Some years ago I happened upon a new class of kappa ligands. As people may know, in many cases (such as U-47700) the difference between a kappa ligand and a mu ligand is a single methylene spacer. I've spent AGES looking for the paper with no luck.... but bless me, if I did not find the mu homologue of the compound, to whit:
Image opioid hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co
2,2-dimethyl-3-(methylamino)-3-phenyl-N-(2-phenylethyl)propanamide
As those who have read my paper on mu agonists, you will see 4 of the 5 key moieties and a biosteric minimum. I suggest that a p-Br (like BDPC) on the alpha benzene (closer to the amine) would increase potency as the compound is 14 methylenes long, not 15. The researchers did make the m-OH and made the alkyl chain an extra carbon long, but antagonist it was. The above is, to the best of my knowledge, an agonist.
Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters
Martin P. Allen, James F.Blake, Dianne K.Bryce, Mary E. Haggan, Spiros Liras, Stafford McLean & Barb E.Segelstein
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-894X(00)00034-2
Received 1 October 1999, Accepted 4 January 2000, Available online 8 March 2000.
Design, synthesis and biological evaluation of 3-amino-3-phenylpropionamide derivatives as novel μ opioid receptor ligands
Steely eyed viewers may suggest that an -OH on the benzylic carbon of the beta aromatic MAY increase affinity. Then of course the mystery of why the active compounds are ALL secondary amines suggests that the secondaries are the more potent. The compound is also 14 methylene's in length and so their is an argument to add a p-Br (or p-Me) to the alpha benzene (the one closer to the amine moiety.
I do not think we can expect massive activity, but maybe 60x M is not unreasonable.
Oh, and on a point of secondary amines. the -CH3 of the amines forms a hydrogen-bond with the =O so you consider there to be an extra ring thus:
Image ring hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co
PS I would be just as keen to read about the antagonists (one's with meta -OH) and the kappa homologues (with extra methylene spacer.