Dihexa: "it would take 10 million time...
moomoo
12 Oct 2012
"Harding, Wright, and their colleagues found Dihexa to be seven orders of magnitude more powerful than BDNF, which has yet to be effectively developed for therapeutic use. In other words, it would take 10 million times as much BDNF to get as much new synapse formation as Dihexa."
http://www.scienceda...21011090653.htm
Seems to be a derivative of an angiotensin.
Seems interesting. Who knows what the side-effects are, but for that level of synapse formation I think there may be some people willing to be guinea-pigs. Does anyone know anything about this?
Edited by moomoo, 12 October 2012 - 11:55 AM.
InfaredLighter
14 Oct 2012
Seems interesting, and like a fairly simple molecule.
moomoo
14 Oct 2012
Here is a report I found on it: http://jpet.aspetjou...112.199497.long
Seems interesting, and like a fairly simple molecule.
Furthermore, both studies indicated a clear dose-response relationship between the dose of dihexa and water maze performance
Good find. I've often wished there was a development interesting enough to really experiment with getting some made up by a reputable company, and this seems like one of those chemicals.
Edited by moomoo, 14 October 2012 - 03:44 PM.
Marios Kyriazis
14 Oct 2012
OpenStrife
14 Oct 2012
I mean comon....
10 million times as much BDNF...
Talk about an absurdly unbelievable claim.
OpenStrife
14 Oct 2012
zorba990
14 Oct 2012
evo
15 Oct 2012
11
resulting structure is hexanoic acid-Tyr-Ile-(6)amino-hexamide. Dihexa has exhibited promising activity as a potential cognition-enhancing agent in ex-vivo long-term potentiation studies and in behavioral studies using the Morris water maze task of spatial learning (unpublished data).
Table 1. Structure of Angiotensin IV Analogs. Name Structure Angiotensin IV Val-Tyr-Ile-His-Pro-Phe Norleual Nle-Tyr-Leu-(ψ)(CH 2 NH 2 )-His-Pro-Phe PNB-0405 d-Nle-Tyr-Ile-(6)aminohexamide Dihexa Hexanoic-Tyr-Ile-(6)aminohexamide
Any comment on potential side effects? Given that the pathway has implications on vascular fluid concentrations it would be good to know of any complications with similar analogues. Curious to find out about synthesis costs...
[edit] Also found this presentation. Check page 17 for more details about chemical structure (PNB-0408) as well as other interesting info[/font]
Further edit--the forum appears to have issues with references right now and the links will not post correctly. If the reference links aren't working:
1) http://udini.proquest.com/view/pharmacokinetic-characterization-of-goid:753538986/
2) http://www.slideshare.net/alenemccoy/proposal-seminar
Edited by lmlj, 15 October 2012 - 01:29 AM.
nootlyinclinded
11 Feb 2013
megatron
11 Feb 2013
nootlyinclinded
12 Feb 2013
Xenix
13 Feb 2013
Divien
13 Feb 2013
Godof Smallthings
14 Feb 2013
Edited by Godof Smallthings, 14 February 2013 - 09:36 AM.
obliviron
14 Feb 2013
Any response yet?I'm currently requesting price quotations for the lulz. Seems it is active in picomolar concentrations, wonder how someone is supposed to weigh this.
Divien
14 Feb 2013
The price includes: Delivery with UPS or TNT Express, certificate of analysis, MS certificate and HPLC certificate.
Delivery time: Approximately 4-5 weeks
This is not the true price, as I forgot to request the price as an acetate salt (extra charge) instead of a trifluoroacetate salt (wouldn't really want to ingest TFA). I don't think it'd change it very much though.
nootlyinclinded
14 Feb 2013
Divien
14 Feb 2013
Rior
14 Feb 2013
Anyway. That said, I spoke with the CEO of M3 Biotechnology (manufacturer of Dihexa) over email about a month or two back. I inquired as to the direct mechanism of action, how it worked, etc etc, as I was curious if it was simply some kind of positive allosteric modulator of the TrkB receptor, or something else. I will not copy and paste the emails, however I will paraphrase to give the general gist:
It was stated to me that Dihexa is a "small molecule agonist of HGF (hepatocyte growth factor)" HGF is the obligate ligand of the c-Met receptor, a tyrosine kinase receptor similar to TrkB, and a receptor that Angiotensin IV seems implicated in activating. To quote part of the email, "c-Met is localized in dendrites and HGF activation seems to result in synaptogenesis, neuritegenesis and neurogenesis."
Now this all sounds fine and dandy, great potential there. However, this part scares me: quoting WIKIPEDIA, (not always the most pure of authors):
Abnormal MET activation in cancer correlates with poor prognosis, where aberrantly active MET triggers tumor growth, formation of new blood vessels (angiogenesis) that supply the tumor with nutrients, and cancer spread to other organs (metastasis). MET is deregulated in many types of human malignancies, including cancers of kidney, liver, stomach, breast, and brain. Normally, only stem cells and progenitor cellsexpress MET, which allows these cells to grow invasively in order to generate new tissues in an embryo or regenerate damaged tissues in an adult. However, cancer stem cells are thought to hijack the ability of normal stem cells to express MET, and thus become the cause of cancer persistence and spread to other sites in the body.
And here is where the problem in my mind lies. I am by no means saying that Dihexa absolutely has the potential to cause cancerous growth, all I am saying is that it seems that overactivation of the c-Met receptor is implicated in the sustenance and growth of tumors. This of course, is why I'm waiting to see what comes from their tests. The person I talked to said that their tests have all come out incredibly well, and their tests have shown drastic cognitive improvement in scopolamine-induced mice alzheimer's dementia model. We just need to see the tests that come after it's been tested on thousands of rats, to see the result. Side-note: they are also reportedly preparing for IND enabling studies, so we'll see this tested on human subjects sometime soon.
That said, I would ABSOLUTELY NOT recommend testing this one on yourself until more test results come out.
Lastly worth mentioning, I made the mistake of mentioning the c-Met issue in my followup email, and after that never got any more responses. For obvious reasons.
Edited by Rior, 14 February 2013 - 08:54 PM.
nootlyinclinded
15 Feb 2013
nootlyinclinded
15 Feb 2013
I was thinking I'd paypal you half the money so that you can send it with tracking information, then once I receive it, give you the other half. I am located in the US btw. Also, with Paypal, I believe you can upload the tracking information on paypal; thus in the event that you do not ship it, I can merely file a dispute to garnish back my money.I haven't checked with other companies but I requested another price quotation from the same place. 100mg, purity >98%, acetate salt. Should be more than enough to gauge the effects. Where are you located? EU? US? Other? Have you got any system in mind?
Edited by nootlyinclinded, 15 February 2013 - 09:08 AM.
Xenix
15 Feb 2013
Count me in for this experiment!
Me too.
Xenix
15 Feb 2013
I haven't checked with other companies but I requested another price quotation from the same place. 100mg, purity >98%, acetate salt. Should be more than enough to gauge the effects. Where are you located? EU? US? Other? Have you got any system in mind?
100mg?! amazing!!! Please let me know how this goes, I would be EXTREMELY keen on obtaining Dihexa in this quantity.
Rior
15 Feb 2013
By what pathway does it promote cancer? simply inhibit the next step.
aberrantly active MET triggers tumor growth, formation of new blood vessels (angiogenesis) that supply the tumor with nutrients, and cancer spread to other organs (metastasis).
Right there, unfortunately. If Dihexa is a positive allosteric modulator of the c-Met receptor, I would certainly think that would qualify as causing "aberrantly active c-Met activation." Granted, I certainly home I'm wrong and feel that it may be likely that I am considering they're about to start IND tests, however I feel this c-M et overactivation is certainly something worth bringing up for discussion.
mait
15 Feb 2013
By what pathway does it promote cancer? simply inhibit the next step.
aberrantly active MET triggers tumor growth, formation of new blood vessels (angiogenesis) that supply the tumor with nutrients, and cancer spread to other organs (metastasis).
Right there, unfortunately. If Dihexa is a positive allosteric modulator of the c-Met receptor, I would certainly think that would qualify as causing "aberrantly active c-Met activation." Granted, I certainly home I'm wrong and feel that it may be likely that I am considering they're about to start IND tests, however I feel this c-M et overactivation is certainly something worth bringing up for discussion.
As far as my knowledge goes Dihexa is a AT4 receptor antagonist. And if we look the evidence outlined in from previously linked slide-presentation if anything the compound inhibits cancer growth. And I do not believe that rebound effects of angiotensine levels after cessation of Dihexa treatment would be a big problem because angiotensine IV is itself at the end of angiotensin metabolism pathway.
I think the bigger problem in terms of cancer risk is increasing Your angiotensine II levels by taking usual AT-1 receptor antagonists (for example losartan) - this would increase the angiotensine II levels that would also increase the levels of it's metabolites angiotensine III and IV therefor increasing cancer risk via angiotensin IV signaling.
I did some quick googleing and found even some evidence for the mechanism I described above.
Edited by mait, 15 February 2013 - 07:39 PM.