Don't want to dismiss the entire concept right off the bat, but trying to pull off a hybrid pharmacophore often doesn't really work out. It's like trying to achieve both things at the same time but failing at both because the requirements are not met because of the 'concessions'.
Of course a given neurotransmitter system will be more akin to some than others, as we know for example there isn't such a huge difference between the catecholamines DA and NE so there is much more pharmacophore overlap so to speak.
Hybridizing 2C-D and (s)unifiram is much much more of a stretch. The SAR foundation of AMPAkines seems a lot more obscure to me and the 2C-D group is bound pretty randomly to the unifiram group - there is probably not a much better way since there just isn't that much 'kinship'.
I think that it would only pass if from the 2C-D point of view the additional group is acceptable as far as binding dynamics go, so basically a ball and chain - and/or the other way around. It seems extremely likely that putting it on that 4-position is absolutely not acceptable in that sense, if anything it would have to dangle like an NBOMe on the amine function.
Funny question actually MagickalKat, since 2C-D is considered to be somewhat of a nootropic on its own. That may not be a coincidence, perhaps that was already SkyblueMolly's association.
FYI: the reason I said I didn't want to dismiss it right off the bat is for example bk-2C-B, which is a pretty rogue hybrid of empathogen drug design strategy applied to a psychedelic structure.
Of course a given neurotransmitter system will be more akin to some than others, as we know for example there isn't such a huge difference between the catecholamines DA and NE so there is much more pharmacophore overlap so to speak.
Hybridizing 2C-D and (s)unifiram is much much more of a stretch. The SAR foundation of AMPAkines seems a lot more obscure to me and the 2C-D group is bound pretty randomly to the unifiram group - there is probably not a much better way since there just isn't that much 'kinship'.
I think that it would only pass if from the 2C-D point of view the additional group is acceptable as far as binding dynamics go, so basically a ball and chain - and/or the other way around. It seems extremely likely that putting it on that 4-position is absolutely not acceptable in that sense, if anything it would have to dangle like an NBOMe on the amine function.
Funny question actually MagickalKat, since 2C-D is considered to be somewhat of a nootropic on its own. That may not be a coincidence, perhaps that was already SkyblueMolly's association.
FYI: the reason I said I didn't want to dismiss it right off the bat is for example bk-2C-B, which is a pretty rogue hybrid of empathogen drug design strategy applied to a psychedelic structure.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
(as in, impossible)