Background Areca nut, a known carcinogen and addictive substance continues to be consumed globally. There is a lacuna in cessation strategies to combat areca-addiction. Xanomeline, a synthetic derivative of arecoline has gained significance in recent times for treatment of chronic neurological disorders. Objectives To conduct an in-silico comparison between arecoline and xanomeline for identifying possible interactions that may unveil development of future intervention strategies. Methods An integrative in-silico approach was employed, including physicochemical profiling, toxicity prediction, molecular docking(MD), molecular dynamics simulation(MDS), and network pharmacology comparing arecoline and xanomeline. Docking was performed against muscarinic (CHRM1–5) and nicotinic (CHRNA3/4/7, CHRNB2/4) receptor subtypes relevant to cholinergic signaling and addiction. MDS was used to assess protein ligand interactions. Results Xanomeline demonstrated superior binding affinity across most cholinergic targets, particularly CHRM1 (–6.2 kcal/mol), compared with arecoline (–4.4 kcal/mol). Both ligands exhibited stable RMSD trajectories, although xanomeline complexes showed comparatively reduced RMSF fluctuations. Xanomeline demonstrated higher plasma-protein-binding (PPB) (61.72%) than arecoline (12.740%), higher probability of blood-brain-barrier (BBB) penetration (0.992 cm/s) than arecoline (0.89 cm/s). AMES toxicity showed moderate predicted mutagenic potential (0.625) for arecoline and low predicted mutagenic potential (0.024) for xanomeline. Conclusion Within the limitations of this in-silico investigation, xanomeline exhibited stronger binding affinity for addiction-related cholinergic receptors, improved stability in MDS, low predicted mutagenic potential and better CNS distribution characteristics than arecoline. These findings support the potential of xanomeline to modulate cholinergic pathways implicated in areca nut dependence and addiction and warrants further experimental validation as a promising pharmacological intervention strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Divya et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: