polymath
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,884
Is there any reason to expect that a small molecule peptide drug would have carcinogenic or other unspecific toxic effects less likely than a non-peptide compound? It would seem logical that a peptide compound would not produce reactive metabolites (peroxides, etc.) any more likely than the amino acids it is made from. Of course, peptides may have the problem of poor BBB penetration or short half life compared to non-peptide drugs.
If a novel compound with peptide structure is less likely to be toxic than other kind of compounds, it may be logical to favor peptides when inventing new "research chemical" drugs. Unfortunately, only the opioid class of drugs seems to have a lot of peptide counterparts to ordinary ones. It's difficult to find a dopamine reuptake inhibitor or NMDA antagonist with a peptide structure.
If a novel compound with peptide structure is less likely to be toxic than other kind of compounds, it may be logical to favor peptides when inventing new "research chemical" drugs. Unfortunately, only the opioid class of drugs seems to have a lot of peptide counterparts to ordinary ones. It's difficult to find a dopamine reuptake inhibitor or NMDA antagonist with a peptide structure.