H. Shu et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 19 (2009) 891–893
893
In summary, we have reported the discovery and regioselec-
tive synthesis of a series of 4-alkoxy-carbonyl-1,5-diaryl-1,2,3-
triazoles as a novel class of potent cannabinoid receptor ligands.
The further in vitro and in vivo evaluation of the potent analogs
11 and 14 is currently under investigation and will be reported
elsewhere.
O
Cl
N
N
RO
i-iii
N
Cl
Cl
Cl
5
10 R = CH2CH3 (55%)
Acknowledgments
11 R = CH2CH2CH3 (57%)
12 R = CH2(CH2)2CH3 (60%)
13 R = CH2(CH2)3CH3 (60%)
14 R = C6H5(72%)
We thank Prof. Gregory C. Fu at M.I.T. for the assistance pro-
vided to Ms. Hong Shu after Hurricane Katrina. This research was
funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA023916).
15 R = CH2C6H5 (76%)
O
N
O
iv
N
8b
References and notes
N
Cl
1. Devane, W. A.; Dysarz, F. A.; Johnson, M. R.; Melvin, L. S.; Howlett, A. C. Mol.
Pharmacol. 1988, 34, 605.
2. Matsuda, L. A.; Lolait, S. J.; Brownstein, M. J.; Young, A. C.; Bonner, T. I. Nature
1990, 346, 561.
3. Munro, S.; Thomas, K. L.; Abu-Shaar, M. Nature 1993, 61.
4. Gerard, C. M.; Mollereau, C.; Vassart, G.; Parmentier, M. Biochem. J. 1991, 279,
129.
Cl
Cl
16 (99%)
Scheme 2. Reagents and conditions: (i) EtMgCl, THF, rt, 1 h; (ii) 4b, 50 °C, 2 h; (iii)
ClCO2R; (iv) cyclohexanol, BuLi, THF, 0 °C, 2 h.
5. (a) Herkenham, M.; Lynn, A. B.; Little, M. D.; Johnson, M. R.; Melvin, L. S.; de
Costa, B. R. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1990, 87, 1932; (b) Herkenham, M.; Lynn,
A. B.; de Costa, B. R.; Richfield, E. K. Brain Res. 1991, 547, 267; (c) Herkenham,
M.; Lynn, A. B.; Johnson, M. R.; Melvin, L. S.; de Costa, B. R.; Rice, K. C. J. Neurosci.
1991, 11, 563; (d) Mailleux, P.; Vanderhaeghen, J. J. Neuroscience 1992, 48, 655;
(e) Howlett, A. C.; Qualy, J. M.; Khachatrian, L. L. Mol. Pharmacol. 1986, 29, 307.
6. (a) Herkenham, M. In Cannabinoid Receptors; Pertwee, R. G., Ed.; Academic
Press: New York, 1995. p 145; (b) Howlett, A. C.; Barth, F.; Bonner, T. I.; Cabral,
G.; Casellas, P.; Devane, W. A. Pharmacol. Rev. 2002, 54, 161; (c) Onaivi, E. S.;
Ishiguro, H.; Gong, J. P.; Patel, S.; Perchuk, A.; Meozzi, P. A.; Myers, L.; Mora, Z.;
Tagliaferro, P.; Gardner, E.; Brusco, A.; Akinshola, B. E.; Liu, Q. R.; Hope, B.;
Iwasaki, S.; Arinami, T.; Teasenfitz, L.; Uhl, G. R. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 2006, 1074,
514.
7. DiMarzo, V.; Bifulco, M.; De Petrocellis, L. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2004, 3, 771.
8. Salo, O. M. H.; Savinainen, J. R.; Parkkari, T.; Nevalainen, T.; Lahtela-Kakkonen,
M.; Gynther, J.; Laitinen, J. T.; Järvinen, T.; Poso, A. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 554.
9. Beardsley, P. M.; Thomas, B. F. Behav. Pharmacol. 2005, 16, 275.
10. LeFoll, B.; Goldberg, S. R. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2005, 312, 875.
11. Tucci, S. A.; Halford, J. C. G.; Harrold, J. A.; Kirkham, T. C. Curr. Med. Chem. 2006,
13, 2669.
nates of rat cerebellum.31 For direct comparison of ligand affinity at
CB1 receptors with 1, [3H]SR141716 was used as the radioligand.
For each compound, each concentration was tested in triplicate
and each experiment was replicated three times. The binding data
were analyzed using the non-linear regression analysis program of
GraphPad PrismÒ.
The Ki values summarized in Table 1 indicated that the
SR141716 analog 2 exhibited only modest affinity (Ki = 590 nM)
for CB1 receptors. In addition, the mono-chloro-substituted 5-aryl
derivatives 9, and the unfunctionalized 1,5-diaryl triazoles 7a and
7b exhibited low affinity for cannabinoid receptors. However, it
was serendipitous to find that the methyl ester 8b (Ki = 66 nM)
was nearly an order of magnitude more potent than 2. This then
provided a new lead compound for investigation.
As illustrated in Scheme 2, a series of 1,2,3-triazole analogs with
varying ester groups were prepared using the click chemistry
described earlier. The esters 10–15 were prepared efficiently in
55–76% yield by trapping the 1,5-diaryl-1,2,3-triazole-4-magne-
sium chloride intermediate 6b (Scheme 1) with the corresponding
commercially available chloroformates. The cyclohexyl ester deriv-
ative 16 was prepared by a simple transesterification of the methyl
ester 8b.
The esters 10–16 were evaluated for binding affinity at CB1
receptors as described above (Table 1). The n-propyl ester 11
(Ki = 4.6 nM) was the most potent derivative of the series and
was slightly more potent than SR141716A (11.5 nM).21 It is worth
noting that the potent triazole ester 11, exhibited similar lipophil-
icity to that of SR141716A (ClogP 6.26).25 The phenyl ester 14
(Ki = 11 nM) also exhibited high affinity for CB1 receptors while
the affinity of the benzyl ester 15 was somewhat diminished. The
larger alkyl ester congeners 12 and 13 exhibited high lipophilicity
(Table 1, ClogP 6.70, 7.23) and were difficult to handle in the bind-
ing assay leading to inconsistent results. However, the binding data
generally indicated that 12 and 13 exhibited diminished binding
affinity relative to 11 and thus were not pursued. In general, ana-
logs with either decreased or increased lipophilicity relative to
11 exhibited diminished affinity. This seems to suggest that a nar-
row window of lipophilic character may exist for binding of these
triazoles at CB1 receptors.
12. Rinaldi-Carmona, M.; Barth, F.; Heaulme, M.; Shire, D.; Calandra, B.; Congy, C.;
Martinez, S.; Maruani, J.; Neliat, G.; Caput, D. FEBS Lett. 1994, 350, 240.
13. Pertwee, R. Life Sci. 2005, 76, 1307.
14. Barth, F. Annu. Rep. Med. Chem. 2005, 40, 103.
15. Tanda, G.; Goldberg, S. R. Psychopharmacology 2003, 169, 115.
16. Mclaughlin, P. J.; Winston, K.; Swezey, L.; Wisniecki, A.; Aberman, J.; Tardif, D.
J.; Betz, A. J.; Ishiwari, K.; Makriyannis, A.; Salamone, J. D. Behav. Pharmacol.
2003, 14, 583.
17. Jarbe, T. U.; DiPatrizio, N. V.; Li, C.; Makriyannis, A. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
2003, 75, 809.
18. Vivian, J. A.; Kishioka, S.; Butelman, E. R.; Broadbear, J.; Lee, K. O.; Woods, J. H. J.
Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1998, 286, 697.
19. Winsauer, P. J.; Lambert, P.; Moerschbaecher, J. M. Behav. Pharmacol. 1999, 10,
497.
20. Christensen, R.; Kristensen, P. K.; Bartels, E. M.; Biddal, H.; Astrup, A. Lancet
2007, 370, 1671.
21. Thakur, G. A.; Nikas, S. P.; Li, C.; Makriyannis, A. Handb. Exp. Pharmacol. 2005,
768, 209.
22. Thomas, B. F.; Gilliam, A. F.; Burch, D. F.; Roche, M. J.; Seltzman, H. H. J.
Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1998, 285, 285.
23. Hurst, D. P.; Lynch, D. L.; Barnett-Norris, J.; Hyatt, S. M.; Seltzman, H. H.; Zhong,
M.; Song, Z.-H.; Nie, J.; Lewis, D.; Reggio, P. H. Mol. Pharmacol. 2002, 62, 1274.
24. Shim, J. Y.; Welsch, W. J.; Cartier, E.; Edwards, J. L.; Howlett, A. C. J. Med. Chem.
2002, 45, 1447.
25. ClogP values were calculated using software from Collaborative Drug
26. (a) Lipinski, C. A.; Lombardo, F.; Dominy, B. W.; Feeny, P. J. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.
1997, 23, 3; (b) Lipinski, C. A. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 2000, 44, 235.
27. Krasinski, A.; Fokin, V. V.; Sharpless, K. B. Org. Lett. 2004, 6, 1237.
28. Liu, Q.; Tor, Y. Org. Lett. 2003, 5, 2571.
29. Andersen, J.; Madsen, U.; Bjorkling, F.; Liang, X. Synlett 2005, 14, 2209.
30. The authors have deposited the crystallographic data for structure 8b with the
Deposition number: CCDC 710290.
31. Breivogel, C.; Sim, L.; Childers, S. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1997, 282, 1632.