A series of new derivatives of 3-(1,2,5,6-tetrahydropyridin-4-yl)indole (4-THPI) has been synthesized, and their dissociation constants at the 5-HT1A and 5-HT2 serotonin (5-HT) receptor subtypes have been determined. The new data were combined with similar binding data on a related set of THPI analogs reported previously (Taylor et al. Mol. Pharmacol. 1988, 34, 42-53) and used to develop 3-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships (3-D QSARs) for these compounds at the 5-HT1A and 5-HT2 receptor sites, by the method of comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). Since the previous study included several conventional QSARs obtained by Hansch analysis, and the new compounds in some cases fall within the congeneric series used in those analyses, we were able to make a direct comparison of the predictive capabilities of CoMFA and Hansch analysis using identical training and test data sets. The overall quality of actual predictions of activity by both methods appears to be about the same, as assessed by the root mean square (rms) residuals between actual and predicted pKi values. On the one hand, the compounds most poorly predicted by the Hansch analysis were 34, 35, and 37, while compounds 30-33 were relative poorly predicted by CoMFA. However, a clear advantage of CoMFA is the ability to include diversely substituted or noncongeneric analogs that must be omitted from conventional QSAR analysis. Using the entire data set of 45 THPI analogs reported here, pKi predictions for six additional compounds having 5-heteroarylindole substituents gave rms residuals of 0.46 and 0.36 for the 5-HT1A and 5-HT2 models, respectively; this is close to the experimental error of the binding data. The significance of the CoMFA field graphs in terms of molecular features required for activity and selectivity at these 5-HT receptor subtypes is discussed.

R- and S-8-(2-Furyl)- and R- and S-8-phenyl-2-(di-n-propylamino)tetralins (R- and S-LY-55 and R- and S-LY-49, respectively), novel enantiopure dipropylaminotetralins, have been screened as 5-HT1A receptor ligands. All had nanomolar affinities for 5-HT1A receptors and fully inhibited forskolin-stimulated adenylyl cyclase in-vitro (i.e. the four compounds appeared to be 5-HT1A agonists). It was also found that the enantiomers of LY-55 behaved as typical 5-HT1A receptor agonists in rats in-vivo by inducing a typical behavioural 5-HT syndrome, hypothermia and a decrease in 5-HT synthesis and turnover, indicating effects both on postsynaptic 5-HT1A receptors and somatodendritic 5-HT1A autoreceptors. In contrast, R- and S-LY-49 did not cause any 5-HT1A receptor-related effects in-vivo except for a partial inhibition of 5-HT synthesis after high doses. The 5-HT1A receptor antagonist WAY-100635 was shown to attenuate the R-LY-49-induced inhibition of 5-HT synthesis, indicating the compound to be a weak agonist at somatodendritic 5-HT1A autoreceptors. R-LY-49 at a high dose and with a long pre-treatment time interval inhibited the hypothermic and behavioural effects, but not the inhibition of 5-HT synthesis induced by the 5-HT1A receptor agonist R-8-hydroxy-(dipropylamino)tetralin (R-8-OH-DPAT). Taken together, these findings seem to indicate, that R-LY-49 is a weak partial agonist at 5-HT1A receptors. A comparative pharmacokinetic study showed that the enantiomers of LY-55 entered the brain rapidly after subcutaneous administration and reached peak brain tissue/plasma concentration ratios within 15-30 min of injection, whereas the brain concentrations of R-LY-49 increased slowly, reaching a relatively low peak brain tissue/plasma concentration ratio 90 min after injection despite their similar lipophilicity. The differences between the pharmacological activity of the two compounds in-vivo seem to be explained by their different abilities to cross the blood-brain barrier, and a weak agonistic activity of R-LY-49 on 5-HT1A receptors, both pre- and postsynaptically, compared with S-LY-55. Further studies are, however, needed for a deeper understanding of these differences.