Binding and functional profiles of the selective M1 muscarinic receptor antagonists trihexyphenidyl and dicyclomine

1 The selectivity profiles of the muscarinic receptor antagonists dicyclomine and trihexyphenidyl have been examined in binding and functional studies and compared with those of pirenzepine and atropine. 2 Dicyclomine, trihexyphenidyl and pirenzepine demonstrated the highest affinity for the M1 muscarinic receptor subtype as revealed in competition experiments against [3H]‐pirenzepine labelling of cortical membranes. Their affinity values lay in a narrow range (3.7–14 nM) approaching that of atropine (1.6 nM). 3 Competition experiments against [3H]‐N‐methylscopolamine in cardiac and glandular (salivary) membranes revealed differences between the drugs examined. Dicyclomine, trihexyphenidyl and pirenzepine displayed low affinity for the cardiac and intermediate affinity for the glandular receptors. Thus, the drugs appeared to discriminate between the M1 (cortical) and the peripheral muscarinic subtypes (cardiac and glandular). However, atropine displayed similar affinities for either subtype with IC50s varying only slightly (1.6‐4.6 nM). The rank order of selectivity was: pirenzepine > dicyclomine > trihexyphenidyl > atropine. 4 Mirroring the binding data, pirenzepine, dicyclomine and trihexyphenidyl showed a tenfold greater ability at inhibiting M1‐preceptor mediated ganglionic responses (McN A‐343 pressor effect in pithed rats and nictitating membrane contraction in cats) than at inhibiting peripheral muscarinic responses in the heart and cardiovascular smooth muscle (vagal bradycardia in rats and cats and vagally‐induced vasodilatation in cats). 5 The muscarinic antagonists so far examined can be categorized into two groups. Trihexyphenidyl, dicyclomine and pirenzepine, included in one group, are characterized by a higher affinity for the neuronal (M1) muscarinic receptor, hence they antagonize functional responses mediated by the M1 subtype. Atropine, a member of the other group, shows essentially no selectivity. 6 Differentiation of M1 and peripheral muscarinic receptor subtypes appears to be a property not confined to tricyclics such as pirenzepine but shared by diverse chemical structures. Both trihexyphenidyl and dicyclomine appear to be useful pharmacological tools in the classification of muscarinic receptor subtypes.

[1]  H. Schild,et al.  SOME QUANTITATIVE USES OF DRUG ANTAGONISTS , 1997, British journal of pharmacology and chemotherapy.

[2]  H. Ladinsky,et al.  Binding profile of a novel cardioselective muscarine receptor antagonist, AF-DX 116, to membranes of peripheral tissues and brain in the rat. , 1986, Life sciences.

[3]  A. Giachetti,et al.  Cardioselective profile of AF-DX 116, a muscarine M2 receptor antagonist. , 1986, Life sciences.

[4]  L. Wallace,et al.  Trihexyphenidyl--further evidence for muscarinic receptor subclassification. , 1985, Biochemical pharmacology.

[5]  M. Raiteri,et al.  Differential antagonism by dicyclomine, pirenzepine and secoverine at muscarinic receptor subtypes in the rat frontal cortex. , 1985, European journal of pharmacology.

[6]  H. Yamamura,et al.  Light microscopic autoradiographic localization of [3H]pirenzepine and [3H](-)quinuclidinyl benzilate binding in human stellate ganglia. , 1984, Life sciences.

[7]  F. W. Harpley,et al.  Pharmacokinetics during Drug Development: Data Analysis and Evaluation Techniques. , 1983 .

[8]  N. Birdsall,et al.  Modification of the binding properties of muscarinic receptors by gallamine. , 1983, Molecular pharmacology.

[9]  R. Hammer,et al.  Muscarinic receptor subtypes: M1 and M2 biochemical and functional characterization. , 1982, Life sciences.

[10]  H. Yamamura,et al.  [3h]pirenzepine selectively identifies a high affinity population of muscarinic cholinergic receptors in the rat cerebral cortex. , 1982, Life sciences.

[11]  N. Birdsall,et al.  Pirenzepine distinguishes between different subclasses of muscarinic receptors , 1980, Nature.

[12]  N. Birdsall,et al.  The binding of agonists to brain muscarinic receptors. , 1978, Molecular pharmacology.

[13]  S. Rattan,et al.  Neurohumoral, hormonal, and drug receptors for the lower esophageal sphincter , 1978 .

[14]  P. Glenton,et al.  A COMPARISON OF AFFINITY CONSTANTS FOR MUSCARINE‐SENSITIVE ACETYLCHOLINE RECEPTORS IN GUINEA‐PIG ATRIAL PACEMAKER CELLS AT 29°C AND IN ILEUM AT 29°C AND 37°C , 1976, British journal of pharmacology.

[15]  Y. Cheng,et al.  Relationship between the inhibition constant (K1) and the concentration of inhibitor which causes 50 per cent inhibition (I50) of an enzymatic reaction. , 1973, Biochemical pharmacology.

[16]  R. Eglen,et al.  Muscarinic receptors subtypes: problems of classification , 1985 .

[17]  E. Giraldo,et al.  Selective labelling of M1-receptors in autonomic ganglia with 3H-pirenzepine. , 1985, Arzneimittel-Forschung.

[18]  S. Rattan,et al.  Neurohumoral, hormonal, and drug receptors for the lower esophageal sphincter. , 1978, Gastroenterology.