Inhibition of skeletal muscle sodium currents by Mexiletine analogues: specific hydrophobic interactions rather than lipophilia per se account for drug therapeutic profile

In striated fibers, the activity of mexiletine (Mex)-like sodium channel blockers is strongly modulated by the part of the molecule nearby the asymmetric carbon atom. A lipophilic aromatic phenyl group at this levels, as in 2-(2,6-dimethylphenoxy)-1-phenylethanamine (Me4), markedly increases drug potency, while an increased distance between the stereogenic center and the pharmacophore amino group, as in 3-(2,6-dimethylphenoxy)-2-methylpropan-1-amine (Me2), enhances the use-dependent behavior. In order to better evaluate the role of lipophilicity in drug potency in relation to the structural determinants for a specific binding, lipophilic analogs of Me2 and Me4 were synthesized. Compounds 3-[(2,6-dimethylphenyl) thio]-2-methylpropan-1-amine and 2-[(2,6-dimethylphenyl)thio]-1-phenylethanamine were obtained by isosteric substitution of the oxygen atom with sulfur, while the introduction of a chlorine atom in 4- position of the aryloxy ring lead to 3-(4-chloro-2,6-dimethylphenoxy)-2-methyl-propan-1-amine and 2-(4-chloro-2,6-dimethylphenoxy)-1-phenylethanamine. The compounds were tested on nearly maximal Na+ currents elicited with depolarizing steps at 0.3 Hz (tonic block) and 2-10Hz (use-dependent block) by means of vaseline-gap voltage-clamp method on single frog muscle fibers. The augmented lipophilicity largely increase drug potency in Me2 analogues, the thio and chlorinated compounds being 20- and 10-fold more potent in producing the tonic block, respectively. However, both compounds showed a 2-fold lower use-dependent behavior vs. the high use-dependent Me2. Surprisingly, the same increase in lipophilicity brought about by the same substitutions, in the already high lipophilic and potent Me4 failed to further improve the potency, although both new analogs were more stereoselective than Me4. No correlation was found between logP and potency of all analogs tested. All compounds acted as inactivated channel blockers. In conclusion, lipophilicity differently influences drug profile based on the molecular determinants controlling drug-receptor interaction