Noticeably aminopyrimidine analogs are the

Noticeably, aminopyrimidine analogs are the most widely published H4R antagonists and it was Bayer who first disclosed two series of 2-aminopyrimidine compounds possessing significant H4R functional activity. Subsequently, further 2-aminopyrimidine H4R antagonists were published by Pfizer (ZPL-3893787 or formerly PF-3893787, 56), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ-39758979, 57), Abbott (A-943931, 58) (Altenbach et al., 2008, Cowart et al., 2008), and academic institutions ST-1012 (59) (Nordemann et al., 2013, Schreeb et al., 2013). Interestingly, preclinical data demonstrated that PF-3893787 (56) acts as a potent and selective H4R antagonist at the native receptor, has a potential dosing profile with low projected dose (7–20 mg), and its safety in rat and macaque fit for purpose pharmaceutical properties (Mowbray et al., 2011). Moreover, several preclinical toxicity studies of up to 6 months in rats and 9 months in monkeys indicated an excellent safety profile, supporting the clinical testing of JNJ-39758979 (57) (Thurmond et al., 2014). Likewise, ZPL-3893787 (56) has completed phase 2 of a clinical study addressing its efficacy in human volunteers with atopic dermatitis (www.clinicaltrials.gov). Also, JNJ-39758979 (57) completed phase 2 of a clinical trial to determining its safety and effectiveness in the treatment of adults with persistent asthma, whereas several phase 1 studies in healthy male volunteers have successfully been completed addressing its safety and pharmacokinetics, its effect on histamine-induced itch, and its effect on plasma levels of methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis (www.clinicaltrials.gov) (Kollmeier et al., 2014, Panula et al., 2015). JNJ-39758979 (57), another bimatoprost which has reached to clinical stage, significantly reduced histamine-induced itch in healthy human subjects. Also, INCB-38579 (60) has demonstrated efficacy in preclinical models of inflammatory pain and pruritus (Shin et al., 2012). Noticeably, JNJ-7777120 (52) has been largely used as a reference H4R antagonist to define specific pathophysiological functions of the H4R. In fact, JNJ-7777120 displays an excellent selectivity at the H4R relative to its affinity at H1R, H2R and H3R and many other GPCRs (Jablonowski et al., 2003, Thurmond, 2015, Thurmond et al., 2004). In this regard, most animal studies with JNJ-7777120 are harmonious with the concept that the H4R play a pro-inflammatory role in bronchial asthma, atopic dermatitis and pruritus and that H4R antagonism blocks those pro-inflammatory effects (Deml et al., 2009, Dunford et al., 2006, Kiss and Keseru, 2014, Kollmeier et al., 2014, Neumann and Seifert, 2014, Ohsawa and Hirasawa, 2014, Rossbach et al., 2009, Salcedo et al., 2013, Seifert, 2014, Thurmond, 2015, Thurmond et al., 2004). Nonetheless, the pharmacology of H4R ligands is still not fully elucidated and well understood. Therefore, the results observed for any single H4R ligand should be interpreted very careful. For example, Schnell et al. (Schnell et al., 2011) reconstructed H4R species orthologs from human, rat, mouse and canine with the G-protein heterotrimer Giα2β1γ2 plus the regulator of G-protein signaling RGS19 in Sf9 insect cell membranes and measured high-affinity steady-state GTPase activity as parameter for receptor activation (Panula et al., 2015). Also, it has been demonstrated that hH4R exhibit extraordinarily high constitutive activity in contrast to the corresponding mouse and rat orthologs (Strasser et al., 2013, Wifling et al., 2015a, Wifling et al., 2015b). Interestingly, replacement of F169 by V in the extracellular loop (ECL) in the mouse H4R significantly reduced constitutive activity. Also, the inactive state was even more stabilized for a double mutant, in which, in addition to F169V, S179 in the ligand binding site was replaced by M. With respect to potency at mutant H4 receptors and except thioperamide (35), the investigated ligands were classified in two groups. One group comprising JNJ7777120 (52), UR-PI376 (61) and clobenpropit (36) that showed comparable potency at both the hH4R–F169V and the hH4RF168A mutant. However, VUF8430 (50) and immepip (32) demonstrated significant decrease in potency by about two orders of magnitude at the hH4R–F168A mutant compared to the wildtype hH4R, and there were only insignificant effects on potency at the hH4R–F169V mutant (Table 1). In terms of intrinsic activities of the selected ligands, the hH4R agonists histamine, VUF8430 (50) and immepip (32) did not show significantly reduced intrinsic activities at both hH4R mutants compared to the wild-type, whereas the maximal effects of clobenpropit (36) and UR-PI376 (61) were diminished. In case of inverse agonists, the reduced constitutive activity of the mutants was reflected by lower maximal (inverse) responses. The partial inverse hH4R agonist JNJ7777120 (52) was a partial agonist at the mutant receptors. Thioperamide (35) was a partial inverse agonist at hH4RF169V, the mutant with reduced constitutive activity, and a neutral antagonist at the hH4RF168A mutant, which is devoid of constitutive activity. It was concluded that a highly significant influence of the hH4R–F168A mutant on ligand binding as well as on constitutive activity was demonstrated, even exceeding the consequences of hH4RF169V mutation, revealing a key role of the FF motif for both, ligand–receptor interaction and interconversion between inactive and active conformation of the wild-type hH4R (Table 1).