• 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

lefetamine analogues

Wow, I'm wrong again... and happy to be so if I get people like V to sort it out for me. The N-propyl you say....
 
haribo1 said:
Wow, I'm wrong again... and happy to be so if I get people like V to sort it out for me. The N-propyl you say....
Click to expand...

I'm going merely on the patents and papers, the N-methyl was a more potent stim, but had a very much lower safety index, causing convulsions I think. the N-propyl had the same safety index and was a bit more potent than the N-ethyl.
I am very interested to see any recent data on the FCF analogues with the bridge removed so things like cypenamine and 1-amino-2-phenyl cyclohexane.
V
 
Interesting that the propyl is so active. The stuff, in spite of it containing the amphetamine skeleton, works in some other manner (I don't think N-propyl amphetamine is so potent).
 
vecktor said:
I am very interested to see any recent data on the FCF analogues with the bridge removed so things like cypenamine and 1-amino-2-phenyl cyclohexane.
V
Click to expand...

yes and those would be hard pressed to be called substantially similar to any classs II regarding US analogue law
 
I know it's a bad example, but how would the analog laws work with something like bemigride? I mean, it LOOKS very much like a barbiturate, but it's actually a stimulant. So, is it an analog, legally sleeping.
 
i think bemegride would be on the very light side of gray shall we say and hard pressed under the wording of the law to categorize as an "analogue"

i say it must both be substantially similar to a particular compound(s) in in both effect and structure

The Federal Analogue Act defines an analog as a substance which is 'substantially similar' to a scheduled substance and has either an effect 'similar to or greater than' a controlled substance or is thought to have such an effect. The law fails to define what 'substantially similar' means, nor does it try to clarify what would constitute a 'similar or greater' effect.
 
There were a few things I didn't understand in this thread.

1. What does this have in common with eticyclidine (pce)? I've drawn it as many ways as I can think of, but I'm still not getting it (even considering the benzyl as a flexible cyclohexane ring I don't understand what they have in common).

2. Why is it suggested that a meta-hydroxy would be best? Doesn't para-hydroxy make more sense? I did some searching for phenethylamine backbone-containing opioids and all of these have the hydroxy located para. The non-phenethylamine backbone containing opioids all seem to locate the hydroxy meta, though. Why, I don't know. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 677-680 discusses some "highly potent 2,6-dimethyltyrosine analogues."

To me, it would make more sense to replace the alpha-phenyl group with a cyclohexanone ring, maybe with a 3,3,-dimethyl group on it, see what having the quaternary carbon disconnected, but still properly located from the phenyl ring (referring to the morphine rule). I would imagine that these 4-(1-(dimethylamino)-2-(4-hydroxyphenyl)ethyl)cyclohexanone variants would be fairly potent analgesics (primarily) with hopefully reduced respiratory depression (from the NE and DA reuptake inhibition). The problem with most of the opiates that produce less respiratory depression is that they tend to be partial agonists, which aren't the greatest analgesics.

I've drawn here what I'm talking about here: http://img27.imageshack.us/my.php?image=highermuaffinitylefetames6.gif

(edit: for some reason that link isn't working for me, but my internet super blows right now, so let me know if it's not working)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top