Surinabant

Cannabinoid receptor type 2 (CB2) is a very promising therapeutic target for a variety of potential indications. However, despite the existence of multiple high affinity CB2 ligands, none have yet been approved as a drug. Therefore, it would be beneficial to explore new chemotypes of CB2 ligands. The recent elucidation of CB2 tertiary structure allows for rational hit identification with structure-based (SB) methods. In this study, we established a virtual screening workflow based on SB techniques augmented with ligand-based ones, including molecular docking, MM-GBSA binding energy calculations, pharmacophore screening, and QSAR. We screened nearly 7 million drug-like, commercially available compounds. We selected 16 molecules for in vitro evaluation and identified two novel, selective CB2 antagonists with K_i values of 65 and 210 nM. Both compounds are structurally diverse from CB2 ligands known to date. The established virtual screening protocol may prove useful for hit identification for CB2 and similar molecular targets. The two novel CB2 ligands provide a desired starting point for future optimization and development of potential drugs.

Cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1R) antagonists have been proven to be effective anti-obesity drugs; however, psychiatric side effects have halted their pharmaceutical development worldwide. Despite the emergence of next generation CB1R blockers, a preclinical head to head comparison of the anti-obesity and psychiatric side effect profiles of the key compounds has not been performed. Here, we compared classical CB1R antagonists (rimonabant, taranabant, otenabant, ibipinabant, and surinabant) and non-traditional CB1R blockers (the partial agonist O-1269, the neutral antagonists VCHSR and LH-21 and the peripherally acting inverse agonist JD-5037) using an in vivo screening cascade. First, the potencies of these compounds to reduce CB1R agonist-induced hypothermia and decrease fasting-induced food intake were determined. Then, equipotent doses of the non-toxic compounds were compared in a diet-induced obesity (DIO) test, which includes measurements of metabolic syndrome markers. Psychiatric side effects were assessed by measuring anxiogenicity in an ultrasonic vocalization test. All classical CB1R blockers were centrally acting appetite suppressants and decreased body weight and food intake in an obesity-dependent manner, with only slight effects on metabolic syndrome markers. In addition, all classical CB1R blockers increased ultrasonic vocalization. Surprisingly, none of the non-classical CB1R blockers was eligible for the DIO comparison and side effect profiling. O-1269 and LH-21 induced convulsive behavior, whereas VCHSR and JD-5037 were devoid of any in vivo activity. The classical CB1R blockers displayed similar therapeutic and side effect profiles in vivo, whereas the available non-traditional CB1R blockers were not appropriate tools for testing the therapeutic potential of alternative CB1R inhibitors.