• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | someguyontheinternet

Ketamine salts solubility

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fertile said:
NO- I mean the 2 compounds you drew are already listed in Pubchem. It's a free database which I have mentioned before. I'm not using some information source you have no access to, but I am BOTHERING to check. Also check Isomer Design for the Pihkals and Tihkals as the guy who runs it keeps a close eye on the various papers that Shulgin, the Nichols group and so on produce from time to time.

Also - hasn't the 2,4,5 pattern reached you yet. Shulgin established it but their hasn't been a single case (except the difurans) in which tetrasubstitution was of any benefit.

I would also like some kind of facile synthesis. If you can't make them, you don't get to name them. That is how medicinal chemistry works.
Click to expand...
Oops, I didn't make methoxetamine, but it was a custom synthesis, by a friend. I just saw a possible contraction of the chemical name (I am quite taken with whoever came up with the name amphetamine from AlphaMethylPHenEThylAMINE). I used it as an easier version of the IUPAC name and people seemed happy to accept it. I feel a bit bad that the name took before I had run it past my friend, but he said he was ok with it.
I have always had a fascination with the origin of medical words (sort of like a scruffy male version of Suzy Dent, on Countdown), so I got a bit excited at the possibility of naming a drug (I fucking hated that 'rolfcopter' bollocks). Even happier it became a three letter abbrieviation, like LSD, DMT, PCP, MDA, THC etc.

Childish, I know, but more than one partner has commened that part of me never grew up!
 
But, after all that bioassaying, I will say my favorite is d-NICE [dextro-N-ethylamphetamine.hcl], unless you count MDMA from the late 1990's, but let's don't.
 
And Now, Ladies & Gentlemen, It's Time. I'd Like To Present To You Something

1-phenyl-1-methoxy-(2S)-2-ethylaminopropane.png


STRONGER
1-phenyl-1-methoxy-(2S)-2-ethylaminopropane
 
1-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-2-ethylaminopropane.png


ANDRA, INDRA, n ANDREA
1-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-2-ethylaminopropane

Three In One.
 
Rectify said:
And Now, Ladies & Gentlemen, It's Time. I'd Like To Present To You Something

1-phenyl-1-methoxy-(2S)-2-ethylaminopropane.png


STRONGER
1-phenyl-1-methoxy-(2S)-2-ethylaminopropane
Click to expand...

Pubchem AGAIN - I keep saying, you don't get to name what you didn't invent.

Also - I see no cohort study ON the subjective effects of ANY compound you dreamed up. Look suspiciously like you made those up as well. Let me remind you that a cohort of 1 has NO confidence interval. So by all means dream up why YOU pretend the compound did to YOU - but don't extend it to being any kind of guide to anyone else taking it.

Face it - your just making it up and everyone here KNOWS that.
 
1-(3,4-dibromophenyl)-(1S)-1-methoxy-N-allyl-2-(2S)-aminopropane.png


BARREN
1-(3,4-dibromophenyl)-(1S)-1-methoxy-N-allyl-2-(2S)-aminopropane

I bet that isn't in PubChem, bitch.
AND IT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF IT WERE!

BrC=1C=C(C=CC1Br)[C@@H]([C@H](C)NCC=C)OC
 
Last edited:
N-allyl-2-oxo-1-amino-1-(2-bromophenyl)cyclohexane.png


SPECIAL_B
N-allyl-2-oxo-1-amino-1-(2-bromophenyl)cyclohexane

C(C=C)NC1(C(CCCC1)=O)C1=C(C=CC=C1)Br

Do I Know If Special B Is Active?
No! That's the whole point. / :

V sub point = (0/0)(pi^0)(r^0), r = 0.
 
Here's a facile synthetic outline:

(1) Indole Acetic Acid, A Common Plant Hormone, Plus Lithium Aluminum Hydride In Tetrahydrofuran All Anhydrous, (2) Then Phosphorus Tribromide In Alcohol, (3) Then Dimethylamine In Tetrahydrofuran Goes To DMT, The Spirit Molecule.

Can't get DMA? Hydrolyze Dimethylformamide @ 159 degrees Celsius For 12 Hours.
 
Last edited:
Rectify said:
You are dead wrong, you fucking piece of shit cunt bitch. Kiss my ass.

Go whip up a batch of ANDRA INDRA n ANDREA and take 100 mg, and then report back, if you D.A.R.E, FOOL.
Click to expand...

Rectify said:
Fertile,

You're Just JEALOUS!!!
Click to expand...
I highly doubt anyone is jealous of you Rectify....you're an interesting dude and I like a lot of your posts but the criticism here is definitely not based on jealousy.
If you don't want to be criticized don't post on a public forum that's literally open to debate.
If you want to just post stuff without other peoples opinions start your own blog elsewhere.
I'm no chemist but I see a lot of posts between people with a pretty deep understanding of chemistry that's rooted in debate, opposing opinions and criticism.
As you know far better than I, chemistry is an ultra complicated field of study....how you deal with criticism is a reflection of your character.
I really hope this post doesn't piss you off but how can you not expect criticism and debate when talking about ultra novel and theoretically active or non active chemicals?
 
Last edited:
Ballz - The difference is, you don't repeatedly attempt pathetic posts inferring you are a chemist. Nobody else posts stuff here, it's a full time job repeatedly pointing out that 'novel' compounds are in fact already on Pubchem.

FACILE SYNTHESIS?

My favourite so far is PBr3 in alcohol.... Instant CH3CH2Br + H3PO3. And don't BS you mean 'a different alcohol' - they all get brominated.

That's a high school mistake. All from Rectify who claimed he couldn't post routes. Fair play, HE CAN'T.

Jealous..... ha ha ha ha ha! Of what? A liar?

We are always happy to share resources and utilities - but like it or not, if it's in Pubchem, Isomer Design, Pihkal, library genesis or such - it isn't novel so YOU don't get to name it....

Bur BBr3 in alcohol.... it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Someone without the vestiges of even basic organic chemistry.

I've posted but I've clearly asked the question 'is this (in)active' because it requires a very subtle fact to know. It wasn't, I thanked everyone and LEARNT. Likewise many people have asked me and I try to provide reference, free utilities like ChemSketch and Molinspiration and various databases so they can go away knowing more. That is the key - the few chemists here do swap ideas and is sekio or fastandbulbous (for example) can confirm or deny activity BUT forget the paper... I trust them to have absorbed the important features from said paper and trust their word. As I said - 2 examples but the people I mean know who they are.

But you won't learn..... BBr3 in alcohol boy. You even derided Pubchem - a system is maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a component of the National Library of Medicine, which is part of the United States National Institutes of Health. MILLIONS of hours of work go into it... but clearly some people think they have more facility than that 50,000 odd chemists who work FREELY to provide this excellent database.
 
Last edited:
izo said:
Any comment on atomoxetine? Tried fluoxetine and citalopram, almost indistinguishable in its effects. Good stuff, strong euphoria from one standard dose.
Click to expand...

I meant to ask - did you look further back in the thread where the pharmocore is explained and the index patent was given. Index because if you look at all patents that reference the index patent, you get branches and leaves. If you look at all of the patents the index patent references, you get the roots.

The index patent doesn't have the aromatic amine - in fact it's only in 1 patent (given) but diclofensine (part of the same class) manages DATNET/SERT balance without it.

I do not know WHY thatt 8-amino appeared. It isn't explained. Sadly no affinity data to hint at answer.


Above is nice paper on aniline bioisosteres. But the problem is the N: lone-pair. If you have space, a ring might work... but no bets on that.
 
Fertile said:
Ballz - The difference is, you don't repeatedly attempt pathetic posts inferring you are a chemist. Nobody else posts stuff here, it's a full time job repeatedly pointing out that 'novel' compounds are in fact already on Pubchem.

FACILE SYNTHESIS?

My favourite so far is PBr3 in alcohol.... Instant CH3CH2Br + H3PO3. And don't BS you mean 'a different alcohol' - they all get brominated.

That's a high school mistake. All from Rectify who claimed he couldn't post routes. Fair play, HE CAN'T.

Jealous..... ha ha ha ha ha! Of what? A liar?

We are always happy to share resources and utilities - but like it or not, if it's in Pubchem, Isomer Design, Pihkal, library genesis or such - it isn't novel so YOU don't get to name it....

Bur BBr3 in alcohol.... it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Someone without the vestiges of even basic organic chemistry.

I've posted but I've clearly asked the question 'is this (in)active' because it requires a very subtle fact to know. It wasn't, I thanked everyone and LEARNT. Likewise many people have asked me and I try to provide reference, free utilities like ChemSketch and Molinspiration and various databases so they can go away knowing more. That is the key - the few chemists here do swap ideas and is sekio or fastandbulbous (for example) can confirm or deny activity BUT forget the paper... I trust them to have absorbed the important features from said paper and trust their word. As I said - 2 examples but the people I mean know who they are.

But you won't learn..... BBr3 in alcohol boy. You even derided Pubchem - a system is maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a component of the National Library of Medicine, which is part of the United States National Institutes of Health. MILLIONS of hours of work go into it... but clearly some people think they have more facility than that 50,000 odd chemists who work FREELY to provide this excellent database.
Click to expand...
The halogenated phosphorus compounds are the reason making methamphetamine from ephedrine/pseudoephedrine is practiced by hillbillies with no formal education in organic chemistry (red phosphorus & iodine form PI3, which replaces the OH group of ephedrine with an iodine group).
 
Fertile said:
It's true that synthetic complexity does make a big difference in choosing classes to explore.

I'm keen to see if anyone spots that U-47700 can be modified, at no increased synthetic cost, to be x4 more potent or that viminol analogues are quite good targets since producing chiral secondary amine is VERY cheap so right away you are up to x15 M. Then, their is a route that while I wouldn't be too keen on, does reduce synthesis to 3 steps. It's just that it uses a rather nasty reagent.

It's datamining that I spend the most time on. Averaging 200 Reaxys searches a day for years does mean I've seen a lot of pathways and sometimes you find a telescoped synthetic pathway for a common medicine that can equally be applied elsewhere. That is why isophenidine can be made in 1 step @ RT using safe reagents - I found the trick in a sertraline patent.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by reacts searches? what is that? And by seen a lot of pathways, are you talking about biological pathway as in what receptors the chemical is going to act on or pathways as in how to synthesis the molecule.
 
Fertile said:
I seem to recall that the synthesis of Modifinil homologues is nasty (workup is a pain( and smelly. It's interesting that the amines need not be basic or positively ionisable.

So the usual p-halides aren't required? How does that affect the LogP? Similarly, swapping from :S: to :S=O will affect LogP.

Those changes can significantly alter the character of the compound. If the -S- is much more potent, the problem is that it WILL be oxidised in the body.

It's certainly nicely researched with good references. Many thanks.
Click to expand...
By LogP your talking about the binding affinity of the molecule to the receptor correct?
 
Delmonte421 said:
By LogP your talking about the binding affinity of the molecule to the receptor correct?
Click to expand...
Logp reflects the lipophilicity of a molecule. You mix it with water and octanol and then measure the levels in both and then take the log of the ratio in the water and octanol fractions. Higher numbers are more lipophillic.

You need a drug to be lipophillic enough to pass through cell membranes, but not too lipophillic where they get stuck there (in general, carrier proteins and such complicate this).

I think Fertile is referring to reaction pathways to synthesize the compounds btw.
 
Yes - The LogP is one of Lipinski's Rules of Five.

-No more than 5 hydrogen bond donors (the total number of nitrogen–hydrogen and oxygen–hydrogen bonds)

-No more than 10 hydrogen bond acceptors (all nitrogen or oxygen atoms)

-A molecular mass less than 500 daltons

-A calculated octanol-water partition coefficient (Clog P) that does not exceed 5

And I think it was further refined to include:

-Not more than 5 rotatable bonds

There are a few variants but RO5 is exceptionally good at what it's supposed to do. It's VERY rare to find a drug that doesn't follow the rules. Calculating if a drug is ORALLY active is even more difficult.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top