Diverse Effects on M1 Signaling and Adverse Effect Liability within a Series of M1 Ago-PAMs
Jerri M Rook1, Masahito Abe1, Hyekyung P Cho1
1Department of Pharmacology, ‡Department of Chemistry, §Vanderbilt Center for Neuroscience Drug Discovery, ∥Vanderbilt Kennedy Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine , Nashville, Tennessee 37232-6600, United States.
Abstract:
Both historical clinical and recent preclinical data suggest that the M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor is an exciting target for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and the cognitive and negative symptom clusters in schizophrenia; however, early drug discovery efforts targeting the orthosteric binding site have failed to afford selective M1 activation. Efforts then shifted to focus on selective activation of M1 via either allosteric agonists or positive allosteric modulators (PAMs). While M1 PAMs have robust efficacy in rodent models, some chemotypes can induce cholinergic adverse effects (AEs) that could limit their clinical utility. Here, we report studies aimed at understanding the subtle structural and pharmacological nuances that differentiate efficacy from adverse effect liability within an indole-based series of M1 ago-PAMs. Our data demonstrate that closely related M1 PAMs can display striking differences in their in vivo activities, especially their propensities to induce adverse effects. We report the discovery of a novel PAM in this series that is devoid of observable adverse effect liability. Interestingly, the molecular pharmacology profile of this novel PAM is similar to that of a representative M1 PAM that induces severe AEs. For instance, both compounds are potent ago-PAMs that demonstrate significant interaction with the orthosteric site (either bitopic or negative cooperativity). However, there are subtle differences in efficacies of the compounds at potentiating M1 responses, agonist potencies, and abilities to induce receptor internalization. While these differences may contribute to the differential in vivo profiles of these compounds, the in vitro differences are relatively subtle and highlight the complexities of allosteric modulators and the need to focus on in vivo phenotypic screening to identify safe and effective M1 PAMs.
Related Concept Videos
Cholinergic Receptors: Muscarinic
The subtypes M1, M3, and M5 couple with the Gq subunit and activate the phospholipase C (PLC) activity, mobilizing intracellular Ca2+....
Direct-Acting Cholinergic Agonists: Pharmacological Actions
Allosteric Regulation
Adrenergic Agonists: Chemistry and Structure-Activity Relationship
Aromatic ring substitutions: Substituting the aromatic ring with –OH groups at positions 3 and 4 yields catecholamines (e.g., epinephrine), which have a high affinity for adrenoceptors. Hydrogen bonding between –OH groups and receptors enhances adrenergic activity.
Separation of...
Antiasthma Drugs: Muscarinic Receptor Antagonists
Antimuscarinic agents compete with ACh for the same binding site on the muscarinic receptors. By binding to these receptors, they inhibit the downstream effects of ACh and block the parasympathetic...
Cholinergic Antagonists: Pharmacological Actions
Gastrointestinal Effects: Antimuscarinics reduce gut contractions, increase gastric emptying, and slow intestinal transit. They partly inhibit gastric acid secretion...


