JPET Introducing ALZET?ew Model 2006 Pump

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McLean, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Macko, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McLean, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Macko, E.
Journal of Pharmacology And Experimental Therapeutics, Vol. 100, Issue 3, 267-272, 1950
Copyright © 1950 by American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics


OBSERVATIONS ON SEVERAL CYCLOHEXYL- AND PHENYL-ALKYLAMINES

Richard A. McLean 1, Edwin J. Fellows 2, and Edward Macko 2

1 Department of Pharmacology, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pa., and Research Division, Smith, Kline and French Laboratories, Philadelphia, Pa.
2 Research Division, Smith, Kline and French Laboratories, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

In the present studies, the pharmacological actions of 1-cyclohexyl-2-amino-propane (No. 10) and 1-cyclohexyl-2-methylaminopropane (No. 25, the N-methyl modification of No. 10) have been compared with their corresponding phenyl analogues (No. 1 and No. 4).

See table in the PDF file

1. Observations in rats, rabbits and guinea pigs disclosed the fact that the cyclohexyl derivatives were decidedly less active central nervous system stimulants than their corresponding phenyl modifications.

2. In dogs anesthetized with pentobarbital sodium and prepared to record carotid blood pressure by means of a mercury manometer, No. 10 and No. 25 exhibited one-half the intravenous pressor potency of No. 1 or No. 4.

3. Intravenously 0.2 to 0.3 mgm. of No. 25 caused a slight increase in the amplitude of cardiac contraction as determined by a Cushny Myocardiograph and a slight increase in heart rate.

4. Photoelectric or impedance volume pulses disclosed that No. 25 exhibited peripheral vasoconstrictor activity.

5. Direct application of the free base of No. 25 to the nasal mucosa of dogs disclosed the fact that it exhibited essentially the same order of vasoconstrictor activity as did the free base of No. 1 in the present experiments.

6. No signs of irritation were apparent on histological examination of the sections of the tracheo-bronchial tree of rats which were allowed to inhale fixed doses of the free base of No. 25 daily for thirty days.

7. Rats, rabbits and guinea pigs received daily injections of large doses of No. 25 for thirty days. No evidence of histological damage was apparent after examination of the tissues removed from these animals.

8. The data obtained in the present experiments suggested that the free base of No. 25 be used clinically as a volatile vasoconstrictor agent.

Submitted on June 30, 1950







Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
All ASPET Journals Molecular Pharmacology Pharmacological Reviews
 Molecular Interventions Drug Metabolism and Disposition

Copyright © 1950 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.