamine on the opposite side (15/14) whereas E-K was (15/21) so by that logic it seems like the more on the amine the less anaesthetic it is, right?
It's almost like Cocaine; you can make as many RTIs as you want and even get some extremely close ones on STP but /nothing/ compares to the real thing (except REC, that was the shit!).

Apologies for constantly using STP, I know it's flawed but it's the closest thing we have! Below are the stats for Ketamine, 5-MeO-Ketamine, Ethyl-Ketamine, Ketamone (just a little something I made earlier) and Metamine.



Metamine

Wow. They're absolutely Identical. That's madness. Plus Metamine....why are these not in production or already made illegal? We had 2-Fuck-DiCK (2-FDCK) before these for Christ's sakes.

Do you think it's patent & drug war vs. legalisation related?

PS: I really want to try Ketamone though...like now. Give me it now!!
 
Last edited:
I only bothered to read the first sentence you wrote. I'm very chill, but I don't like laziness or excuses.. You SPECIFICALLY asked 'WTF is an arylcyclohexylamine' which took me 2 seconds to find with Google.

To be more accurate, he said "is this compound an arylhyclohexylamine?", which is much different from "wtf is an arylcyclohexylamine". Most people reading these forums are not well versed in chemistry, and we're here to educate
 
To be more accurate, he said "is this compound an arylhyclohexylamine?", which is much different from "wtf is an arylcyclohexylamine". Most people reading these forums are not well versed in chemistry, and we're here to educate
My bad - but it's still 1 Google clock away.

I'm always fascinated that people are SO KEEN on designing novel compounds.... but I don't see many people actually citing the method by which they synthesize them.

I've pointed out elsewhere that 2 complex steps or 4 simple steps is about the limit because unless you work at a large scale, workup & mechanical losses result in no yield.

The synthesis of the thiane analogues of the ACAs was 6 or 7 steps... by a large team who I am prepared to bet went though dozens if not hundreds of unsuccessful synthetic steps to present an optimised route (still only 22%). So even if your 2 steps yields 70% each.... that's an 'acceptable' yield. Yes, I have some 3 step routes,the first 2 only yield 64% overall.... but the last is almost quantitative and the result is a compound with an effective dose under 1mg.

Like I keep telling people BOL-148 (2 bromo-LSD) is LEGAL but react it with NaBH4 % you get a 70% yield of LSD.... so I would imagine that it's the common route with Chinese manufacturers offering different 8 substituents and amides.... because then it doesn't REALLY require cleaning (no impurity is THAT toxic) and so is of muppet-quality chemistry.

While I don't always, I USUALLY provide the synthetic pathway. Often the chemist ends up with all 4 or 8 (or however many) optical isomers and resolves them which is a whole branch of chemistry itself.

www.drugfuture.com has the original patents & papers listed for virtually every drug under the sun. It's a Chinese site but if you Google 'Drugfuture <name of drug>' then it returns the English language version.

I'm Sad Sci Hub has disappeared. I think it's still around in some nations and if so, a link would be good. I will get a VPN so I can avoid blocks within the EU.
 
Last edited:


I only bothered to read the first sentence you wrote. I'm very chill, but I don't like laziness or excuses.. You SPECIFICALLY asked 'WTF is an arylcyclohexylamine' which took me 2 seconds to find with Google.

- it's ALL available and ALL free on the internet. In future - first use the above resources. Yes, it might take you hours, days or weeks but I spent 7 years studying the subject and like anything else, it requires EFFORT. The above wasn't even available when I studied, so count yourself lucky.

I'm pressing Bluelight to incorporate ChemDoodle into the site, but they very reasonably thing that the signal-to-noise ratio would go through the roof.
Dude. A few pointers that will help you get on with people in general, and also - more importantly, since your own life is your business - not scare people away from asking simple questions on this forum, and I say this as someone who is also guilty of replying sarcastically, or borderline just rudely, to posts I consider to be just intellectually lazy, dumb, or whatever. I'm human, as we all are. That said...


1) If you need to tell people that you're chill - you're probably not as chill as you think you are.

2) If you're gonna jump down someone's throat about what they asked - make sure you actually READ what they've written properly, first.

3) You don't like laziness or excuses? How about being too lazy to read a single sentence properly in my first post, and then making the excuse that you were in fact too lazy to read more than the first sentence of the next? We always find it easiest to see in others the flaws we most fear in ourselves.

4) If you've studied a subject for 7 years, consider that you are in a privileged position to educate others on that subject. Rather than telling someone to spend a couple of weeks trying to figure out the answer to a very simple question - just answer the question.

This is how cohesive human societies function. People spend their time on different things. Not everyone HAS the time to become an expert in every single topic that they have an interest in.

Imagine you had a medical issue, and went to see a doctor, and instead of actually using their many years of education and experience to help you out, they just said, "pffft, I don't like laziness or excuses! Everything in life takes effort! Count yourself lucky you've got Google, figure it out yourself!" :ROFLMAO: Obviously, human civilisation would not exist if everyone behaved in this manner.


All the best to you man, maybe you're going through something, were having a bad day, I dunno. I won't waste any more time on this myself but for the benefit of everyone else on this forum, please try your best to be more patient in the future.
 
Dude. A few pointers that will help you get on with people in general, and also - more importantly, since your own life is your business - not scare people away from asking simple questions on this forum, and I say this as someone who is also guilty of replying sarcastically, or borderline just rudely, to posts I consider to be just intellectually lazy, dumb, or whatever. I'm human, as we all are. That said...


1) If you need to tell people that you're chill - you're probably not as chill as you think you are.

2) If you're gonna jump down someone's throat about what they asked - make sure you actually READ what they've written properly, first.

3) You don't like laziness or excuses? How about being too lazy to read a single sentence properly in my first post, and then making the excuse that you were in fact too lazy to read more than the first sentence of the next? We always find it easiest to see in others the flaws we most fear in ourselves.

4) If you've studied a subject for 7 years, consider that you are in a privileged position to educate others on that subject. Rather than telling someone to spend a couple of weeks trying to figure out the answer to a very simple question - just answer the question.

This is how cohesive human societies function. People spend their time on different things. Not everyone HAS the time to become an expert in every single topic that they have an interest in.

Imagine you had a medical issue, and went to see a doctor, and instead of actually using their many years of education and experience to help you out, they just said, "pffft, I don't like laziness or excuses! Everything in life takes effort! Count yourself lucky you've got Google, figure it out yourself!" :ROFLMAO: Obviously, human civilisation would not exist if everyone behaved in this manner.


All the best to you man, maybe you're going through something, were having a bad day, I dunno. I won't waste any more time on this myself but for the benefit of everyone else on this forum, please try your best to be more patient in the future.
Damn-Dude, well said.

Are you a CEO or something? ;)
 
Haha, thanks. I have been a CEO, albeit a self-appointed one of a corporation with no staff except myself. :LOL: Does that count? I'm just gonna tell myself it does.
 
Top