Editorial pubs.acs.org/chemneuro
ACS Chemical Neuroscience: Most Cited Papers from 2015
T
he year 2015 was a great year for ACS Chemical Neuroscience with many highly read and cited papers, as well as several impactful special issues. However, the neuroscience community, through citations of published work, is the true arbiter of impact and influence. In 2015, three papers have emerged as highly cited1 (and highly read), and it seemed appropriate to give these authors additional kudos and to make the readership aware of these high impact papers (if you were not already). The most cited paper from 2015 thus far, is a review article from Kozai and co-workers at the University of Pittsburgh and the McGowan Center for Regenerative Medicine entitled “Brain tissue responses to neural implants impact signal sensitivity and intervention strategies” (DOI: 10.1021/cn500256e).2 This review was in the biannual special issue on Monitoring Molecules, edited by Prof. Anne Andrews. The review focused on the complex molecular and cellular changes that occur when a device breaches the blood-brain barrier and is implanted. The review does a fantastic job summarizing the magnitude, variability, and time course (of acute, seconds to minutes, and chronic, week to months) of injuries and responses to the introduction of foreign bodies into the brain. The review ends with reflections on how and deeper understanding of these complex issues might lead to devices with improved sensitivity and longevity.2 This is truly a must read.
ADBICA, and 5F-ADBICA” (DOI: 10.1021/acschemneuro.5b00112). Like the fluorinated synthetic cannabinoid (SCs) designer drugs described previously, law enforcement and forensic chemists are encountering new SCs based on indole and indazole scaffolds bearing L-valinamide or L-tert-leucinamide cside chains with increasing frequency; moreover, these designer SCs are associated with serious adverse health risks. Thus, the team once again synthesized and profiled eight of the most common SCs within this class, and found that all were high potency agonists of both CB1 and CB2 receptors. In vivo, these SCs dose-dependently induced hypothermia and barycardia, with the hypothermia blocked by pretreatment with a CB1, but not a CB2 antagonist. Data generated suggests that these SCs are cannabimimetic, which agrees well with anecdotal reports of psychotomimetic activity in humans. Overall, both articles on SCs are truly exceptional and uncover the pharmacology of the new SCs widely available.
The next two most highly cited papers are tied in the rankings and are primary research articles from Michael Kassiou and coworkers, which tackle synthetic designer cannabinoids.3,4 The first article, entitled “Effects of Bioisosteric Fluorine in Synthetic Cannabinoid Designer Drugs JWH-018, AM-2201, UR-144, XLR-11, PB-22, 5F-PB-22, APICA, and STS-135”3 (DOI: 10.1021/acschemneuro.5b00107) details the synthesis and pharmacological characterization of synthetic cannabinoid designer drugs that possess bioisosteric fluorine substitution. These new fluorinated congeners are identified by toxicologists and forensic chemists in an ever increasing frequency. Thus, the authors synthesized and profiled a variety of these agents, and found that the fluorinated analogues were generally 2−5 times more potent against CB1 than the des-fluoro congeners in cellbased functional assays, but no clear trends in vivo.3 These data suggest possible unique DMPK profiles, which have yet to become elucidated. In the next issue, Kassiou and co-workers published “Pharmacology of Indole and Indazole Synthetic Cannabinoid Designer Drugs AB-FUBINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, ABPINACA, ADB-PINACA, 5F-AB-PINACA, 5F-ADB-PINACA, © 2017 American Chemical Society
I invite you to read these high impact papers from ACS Chemical Neuroscience, and encourage you to submit your neuroscience research to ACS Chemical Neuroscience.
■
Craig W. Lindsley, Editor-in-Chief AUTHOR INFORMATION
ORCID
Craig W. Lindsley: 0000-0003-0168-1445 Published: August 16, 2017 1633
DOI: 10.1021/acschemneuro.7b00246 ACS Chem. Neurosci. 2017, 8, 1633−1634
ACS Chemical Neuroscience
Editorial
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Web of Science, Clarivate Analytics. http://apps.webofknowledge. com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode= CitationReport&qid=5&SID=1BR7X3OsrYv3cznRCF3&page= 1&doc=1. (2) Kozai, T. D. Y., Jaquins-Gerstl, A. S., Vazquez, A. L., Michael, A. C., and Cui, T. (2015) Brain tissue responses to neural implants impact signal sensitivity and intervention strategies. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 6, 48− 67. (3) Banister, S. D., Stuart, J., Kevin, R. C., Edington, A., Longworth, M., Wilkinson, S. M., Beinat, C., Buchanan, A. S., Hibbs, D. E., Glass, M., Connor, M., McGregor, I. S., and Kassiou, M. (2015) Effects of Bioisosteric Fluorine in Synthetic Cannabinoid Designer Drugs JWH018, AM-2201, UR-144, XLR-11, PB-22, 5F-PB-22, APICA, and STS135. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 6, 1445−1458. (4) Banister, S. D., Moir, M., Stuart, J., Kevin, R. C., Wood, K. E., Longworth, M., Wilkinson, S. M., Beinat, C., Buchanan, A. S., Glass, M., Connor, M., McGregor, I. S., and Kassiou, M. (2015) Pharmacology of indole and indazole synthetic cannabinoid designer drugs ABFUBINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, AB-PINACA, ADB-PINACA, 5FAB-PINACA, 5F-ADB-PINACA, ADBICA, and 5F-ADBICA. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 6, 1546−1559.
1634
DOI: 10.1021/acschemneuro.7b00246 ACS Chem. Neurosci. 2017, 8, 1633−1634
