Rickli · European neuropsychopharmacology : the journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology 2016 · in vitro comparative pharmacological assay · n=?

Receptor interaction profiles of novel psychoactive tryptamines compared with classic hallucinogens.

Cited 385 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

In vitro bench pharmacology study with no direct human clinical data.

PubMed 27216487 · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2016.05.001 · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

The study characterized the in vitro receptor and transporter interaction profiles of novel psychoactive tryptamines (DiPT, 4-OH-DiPT, 4-OH-MET, 5-MeO-AMT, and 5-MeO-MiPT) compared with classic hallucinogens (LSD, psilocin, DMT, and mescaline). The authors measured binding affinities at human monoamine receptors, functional activation at 5-HT2A and 5-HT2B receptors, and inhibition of human monoamine uptake transporters along with transporter-mediated monoamine release.

What was found

No quantitative values (such as Ki or EC50) are provided in the abstract. Qualitatively, all novel tryptamines acted as partial or full agonists at 5-HT2A receptors with lower binding affinity than LSD, which correlated with human psychoactive dose ranges. Several tryptamines (psilocin, DMT, DiPT, 4-OH-DiPT, and 4-OH-MET) interacted with the serotonin transporter and partially with the norepinephrine transporter, displaying profiles similar to MDMA rather than LSD or mescaline. Unlike LSD, the tryptamines did not interact with adrenergic or dopaminergic receptors.

Why it matters

The findings demonstrate that novel synthetic tryptamines not only mimic classic psychedelic 5-HT2A agonist mechanisms but also exert entactogen-like transporter interactions similar to MDMA, helping explain differences in human subjective effects and clinical toxicities.

Limits

The study is entirely in vitro; cellular binding and functional assays do not account for in vivo human metabolism, pharmacokinetics, blood-brain barrier permeability, or subjective safety profiles. No numerical estimates or confidence intervals are reported in the abstract.

Cited by