MAM2201-d5 (solution)
(Synonyms: AM2201 4methylnaphthyl analog, JWH 122 N(5fluoropentyl) analog) 目录号 : GC47596
A neuropeptide with diverse biological activities
Cas No.:2095544-38-8
Sample solution is provided at 25 µL, 10mM.
;)
,-1-7$$$37316672.jpg');)
;)
;)
$$$36806353.jpg');)
;33(7)%EF%BC%9A546-561$$$37156877.jpg');)
;)
;)
;)
%201124-1138.$$$35908550.jpg');)
%20766-780.$$$37100057.jpg');)
%20418-432.$$$36893736.jpg');)
%EF%BC%9A-240-255.$$$35108512.jpg');)
533-545$$$36543525.jpg');)
%201-13.$$$36600053.jpg');)
;)
Quality Control & SDS
- View current batch:
- Purity: >98.00%
- COA (Certificate Of Analysis)
- SDS (Safety Data Sheet)
- Datasheet
MAM2201-d5 is an analytical reference material intended for use as an internal standard for the quantification of MAM2201 by GC- or LC-MS. AM2201 is a potent synthetic cannabinoid (CB) which binds the CB1 and CB2 receptors with high affinity (Ki = 1.0 and 2.6 nM, respectively).1 MAM2201 is an analog of AM2201 that is methylated at the 4 position of the naphthyl group. The physiological and toxicological properties of this compound have not been delineated. This product is intended for research and forensic purposes.
1.Makriyannis, A., and Deng, H.Cannabimimetic indole derivativesPCT/US00/28832(2001)
| Cas No. | 2095544-38-8 | SDF | |
| 别名 | AM2201 4methylnaphthyl analog, JWH 122 N(5fluoropentyl) analog | ||
| Canonical SMILES | O=C(C1=CC=C(C)C2=C1C=CC=C2)C3=C([2H])N(CCCCCF)C4=C3C([2H])=C([2H])C([2H])=C4[2H] | ||
| 分子式 | C25H19D5FNO | 分子量 | 378.5 |
| 溶解度 | 储存条件 | Store at -20°C | |
| General tips | 请根据产品在不同溶剂中的溶解度选择合适的溶剂配制储备液；一旦配成溶液，请分装保存，避免反复冻融造成的产品失效。 储备液的保存方式和期限：-80°C 储存时，请在 6 个月内使用，-20°C 储存时，请在 1 个月内使用。 为了提高溶解度，请将管子加热至37℃，然后在超声波浴中震荡一段时间。 |
||
| Shipping Condition | 评估样品解决方案：配备蓝冰进行发货。所有其他可用尺寸：配备RT，或根据请求配备蓝冰。 | ||
| 制备储备液 | |||
 |
1 mg | 5 mg | 10 mg |
| 1 mM | 2.642 mL | 13.21 mL | 26.4201 mL |
| 5 mM | 0.5284 mL | 2.642 mL | 5.284 mL |
| 10 mM | 0.2642 mL | 1.321 mL | 2.642 mL |
| 第一步：请输入基本实验信息（考虑到实验过程中的损耗，建议多配一只动物的药量） | ||||||||||
| 给药剂量 | mg/kg |  |
动物平均体重 | g | |
每只动物给药体积 | ul | |
动物数量 | 只 |
| 第二步：请输入动物体内配方组成（配方适用于不溶于水的药物；不同批次药物配方比例不同，请联系GLPBIO为您提供正确的澄清溶液配方） | ||||||||||
| % DMSO % % Tween 80 % saline | ||||||||||
| 计算重置 | ||||||||||
计算结果:
工作液浓度： mg/ml；
DMSO母液配制方法： mg 药物溶于 μL DMSO溶液（母液浓度 mg/mL，
体内配方配制方法：取 μL DMSO母液，加入 μL PEG300，混匀澄清后加入μL Tween 80，混匀澄清后加入 μL saline，混匀澄清。
1. 首先保证母液是澄清的；
2.
一定要按照顺序依次将溶剂加入，进行下一步操作之前必须保证上一步操作得到的是澄清的溶液，可采用涡旋、超声或水浴加热等物理方法助溶。
3. 以上所有助溶剂都可在 GlpBio 网站选购。
Biocompatible dialysis fluids for peritoneal dialysis
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018 Oct 26;10(10):CD007554.PMID:30362116DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007554.pub3.
Background: Biocompatible peritoneal dialysis (PD) solutions, including neutral pH, low glucose degradation product (GDP) solutions and icodextrin, have previously been shown to favourably influence some patient-level outcomes, albeit based on generally sub-optimal quality studies. Several additional randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating biocompatible solutions in PD patients have been published recently. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. Objectives: This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of biocompatible PD solutions in comparison to standard PD solutions in patients receiving PD. Search methods: The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register was searched up to 12 February 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Selection criteria: All RCTs and quasi-RCTs in adults and children comparing the effects of biocompatible PD solutions (neutral pH, lactate-buffered, low GDP; neutral pH, bicarbonate(± lactate)-buffered, low GDP; glucose polymer (icodextrin)) in PD were included. Studies of amino acid-based solutions were excluded. Data collection and analysis: Two authors extracted data on study quality and outcomes. Summary effect estimates were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical variables, and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous variables. Main results: This review update included 42 eligible studies (3262 participants), including six new studies (543 participants). Overall, 29 studies (1971 participants) compared neutral pH, low GDP PD solution with conventional PD solution, and 13 studies (1291 participants) compared icodextrin with conventional PD solution. Risk of bias was assessed as high for sequence generation in three studies, allocation concealment in three studies, attrition bias in 21 studies, and selective outcome reporting bias in 16 studies.Neutral pH, low GDP versus conventional glucose PD solutionUse of neutral pH, low GDP PD solutions improved residual renal function (RRF) preservation (15 studies, 835 participants: SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.33; high certainty evidence). This approximated to a mean difference in glomerular filtration rate of 0.54 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.93). Better preservation of RRF was evident at all follow-up durations with progressively greater preservation observed with increasing follow up duration. Neutral pH, low GDP PD solution use also improved residual urine volume preservation (11 studies, 791 participants: MD 114.37 mL/day, 95% CI 47.09 to 181.65; high certainty evidence). In low certainty evidence, neutral pH, low GDP solutions may make little or no difference to 4-hour peritoneal ultrafiltration (9 studies, 414 participants: SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.10) which approximated to a mean difference in peritoneal ultrafiltration of 69.72 mL (16.60 to 122.00 mL) lower, and may increase dialysate:plasma creatinine ratio (10 studies, 746 participants: MD 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.03), technique failure or death compared with conventional PD solutions. It is uncertain whether neutral pH, low GDP PD solution use led to any differences in peritonitis occurrence, hospitalisation, adverse events (6 studies, 519 participants) or inflow pain (1 study, 58 participants: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.08).Glucose polymer (icodextrin) versus conventional glucose PD solutionIn moderate certainty evidence, icodextrin probably reduced episodes of uncontrolled fluid overload (2 studies, 100 participants: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.59) and augmented peritoneal ultrafiltration (4 studies, 102 participants: MD 448.54 mL/d, 95% CI 289.28 to 607.80) without compromising RRF (4 studies, 114 participants: SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.49; low certainty evidence) which approximated to a mean creatinine clearance of 0.30 mL/min/1.73m2 higher (0.65 lower to 1.23 higher) or urine output (3 studies, 69 participants: MD -88.88 mL/d, 95% CI -356.88 to 179.12; low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether icodextrin use led to any differences in adverse events (5 studies, 816 participants) technique failure or death. Authors' conclusions: This updated review strengthens evidence that neutral pH, low GDP PD solution improves RRF and urine volume preservation with high certainty. These effects may be related to increased peritoneal solute transport and reduced peritoneal ultrafiltration, although the evidence for these outcomes is of low certainty due to significant heterogeneity and suboptimal methodological quality. Icodextrin prescription increased peritoneal ultrafiltration and mitigated uncontrolled fluid overload with moderate certainty. The effects of either neutral pH, low GDP solution or icodextrin on peritonitis, technique survival and patient survival remain uncertain and require further high quality, adequately powered RCTs.
Stability of tacrolimus ophthalmic solution
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2017 Jul 1;74(13):1002-1006.PMID:28645998DOI:10.2146/ajhp160169.
Purpose: The stability of 0.3-mg/mL tacrolimus ophthalmic solution at different storage temperatures was studied. Methods: A sterile ophthalmic solution of 0.3 mg/mL tacrolimus was prepared in triplicate under aseptic conditions by diluting tacrolimus in eye drops. Three aliquots of this solution were transferred into polypropylene bottles and stored at 25, 2-8, or -15 to -25 °C. Samples were collected immediately after preparation and at selected time points and assayed in triplicate using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Samples were also visually examined for macroscopic changes. The 0.3-mg/mL tacrolimus solution was also exposed to acidic treatment and heat to force its degradation and to evaluate the selectivity of the analytic method. The tacrolimus ophthalmic solution was considered stable if at least 90% of the mean initial concentration remained when analyzed by HPLC. Results: When stored at 2-8 °C and between -15 and -25 °C, at least 90% of the initial tacrolimus concentration remained throughout the 85-day study period. There were no significant differences in tacrolimus concentrations between the starting and ending points (p > 0.05). However, when tacrolimus solution was stored at 25 °C, the percentage of the initial tacrolimus concentration remaining had decreased to less than 90% on day 28. Conclusion: Tacrolimus diluted to 0.3 mg/mL in eye drop solution was stable for 20 days when stored at 25 °C and for at least 85 days when stored at 2-8 °C or between -15 and -25 °C in polypropylene bottles and protected from light.
Application of solution calorimetry in pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical research
Curr Pharm Biotechnol 2005 Jun;6(3):215-22.PMID:15974976DOI:10.2174/1389201054022887.
In solution calorimetry the heat of solution (Delta(sol)H) is recorded as a solute (usually a solid) dissolves in an excess of solvent. Such measurements are valuable during all the phases of pharmaceutical formulation and the number of applications of the technique is growing. For instance, solution calorimetry is extremely useful during preformulation for the detection and quantification of polymorphs, degrees of crystallinity and percent amorphous content; knowledge of all of these parameters is essential in order to exert control over the manufacture and subsequent performance of a solid pharmaceutical. Careful experimental design and data interpretation also allows the measurement of the enthalpy of transfer (Delta(trans)H) of a solute between two phases. Because solution calorimetry does not require optically transparent solutions, and can be used to study cloudy or turbid solutions or suspensions directly, measurement of Delta(trans)H affords the opportunity to study the partitioning of drugs into, and across, biological membranes. It also allows the in-situ study of cellular systems. Furthermore, novel experimental methodologies have led to the increasing use of solution calorimetry to study a wider range of phenomena, such as the precipitation of drugs from supersaturated solutions or the formation of liposomes from phospholipid films. It is the purpose of this review to discuss some of these applications, in the context of pharmaceutical formulation and preformulation, and highlight some of the potential future areas where solution calorimetry might find applications.
Formulation and Stability of Solutions
Int J Pharm Compd 2016 Mar-Apr;20(2):137-41.PMID:27326440doi
Ready-to-use solutions are the most preferable and most common dosage forms for injectable and topical ophthalmic products. Drugs formulated as solution almost always have chemical and physical stability challenges as well as solubility limitations and the need to prevent inadvertent microbial contamination issues. The first in this series of articles took us through a discussion of optimizing the physical stability of solutions. This article concludes this series of articles with a discussion on foreign particles, protein aggregation, and immunogenicity; optimizing microbiological activity; and osmolality (tonicity) agents, and discusses how these challenges and issues are addressed.
Pharmaceutical Perspective on Opalescence and Liquid-Liquid Phase Separation in Protein Solutions
Mol Pharm 2016 May 2;13(5):1431-44.PMID:27017836DOI:10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.5b00937.
Opalescence in protein solutions reduces aesthetic appeal of a formulation and can be an indicator of the presence of aggregates or precursor to phase separation in solution signifying reduced product stability. Liquid-liquid phase separation of a protein solution into a protein-rich and a protein-poor phase has been well-documented for globular proteins and recently observed for monoclonal antibody solutions, resulting in physical instability of the formulation. The present review discusses opalescence and liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) for therapeutic protein formulations. A brief discussion on theoretical concepts based on thermodynamics, kinetics, and light scattering is presented. This review also discusses theoretical concepts behind intense light scattering in the vicinity of the critical point termed as "critical opalescence". Both opalescence and LLPS are affected by the formulation factors including pH, ionic strength, protein concentration, temperature, and excipients. Literature reports for the effect of these formulation factors on attractive protein-protein interactions in solution as assessed by the second virial coefficient (B2) and the cloud-point temperature (Tcloud) measurements are also presented. The review also highlights pharmaceutical implications of LLPS in protein solutions.