Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Topographically modified melanotropin side chain pharmacophore residues Phe7 and Trp9 in a cyclic peptide template (Ac-Nle4-c[Asp-His-Xaa7-Arg-Yaa9-Lys]-NH2) and Phe7 in a linear peptide template (Ac-Ser-Tyr-Ser-Nle4-Glu-His-Xaa7-Arg-Trp-Gly-Lys-Pro-Val-NH2) result in differences in potency and prolonged biological activity in the frog and lizard skin bioassays. These topographic modifications included the four isomers of beta-methylphenylalanine (beta-MePhe)7 and beta-methyltryptophan (beta-MeTrp)9 and the two isomers of 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-beta-carboline (Tca)9 Modifications in the cyclic template resulted in up to a 1000-fold difference in potency for the beta-MePhe7 stereoisomeric peptides; up to a 476-fold difference in potency resulted for the beta-MeTrp9 peptides, and about a 50-fold difference between the Tca9-containing peptides. Up to a 40-fold difference in potency resulted for the beta-MePhe7 stereoisomeric peptides using the linear template in these assays. The relative potency ranking for modifications in the cyclic template of beta-MePhe7 were 2R,3S > 2S,3S = 2S,3R > 2R,3R in the frog assay and 2S,3R > 2R,3S > 2S,3S > 2R,3R in the lizard assay. The relative potencies for modifications in the cyclic template of beta-MeTrp9 were 2R,3S > 2R,3R > 2S,3S > > 2S,3R in the frog assay and 2S,3S = 2R,3R > 2R,3S > 2S,3R in the lizard assay. The relative potencies for modifications in the cyclic template of Tca9 were DTca > LTca in both assays. Significant differences in prolonged (residual) activities were also observed for these modified peptides and were dependent upon stereochemistry of the beta-methyl amino acid, peptide template, and bioassay system. Furthermore, comparisons of beta-MeTrp9 stereoisomeric peptides on the frog, lizard, and human MC1 receptors suggest that structure-activity relationships on both the classical frog and lizard skin bioassays do not necessarily predict corresponding SAR profiles for the human melanocortin receptors, indicating a remarkable species specificity of the MC1 receptor requirements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haskell‐Luevano et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: