I Like to Draw Pictures of Random Molecules

[Soulfake]

 

[Dresden]

I should have drawn 2-MeO-4,5-MDC, not its N-methyl homologoue. And for hopefully the last time, cathinone dimerization is not a problem when cathinones are synthesized and stored properly.

And yes, it's not exactly inventing, but what I did is the first and a crucial step in the invention process.

Also, you have a tendency to overthink the drug discovery process and rely on largely worthless to the process biochemical markers.

Finally, "The greatest intelligence seems stupid."--Lao Tzu.

 

[Nexus_Tripper]

This new noid looks intense! It also has a lot of fluorine to deter potheads that try to smoke it (fluorine pyrolizes off when smokes and poisons anyone who tries to smoke this).

 

[roi]

This new noid looks intense! It also has a lot of fluorine to deter potheads that try to smoke it (fluorine pyrolizes off when smokes and poisons anyone who tries to smoke this).

We're back to trolling, I see.

Here, have some cancer.

 

[adder]

Also, you have a tendency to overthink the drug discovery process and rely on largely worthless to the process biochemical markers.

Finally, "The greatest intelligence seems stupid."--Lao Tzu.

If you want a ton of new useless RCs, then sure, you can just keep swapping substituents, then let people ingest it and report subjective effects. I know it's common practice and I don't think it's wise or fair with those testers if you can't even put some effort into lab tests first. Perhaps one compound in a million will be successful but think how many people could have been hurt in the process. There were quite a few compounds that had weird side effects, it's just impossible to predict how harmful all these untested drugs are and where they could bind. The pharmaceutical industry is what it is, focused on money, but imagine what would happen if they were inventing new drugs like that. It is not inventing anything indeed, it's a trial and error process with people ignorant of risks taking part in it.

As for me this thread is simply for having fun posting random structures. In some cases, yes, you can just add a double bond somewhere or play with bioisosteric groups and you've got a derivative with similar properties to the parent compound. But often impossible structures are posted here or they're so not promising that you would never even attempt synthesizing them. And posters don't even learn from comments of more experienced bluelighters or invest some time to research the subject. I've got nothing against having fun if that's what you want to do, making mistakes is also inevitable in the process of learning, but please have some respect for people who spend years learning science wrapping their heads around complex stuff. After all this often means learning from our ancestors' mistakes who conducted research and put a lot of effort to invent something completely new that made further progress possible, they did a lot more than sketching structures on a piece of paper. What is amazing is that true professionals are often very humble people who can't even recognise the importance of their work. I used to be a stupid kid who often acted arrogantly and thought that I got it all figured out even thought I only had some basic knowledge on the matter, and I did that because I wanted to be good at chemistry so much, not out of some selfish nature. As I look back, it's quite funny but I also hope I've learnt enough from my own mistakes, now I'm trying to always be aware of my deficits and to respect more experience people without jealousy.

 

[Molecular_Man]

I could go into it more, yes, but I don't like sharing my logic with people who don't know how to invent but rather simply criticize.

For example,

Testosterone inspired amphetamine.

^--How much more information do you really need? Are you dense? (j/k, I know you're not dense!)

It is not testosterone inspired.. It is nandrolone inspired. The A steroid ring is nor. It lacks a methyl-group.

Anyway this is fabulous!

If it can be aromatized into an estrogen, then it gives 4-Hydroxyamphetamine !

 

[ebola?]

Instead of all these drawing dumps why doesn't everyone take a couple ideas and really look into them some? Sure, some ideas don't need a whole lot of looking into. Isopropyl-JWH-695 doesn't need a whole lot of explanation, but if you think it'll be more potent say why. If your goal in posting a compound is to generate thought and conversation about it put some in to start with? If you're not posting them to develop interest and discussion in the compound, why are you posting? Sometimes it seems like people are trying to draw every conceivable variation on the phenethylamine skeleton just for the sake of having them all drawn out somewhere. If that's the goal someone could probably write a program that could go through a big list of substitutions and draw out every one of them on every possible position and every possible combination in every position.

Well put. I am considering putting a slightly reworded version of this in the first post of this thread, to serve as a guide.

I could go into it more, yes, but I don't like sharing my logic with people who don't know how to invent but rather simply criticize.

Well, criticism is a key part of vetting ideas for validity, no?

Also, you have a tendency to overthink the drug discovery process and rely on largely worthless to the process biochemical markers.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Because none of us can conduct novel empirical research at our desks, we're stuck with speculation based on only dubiously reliable and valid structural indicators a lot of the time.

ebola

 

[Nagelfar]

Über-Kokain:

= *S. Singh compound #s* "183c" + "185c" + "198a" + "220c" + "224b"

Check out the affinities of those all individually, and now image them together (I'm sure some may detract from the affinity of some other specific alterations, but it should at least be roughly functional, and likely better than the parent compound to some degree)

 

[sekio]

what the hell is that sulfur and nitrogen abomination hanging off of it? Does it really have an isocyanate group on it? Talk about irreversible binding.

The oxazole analog of cocaine is something I'd like to see used in man at least once, though.

 

[Nagelfar]

what the hell is that sulfur and nitrogen abomination hanging off of it? Does it really have an isocyanate group on it? Talk about irreversible binding.

The oxazole analog of cocaine is something I'd like to see used in man at least once, though.

That's N-modified cocaine analog 220-c, with a SO2NCO at the R substituted N. Compared to Mazidol binding it is 120 ± 10 whereas cocaine itself is only 280 ± 60, for dopamine it is 160 ± 10, whereas cocaine proper is 320 ± 10, it's selectivity/binding is the only one that is inferior to cocaine; being 1.3 instead of 1.1; but seeing as it is likely covalent binding, and this is the least change of any of the N-modified structures from Singh's paper in terms of binding affinity, I think the other alterations for the better would bode well for this variant.

 

[roi]

Keeping it simple.

 

[Nexus_Tripper]

Keeping it simple.

MXiP? We haven't even seen PCiP yet...

 

[roi]

Somewhat surprising actually - PCPr seems to be equipotent with PCP (but is banned in most countries) and I'd expect similar potency with this structural isomer as well.

Something more *random*, DMAA/a-PVP hybrid.

 

[Dresden]

4 + 4 = 8
2 + 6 = 8
1 + 7 = 8

There's no real wrong way to get the right answer. In the worst case scenario, a serendipitous find will have occurred. And, to further clarify, I concede that binding affinity values and such can of course be valuable (but not until after the target compound has been synthesized and tested, obviously).

 

[neurotic]

kinda obvious though

in Nichols' furan analogues of MDA paper it was stated that a oxygen in the meta position was required for catecholaminergic activity. 6-APDB had a close pharmacological profile to MDA while 5-APDB was mostly a serotoning releasing agent. makes sense too when compared to 6- and 5-APB reports (6 being stimmy and 5 not)

 

[Dresden]

I'm not sure about that one, but from what I understand, DOA (4-amino-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine) is inactive.

 

[roi]

 

[neurotic]

I'm not sure about that one, but from what I understand, DOA (4-amino-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine) is inactive.

but i am looking for an empathogen, not a psychedelic. the SAR from psychedelics vs. empathogenic amphetamines is different, it was shown in that Nichols' paper where he coins the term 'entactogenic', IIRC. i.e. R being more potent isomer in the psych. amphs vs. S being more potent isomer in the empathogenic; N-methylation stops psychedelic but not monoamine releasing properties, etc...

a perfect example of this is MDA, which is both a psychedelic and an empathogenic amphetamine. if i'm not mistaken, for example, the R isomer is more potent as a 5-HT2a agonist, and the S isomer is more potent as a monoamine releasing agent.

 

[Dresden]

Like I said, DOA was inactive as anything IIRC. Plus, I'm not entirely sure your molecule is chemically possible.

 

[neurotic]

i don't see the point of comparing it with the 2,5 phens/amps. none of them are empathogens/MRAs anyway. different SAR, different mechanism of actions... that nitrogen might not work for 5HT2a agonism but that's not the purpose anyway

swap that nitrogen over there for a sulfur for example. if it's active, it is not because 2C-T or 2C-T-2 are

i don't know if it's synthable though. benzoxazolinone exists, but i don't know if you can cleave that oxygen off. you could add an insaturation over there on the 2 position that would make it a benzoxazole and i think that's a more common one