Knowledge base of pharmceutical companies

[dip12]

Anyone know any reliable information on the estimate of information known by pharmaceuticals companies which is kept internal for reasons of commercial competitiveness?

I.e lets say when they were investigating Paroxetine for depression they must have gone through countless iterations of similar molecules and produced results for their binding profiles etc etc. There must have been some interesting drugs looked at that might have been considered to high abuse potential / unmarketable.

Maybe 'out there' there are KNOWN compounds which would probably be very popular (i.e maybe even better MDMA type drugs / DRI's / sedatives) but they are held private for ethical reasons. (The opposite effect of what Shulgin strives for)

Alternatively there is also probably chemists out there who might have stumbled on something and kept it private also for ethical reasons etc.

 

[Epsilon Alpha]

They go into private chemical libraries, the info is there but you need to pay through the nose to get it. Suppose you're a researcher who finds that a certain type of compound works great at inhibiting enzyme XYZ (suppose its involved in blood pressure) but that structure also tends to bind to receptor ABC (suppose that its involved in bowl control) you can review these massive private libraries to see if there are any known substitutions or related compounds that have more favorable characteristics.

I also may or may not have talked to someone who worked in the Nichol's lab who said that they withheld SAR information on some compounds they worked on due to ethical concerns, and I can't blame them one bit. The RC crowd probably set the whole "cannabiniods for arthritis" angle back for at least a few years by getting high on legitimately researched chemicals and causing red tape to get all over the field.

 

[dip12]

I also may or may not have talked to someone who worked in the Nichol's lab who said that they withheld SAR information on some compounds they worked on due to ethical concerns, and I can't blame them one bit.

Very true and I agree, if it was me I would definately find it hard deciding on what information is suitable for public domain and what isn't. Still from pure curiosity (a dangerous thing I know) witnessing the situation as an outsider I wonder what this translates as. I.e I wonder what type of SAR data/compounds/information would they not be happy disclosing considering they HAVE released chemical structures of bromo-dragonfly (+5ht2a binding data? cant remember if they released this), MDAI, indanylaminopropane etc etc.

The RC crowd probably set the whole "cannabiniods for arthritis" angle back for at least a few years by getting high on legitimately researched chemicals and causing red tape to get all over the field.

Very true, very similar to MDMA for post-traumatic stress disorder etc (only recently starting to utilise it this way).

 

[endotropic]

This is all hearsay, but I've heard it said that researchers have found and buried cocaine analogues with vastly improved potency.

 

[23536]

Anyone know any reliable information on the estimate of information known by pharmaceuticals companies which is kept internal for reasons of commercial competitiveness?

I.e lets say when they were investigating Paroxetine for depression they must have gone through countless iterations of similar molecules and produced results for their binding profiles etc etc. There must have been some interesting drugs looked at that might have been considered to high abuse potential / unmarketable.

Maybe 'out there' there are KNOWN compounds which would probably be very popular (i.e maybe even better MDMA type drugs / DRI's / sedatives) but they are held private for ethical reasons. (The opposite effect of what Shulgin strives for)

an example of that process, involving abandonment by Upjohn of a super-potent opioid, is discussed here (don't know why the right margin is truncated; paste text to NOTEPAD to reveal in full). Nevertheless, that one was discussed in US Patent 4366172. Moreover, the word "Upjohn" (for example) is mentioned in over 30,000 patents, and those mention perhaps hundreds of thousands of compounds. Does this represent the totality of Upjohn's discoveries, or does the company possess a "secret library" resembling the Vatican archives in Angels and Demons--a climate-controlled underground bunker guarded by merciless Cylons?

After watching Girl with the Dragon Tattoo yesterday, I can definitely see Rooney Mara playing a meth-addled hacker who teams up with a disgruntled chemist/researcher to pilfer a pharmaceutical giant's cavernous knowledge base and subsequently dislodge the cartels' market dominance by offering a preponderance of superior legal alternatives to the world's more popular psychoactive compounds. Such a TV series could become Breaking Bad's heir, but I can't see Daniel Craig playing the disgruntled chemist/researcher. Any suggestions on whom to cast for the role?

 

[Epsilon Alpha]

Very true and I agree, if it was me I would definately find it hard deciding on what information is suitable for public domain and what isn't. Still from pure curiosity (a dangerous thing I know) witnessing the situation as an outsider I wonder what this translates as. I.e I wonder what type of SAR data/compounds/information would they not be happy disclosing considering they HAVE released chemical structures of bromo-dragonfly (+5ht2a binding data? cant remember if they released this), MDAI, indanylaminopropane etc etc.

Very true, very similar to MDMA for post-traumatic stress disorder etc (only recently starting to utilise it this way).

Well from what I may or may not have heard its a series of very potent chemicals, many of which with a potential for serious cardiac issues (think 5HT2B agonists) but binding affinities that would spur their use all over the internet. Nichol's himself even hints at it in this month's issue of Discover.

But, that kind of research is generally kept unpublished and simply ends up being a company's inhouse library which only sees the light of day if a legitimate researcher or company pays for it while remaining hushed.

 

[negrogesic]

Some companies may scrap promising novel compounds due to concerns over abuse potential, however such decisions are unlikely to be driven primarily by ethics. In other words, issues such as abuse potential may make a compound less likely to pass FDA trials or result in an unfavorable classification.

 

[neur0net]

I stumbled across this paper awhile ago and thought it might be relevant to the topic at hand:

http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/div/innokonf/5bbrusonicriscuologeuna.pdf

There is a definitely a LOT more information out there than the general public has access to, and that information seems to increasing on an exponential trend (kinda like everything else in Information Technology).

(first post as a long-time lurker, BTW )