Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The agonist/antagonist activities of four background analogs of substance P (SP) facilitated design and synthesis of 12 new analogs to achieve effective antagonists. (D-Pro2, D-Phe7, D-Trp9)-SP, (D-Pro2, D-Trp7,9)-SP and (D-Arg1, D-Phe7, D-Trp9)-SP showed no agonist activity; 9 analogs showed weak agonist activity of SP. (D-Pro2, D-Trp7,9)-SP was the most potent antagonist which at a concentration of 10(-5) required a 3-fold increase in SP to allow a 50% response by SP. (D-Pro2, Lys6, D-Phe7)-SP and (D-Pro2, D-pClPhe7, D-Trp9)-SP were also potent, and the antagonism was competitive. For specific pairs of peptides, Lys6 is a promising substituent. D-Trp7,9 was as effective as Lys6, D-Phe7. D-pClPhe7 was three times as effective as D-Phe7. D-Dln6 was 1.33-fold better than D-Gln5. D-Pro2 and D-Pro4 were equally effective. D-Pro2 was 1.5 times as effective as D-Lys3. D-Pro2 may not be important. D-pClPhe9 and D-Trp9 were equally effective.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Folkers et al. (1982) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: