OK, One Last More...

By -
Adamantane (tricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decane) is a cycloalkane and also the simplest diamondoid. Check out Wikipedia. Cyclohexane isn't flat: its thermodymanically favorably configuration "chair" (it looks like a beach chair) four such fit together to make a stunningly symmetrically three-dimensionally configuration. One thing we certainly know is that oddly stable, totally hydrocarbon compound can have medical significance.

An aminoadamantane is a drug; there are other derived drugs.What is going on here??

Comments

  1. Scott9:18 AM

    Not 100% sure what you mean, but - -

    -the structure can have no conformational isomers because bond rotation is impossible. So one would expect its binding affinities to be more specific than other similar weight compounds. (But many, many other fused ring structures are like that. There are gazillions of fused ring, biologically active compounds out there. ) In general, the more structurally rigid the better, as pharmacophores go. It helps to keep them from binding non-specifically and getting washed out or causing other mayhem somewhere else in the system.

    - The high symmetry means that there is a great deal of degeneracy of the bound state. So, even though enthalpically, the energetics of binding are going to be pretty mediocre (all it's got going for it is some weak Vander Waals interactions) statistically the bound state is (I think) 12-fold degenerate or so for adamantane. So practically speaking, the binding equilibrium will probably be observed to be much more favorable than one might naively guess in comparison to other similar weight compounds. (But really, who would do that? This is not a subject that you can easily generalize about in that sort of way. )

    - The symmetry probably also helps with binding specificity, because relative to the surface area, it is only presenting one small and highly specific binding face over and over, if you see what I mean. It is basically a highly symmetrical multidentate ligand.

    That is how I would think about it, anyway. Since you are a math guy, that is probably not quite what you were looking for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wabulon11:49 PM

      Nice. Better than I had put it to myself and had despaired of sketching my foggy thoughts on the subject.

      Delete
  2. gcallah4:51 PM

    Wabulon, if you don't stop griping about quitting and get blogging, you're fired!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wabulon11:40 PM

      Admitted. You're right. OK. G'bye.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more