Why Is Fentanyl So Potent?

Abstract

Fentanyl is substantially more potent than morphine, but the molecular explanation for this difference is more complicated than a comparison of receptor-binding affinities. Opioid potency emerges from interactions among drug concentration at the site of action, receptor affinity, intrinsic efficacy, receptor density, signal amplification, and the physiological response being measured. Fentanyl acts primarily as an agonist at the μ-opioid receptor (MOR), a G protein-coupled receptor that regulates neuronal excitability and neurotransmitter release. Activation of this receptor initiates intracellular signaling involving inhibitory G proteins, adenylyl cyclase, potassium channels, and voltage-gated calcium channels. These events contribute to analgesia but also mediate clinically important adverse effects, including respiratory depression. This article examines the molecular determinants of fentanyl potency, distinguishes affinity from efficacy and potency from clinical dose equivalence, and evaluates the limitations of using receptor pharmacology alone to predict human responses. Particular attention is given to receptor reserve, operational models of agonism, ligand-dependent signaling, and the relationship between molecular mechanisms and systemic pharmacokinetics.

Keywords: Fentanyl; μ-opioid receptor; MOR; OPRM1; receptor affinity; intrinsic efficacy; pharmacological potency; GPCR; G protein signaling; receptor reserve; opioid pharmacodynamics.

1. Introduction: What Does It Mean for a Drug to Be Potent?

Fentanyl is commonly described as approximately 50–100 times more potent than morphine.

Although useful as a broad clinical comparison, that statement raises an important scientific question:

What does it actually mean for one drug to be more potent than another?

In pharmacology, potency describes the amount or concentration of a drug required to produce a specified effect.

A highly potent drug produces a given response at a lower concentration or dose than a less potent drug.

However, potency does not necessarily indicate the maximum response a drug can produce.

Nor does it establish that a drug is intrinsically more dangerous under every circumstance.

To understand fentanyl potency, we must distinguish several concepts:

• Receptor affinity.
• Intrinsic efficacy.
• Pharmacological potency.
• Maximal efficacy.
• Receptor reserve.
• Drug distribution and effect-site exposure.

These properties are related, but they are not interchangeable.

A drug may bind tightly to a receptor without activating it.

Another drug may bind less tightly but produce substantial receptor activation.

A third may exhibit high potency in one tissue but considerably lower potency in another.

The central question is therefore not simply whether fentanyl binds strongly to opioid receptors.

It is how fentanyl binding is translated into a physiological response.

2. The μ-Opioid Receptor: Fentanyl's Principal Molecular Target

Fentanyl produces its major opioid effects through activation of the μ-opioid receptor, commonly abbreviated MOR.

The receptor is encoded by the human OPRM1 gene.

MOR belongs to the class A family of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs).

These receptors contain seven transmembrane α-helices and transmit extracellular chemical signals into intracellular responses.

When fentanyl binds to MOR, it stabilizes receptor conformations capable of engaging intracellular signaling proteins.

The resulting response depends on the receptor's conformational state, its associated signaling machinery, and the cellular environment.

2.1 Receptor distribution

MOR is expressed in multiple regions of the central and peripheral nervous systems.

These include structures involved in nociceptive processing, descending pain modulation, reward and reinforcement, gastrointestinal motility, and respiratory control.

This distribution helps explain why MOR agonists can produce analgesia, euphoria, constipation, and respiratory depression.

Importantly, these effects do not arise from entirely separate molecular targets.

They reflect activation of the same receptor class in different physiological circuits.

2.2 Receptor structure and ligand recognition

Fentanyl binds within a ligand-binding pocket formed by the transmembrane regions of MOR.

Its interactions with the receptor include electrostatic, hydrophobic, and other noncovalent contributions.

The protonatable nitrogen in fentanyl is important to its molecular recognition by the receptor.

Molecular simulations have identified plausible alternative fentanyl-binding configurations, including a deeper binding mode involving a conserved histidine residue (Vo et al., 2021).

However, computationally predicted binding configurations must be interpreted within the limitations of the underlying structural and simulation methods.

The presence of a favorable receptor interaction does not, by itself, explain the magnitude of a drug's physiological effect.

The receptor must also undergo conformational changes that permit productive intracellular signaling.

This distinction introduces the difference between affinity and efficacy.

3. Receptor Affinity: How Strongly Does Fentanyl Bind?

Receptor affinity describes the tendency of a ligand to associate with its receptor.

For a simplified reversible binding interaction:

where:

$L$ = free ligand

$R$ = unoccupied receptor

$LR$ = ligand–receptor complex

The equilibrium dissociation constant is:

A lower $K_D$ indicates higher binding affinity under the conditions of the experiment.

For a simple one-site binding model, fractional receptor occupancy is:

where $\theta$ represents the fraction of receptors occupied by the ligand.

When the free ligand concentration equals $K_D$, approximately half of the receptors are occupied.

These relationships assume equilibrium binding to a homogeneous receptor population without significant competing ligands or more complicated cooperative interactions.

3.1 Why affinity matters

If two agonists have identical intrinsic efficacy and act in otherwise identical systems, the agonist with greater receptor affinity may produce a given degree of receptor occupancy at a lower concentration.

However, biological systems rarely satisfy all of these assumptions.

Affinity measurements can depend on experimental conditions, including receptor preparation, radioligand selection, ionic conditions, and receptor coupling state.

Consequently, a binding affinity measured in one experimental system should not automatically be treated as a universal constant applicable to every physiological environment.

3.2 Affinity is not potency

A drug's affinity does not directly establish its functional potency.

A receptor antagonist may exhibit very high affinity while producing no agonist response.

Conversely, an agonist may produce a substantial physiological effect without occupying every available receptor.

The relationship between binding and response depends on the ability of the ligand–receptor complex to activate downstream signaling.

Affinity describes receptor binding. Potency describes the concentration required to produce an effect.

They are related through receptor pharmacology, but they are not equivalent.

4. Intrinsic Efficacy: What Happens After Fentanyl Binds?

Intrinsic efficacy describes an agonist's ability to activate a receptor after binding.

An agonist does more than occupy a binding site.

It stabilizes receptor conformations that promote signaling.

For MOR, this typically involves coupling to inhibitory G proteins of the Gi/o family.

The activated receptor promotes guanine nucleotide exchange on the Gα subunit, allowing the G protein to enter an active signaling state.

Activated Gα and Gβγ components then regulate multiple intracellular effectors.

4.1 Adenylyl cyclase inhibition

Activated Gαi/o can inhibit adenylyl cyclase activity.

Adenylyl cyclase catalyzes the formation of cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) from ATP.

A reduction in cAMP production can alter protein kinase A-dependent signaling and other cellular processes.

The precise downstream consequences depend on cell type and signaling context.

4.2 Potassium-channel regulation

MOR activation can increase the activity of G protein-gated inwardly rectifying potassium channels, commonly called GIRK channels.

In neurons expressing the relevant channels, this can increase potassium conductance and shift membrane potential toward the potassium equilibrium potential.

The resulting hyperpolarization may reduce neuronal excitability.

4.3 Calcium-channel inhibition

Gβγ signaling can inhibit certain voltage-gated calcium channels.

At presynaptic terminals, reduced calcium entry can decrease neurotransmitter release.

This mechanism contributes to opioid modulation of synaptic transmission.

4.4 Why these mechanisms matter

These intracellular effects help explain how fentanyl can alter neuronal signaling at relatively low concentrations.

However, the magnitude of the final response depends on more than receptor activation.

It also depends on the number of receptors present, the efficiency of receptor–effector coupling, and the physiological function of the affected neural circuit.

The receptor initiates the signal, but the cell determines how that signal is translated into a response.

5. Potency and Efficacy: Understanding Concentration–Response Relationships

Pharmacologists commonly evaluate agonist activity by measuring the relationship between drug concentration and biological response.

A simplified concentration–response relationship can be expressed using the Hill equation:

where:

$E$ = observed response

$E_{\mathrm{basal}}$ = baseline response

$E_{\max}$ = maximum response under the experimental conditions

$[A]$ = agonist concentration

$EC_{50}$ = concentration producing half the response range between baseline and maximum

$n_H$ = empirical Hill coefficient

The $EC_{50}$ provides a measure of functional potency in the particular experimental system.

A lower $EC_{50}$ generally indicates greater potency when comparing drugs under equivalent experimental conditions.

However, the value is not necessarily equal to the receptor's equilibrium dissociation constant.

The Hill equation is an empirical description of concentration–response behavior. A fitted Hill coefficient should not automatically be interpreted as the number of ligand molecules binding to a receptor or as proof of molecular cooperativity.

5.1 Potency versus maximal efficacy

Consider two hypothetical MOR agonists.

Drug A produces half of its maximum response at 1 nM.

Drug B produces half of its maximum response at 100 nM.

Drug A has a 100-fold lower $EC_{50}$ in that experimental assay.

However, both drugs could produce the same maximum response.

Alternatively, Drug B could produce a larger maximum response despite requiring a higher concentration.

This illustrates an essential pharmacological distinction:

Potency describes how much drug is required. Maximal efficacy describes how much response the drug can produce.

Strictly speaking, observed maximal response is also a property of the experimental system. It should not be confused with intrinsic efficacy, which concerns the ligand's capacity to activate the receptor.

5.2 Why experimental context matters

The $EC_{50}$ measured in a cell-based signaling assay may differ substantially from the concentration associated with analgesia in an intact organism.

This occurs because whole-organism responses depend on additional processes, including drug distribution, receptor expression, neural circuitry, and physiological feedback.

Even two cell-based assays using the same receptor may produce different potency estimates if they measure different signaling pathways.

Therefore, functional potency should always be reported with reference to the experimental endpoint.

6. Receptor Reserve: Why Maximum Responses May Not Require Maximum Occupancy

One of the most important concepts in receptor pharmacology is receptor reserve.

Receptor reserve exists when a system can produce its maximum measured response without occupying all available receptors.

This can occur because receptor activation is amplified by downstream signaling processes.

For example, activation of a relatively small population of receptors may initiate intracellular signaling sufficient to produce a maximal response.

The number of receptors required depends on receptor density, coupling efficiency, and the response being measured.

6.1 Signal amplification

A single activated GPCR can interact with multiple G proteins over time.

These G proteins can influence downstream effectors, which may themselves participate in amplified signaling cascades.

Consequently, receptor occupancy and physiological response need not increase proportionally.

This means that 50% receptor occupancy does not necessarily produce 50% of the maximum response.

6.2 The operational model of agonism

The Black–Leff operational model provides a framework for describing the relationship among agonist affinity, efficacy, receptor availability, and observed response (Black and Leff, 1983).

A simplified form, assuming equilibrium conditions, a unit transducer slope, and zero baseline, is:

where:

$E$ = observed response

$E_m$ = theoretical maximum response capacity of the system

$\tau$ = operational efficacy parameter

$K_A$ = agonist functional equilibrium dissociation constant

$[A]$ = free agonist concentration

The parameter $\tau$ reflects both agonist efficacy and properties of the receptor system.

It is therefore not an intrinsic molecular constant that remains unchanged across tissues.

For this simplified model, the concentration producing half of the agonist's own asymptotic response is:

The agonist's asymptotic maximum response is:

These relationships are specific to the stated model assumptions.

For example, a larger $\tau$ can produce an $EC_{50}$ substantially lower than $K_A$.

The model therefore demonstrates how receptor-system amplification can influence apparent potency independently of binding affinity.

6.3 Why receptor reserve matters for fentanyl

Fentanyl is generally characterized as a relatively high-efficacy MOR agonist in many experimental systems, although measured efficacy depends on the assay and comparator (Gillis et al., 2020).

Efficient receptor activation can contribute to potent responses when coupled with receptor reserve and downstream amplification.

However, receptor reserve differs among tissues and signaling pathways.

A degree of receptor activation sufficient to produce substantial analgesia may also influence respiratory-control circuits.

There is no universal receptor-occupancy threshold that separates all therapeutic effects from all adverse effects.

7. Fentanyl Versus Morphine: Why the Difference Is Not Explained by Affinity Alone

Fentanyl and morphine both activate MOR.

However, they differ in molecular structure, physicochemical properties, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic behavior.

These differences contribute to their substantially different clinical dose requirements.

7.1 Molecular structure

Morphine contains a relatively rigid polycyclic structure.

Fentanyl belongs to the phenylpiperidine class and possesses a more flexible molecular architecture.

These structural differences influence how the compounds interact with the MOR binding pocket.

Computational investigations have suggested that fentanyl can adopt alternative binding configurations within MOR, potentially involving interactions beyond those characteristic of morphinan opioids (Vo et al., 2021).

However, computationally predicted binding modes should not be interpreted as definitive proof of a particular signaling mechanism without appropriate experimental support.

7.2 Intrinsic efficacy

Fentanyl often exhibits greater operational efficacy than morphine in experimental MOR signaling systems.

Nevertheless, the magnitude of this difference depends on receptor expression, assay conditions, and the signaling endpoint.

A comparison based on one assay cannot automatically establish the relative efficacy of the drugs in every tissue.

Gillis and colleagues emphasize the importance of intrinsic efficacy when interpreting opioid signaling and apparent pathway bias (Gillis et al., 2020).

7.3 Pharmacokinetic contributions

As discussed in Parts 1 and 2, fentanyl is highly lipophilic and distributes rapidly into many tissues.

Its physicochemical properties influence the relationship between administered dose, circulating concentration, and exposure at the central nervous system.

Clinical dose potency therefore reflects both pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic factors.

It cannot be reduced to receptor affinity alone.

7.4 Why the 50–100-fold comparison requires context

The commonly cited description of fentanyl as approximately 50–100 times more potent than morphine is a broad clinical analgesic comparison, especially relevant to parenteral dose comparisons.

It should not be interpreted as evidence that fentanyl has exactly 50–100 times greater receptor affinity.

Nor does it establish an identical potency ratio for respiratory depression, reward, gastrointestinal effects, or every other MOR-mediated response.

Such comparisons depend on the route of administration, endpoint, population, and experimental conditions.

Clinical potency is an integrated property of the drug and the biological system—not a single molecular measurement.

8. Biased Agonism: Can Different Opioids Activate Different Signaling Pathways?

GPCRs can interact with multiple intracellular signaling and regulatory proteins.

For MOR, these include heterotrimeric G proteins and β-arrestins.

Different agonists may stabilize receptor conformations that favor particular signaling or regulatory processes.

This phenomenon is known as ligand-directed signaling bias, or biased agonism.

8.1 G protein signaling

MOR activation through Gi/o proteins contributes to neuronal inhibition and many established opioid effects.

These include analgesia and respiratory depression.

8.2 β-Arrestin recruitment

Following receptor activation, G protein-coupled receptor kinases may phosphorylate MOR.

Phosphorylation can promote β-arrestin recruitment.

β-Arrestins participate in receptor regulation, including desensitization and trafficking.

The extent of these processes varies with the agonist, receptor system, and duration of exposure (Williams et al., 2013).

8.3 Why biased agonism became important

Researchers investigated whether preferential activation of G protein signaling, with reduced β-arrestin recruitment, might preserve analgesia while limiting adverse effects.

This hypothesis stimulated considerable drug-development research.

However, the relationship between signaling bias and clinical safety is more complicated than a simple division between beneficial G protein signaling and harmful β-arrestin signaling.

G protein-mediated MOR activity itself contributes to respiratory depression.

Furthermore, differences in intrinsic efficacy and receptor reserve can produce apparent signaling bias even when the underlying molecular selectivity is less pronounced than initially suggested.

Gillis and colleagues demonstrated why comparisons between amplified and less-amplified signaling assays can produce misleading estimates of ligand bias if model assumptions are not adequately addressed (Gillis et al., 2020).

8.4 What can we conclude about fentanyl?

Fentanyl can promote MOR activation and receptor-regulatory processes, including phosphorylation and β-arrestin recruitment.

However, the degree of pathway preference reported for fentanyl depends on the assay and analytical framework.

It would therefore be inappropriate to attribute fentanyl's clinical potency or respiratory toxicity to a single signaling pathway without considering efficacy, exposure, receptor reserve, and neural circuitry.

Biased agonism is an important pharmacological concept, but it is not a complete explanation of opioid safety or potency.

9. Receptor Desensitization and the Beginning of Tolerance

Receptor activation is not necessarily constant during continued agonist exposure.

MOR signaling can change over time through processes including receptor phosphorylation, desensitization, internalization, recycling, and longer-term cellular adaptation.

These processes are related but distinct.

9.1 Desensitization

Desensitization refers to a reduction in receptor signaling responsiveness during continued or recent agonist exposure.

It can occur without a reduction in total receptor number.

9.2 Internalization

Receptor internalization involves movement of receptors from the cell surface into intracellular compartments.

Internalized receptors may subsequently be recycled to the plasma membrane or directed toward degradation.

Internalization does not automatically imply permanent receptor loss.

9.3 Tolerance

Tolerance describes a reduction in drug responsiveness following repeated or prolonged exposure.

It can involve receptor-level regulation and broader cellular and physiological adaptations.

Williams and colleagues provide a detailed examination of these mechanisms and emphasize that acute receptor desensitization should not be treated as synonymous with long-term tolerance (Williams et al., 2013).

These processes will be examined in greater detail in Part 9.

For the present discussion, their importance is straightforward: the same drug concentration may produce different responses depending on the organism's prior exposure and adaptive state.

10. From Receptor Activation to Respiratory Depression

Fentanyl's potency becomes especially consequential when MOR activation affects the neural networks responsible for breathing.

Respiration is regulated by interacting brainstem circuits that generate and coordinate respiratory rhythms.

MOR activation can suppress the activity of neurons participating in these networks.

The resulting effects may include reduced respiratory frequency, altered respiratory rhythm, and diminished responsiveness to elevated carbon dioxide.

These effects are not adequately explained by receptor-binding affinity alone.

They depend on the distribution of MOR within respiratory-control networks and the functional consequences of receptor activation.

10.1 Analgesia and respiratory depression share receptor mechanisms

Both analgesia and respiratory depression arise substantially through MOR activation.

However, they involve different neural circuits and physiological endpoints.

Their concentration–response relationships need not be identical.

A drug's potency for analgesia therefore cannot automatically predict its potency for respiratory depression.

10.2 Why high potency matters clinically

A highly potent drug can produce substantial pharmacological effects at relatively low concentrations.

This creates important challenges when exposure is uncontrolled or the administered amount is uncertain.

However, high potency does not by itself establish the therapeutic index of a drug.

The therapeutic index depends on the relationship between doses or exposures producing desired and adverse effects.

A complete safety assessment must therefore consider pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, variability, and exposure circumstances.

11. Can We Predict Fentanyl Potency From Molecular Structure?

Medicinal chemistry frequently investigates structure–activity relationships, or SAR, to understand how chemical modifications influence pharmacological activity.

For MOR agonists, structural changes can affect receptor affinity, functional efficacy, selectivity, and physicochemical properties.

However, these properties do not necessarily change in parallel.

A modification that increases receptor affinity may not increase functional efficacy.

A modification that increases lipophilicity may alter tissue distribution without producing a proportional change in receptor activation.

Likewise, a compound may exhibit potent MOR signaling in vitro but behave differently in vivo because of metabolism or limited access to the central nervous system.

Vardanyan and Hruby reviewed the structural diversity and pharmacological properties of fentanyl-related compounds, illustrating the complexity of relationships between molecular structure and biological activity (Vardanyan and Hruby, 2014).

11.1 Structure-based modeling

Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations can generate hypotheses about ligand–receptor interactions.

Such methods may help identify plausible binding poses and interactions.

However, predicted binding energies are not equivalent to experimentally measured functional potency.

Reliable predictions require appropriate validation against experimental data.

11.2 Functional assays

Experimental approaches for characterizing MOR agonists include receptor-binding assays and assays measuring downstream signaling.

These methods answer different questions.

Binding assays estimate ligand–receptor interactions.

Functional assays measure consequences of receptor activation.

The distinction is essential when comparing fentanyl with other opioids.

Research comparing fentanyl-related compounds demonstrates that affinity, functional potency, and efficacy must be evaluated as distinct properties.

This reinforces the importance of examining multiple pharmacological endpoints rather than relying on a single assay.

12. Integrating Pharmacodynamics With Pharmacokinetics

The preceding articles established that fentanyl concentrations change over time as the drug distributes, undergoes metabolism, and is eliminated.

Receptor pharmacology adds another layer to this process.

The concentration measured in plasma is not necessarily identical to the free concentration at MOR in the brain.

A pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic model attempts to connect exposure with response.

A simplified effect-site model is:

where:

$C_e$ = modeled effect-site concentration

$C_p$ = plasma concentration

$k_{e0}$ = empirical equilibration rate constant

This model can describe a delay between measured plasma concentrations and observed pharmacological effects.

However, $C_e$ is a model-derived quantity and does not necessarily represent a directly measured concentration within a particular brain region.

The relationship between effect-site concentration and response can then be represented using an appropriate pharmacodynamic function.

For example:

where:

$E_0$ = baseline response

$E_{\max}$ = maximum modeled change from baseline

$EC_{50}$ = effect-site concentration producing half of that modeled change

$\gamma$ = empirical slope parameter

The direction and magnitude of the response depend on the endpoint and the model's parameterization.

For a response that decreases with increasing opioid exposure, such as respiratory frequency under certain experimental conditions, an inhibitory model may be more appropriate than the additive expression shown above.

The mathematical form must therefore be selected according to the physiology being modeled.

12.1 Why integrated modeling matters

A receptor-binding measurement cannot independently predict the duration of a clinical response.

Likewise, a plasma concentration cannot independently establish receptor occupancy or physiological effect.

A comprehensive model must account for both drug exposure and the response generated by that exposure.

This is the connection between the pharmacokinetic concepts developed in Parts 1–4 and the molecular pharmacology examined here.

13. What Would a Complete Explanation of Fentanyl Potency Require?

A complete mechanistic explanation would integrate evidence from several experimental levels.

At the molecular level, researchers would characterize ligand binding, receptor conformations, and receptor activation.

At the cellular level, they would measure signaling efficacy, receptor reserve, and regulatory processes.

At the tissue level, they would investigate how MOR activation influences neuronal networks.

At the organism level, they would characterize pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamic responses, and variability.

These measurements could then be incorporated into models linking drug exposure to receptor activation and physiological effects.

However, such models would require careful evaluation against independent experimental observations.

Even a highly detailed model would remain an approximation of a complex biological system.

The objective is not to reduce every opioid effect to one numerical measure.

It is to understand how molecular events contribute to measurable physiological outcomes.

Conclusion: Potency Is More Than Receptor Binding

Fentanyl's high potency cannot be explained by receptor affinity alone.

Its pharmacological effects emerge from the interaction of molecular recognition, intrinsic efficacy, receptor–effector coupling, signal amplification, tissue distribution, and physiological response.

The μ-opioid receptor provides the molecular starting point.

However, the biological consequences of receptor activation depend on the cellular and neural systems in which the receptor operates.

Receptor reserve helps explain why substantial responses may occur without complete receptor occupancy.

Operational models demonstrate why functional potency can differ from binding affinity.

Research into biased agonism reveals the complexity of ligand-dependent signaling while highlighting the limitations of attributing opioid safety to one intracellular pathway.

Finally, pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic integration connects molecular mechanisms with changing drug concentrations and observable physiological effects.

Fentanyl is not exceptionally potent because of one isolated molecular property. Its potency reflects the combined behavior of the drug, its receptor, and the biological system.

Understanding that relationship provides the foundation for the next article in this series:

Part 7 — How Does Fentanyl Stop Someone From Breathing?

References

1. Vo QN, Mahinthichaichan P, Shen J, Ellis CR. How μ-opioid receptor recognizes fentanyl. Nature Communications. 2021;12:984.
2. Gillis A, Sreenivasan V, Christie MJ. Intrinsic efficacy of opioid ligands and its importance for apparent bias, operational analysis, and therapeutic window. Molecular Pharmacology. 2020;98(4):410–424.
3. Williams JT, Ingram SL, Henderson G, et al. Regulation of μ-opioid receptors: Desensitization, phosphorylation, internalization, and tolerance. Pharmacological Reviews. 2013;65(1):223–254.
4. Black JW, Leff P. Operational models of pharmacological agonism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 1983;220(1219):141–162.
5. Kuip EJM, Zandvliet ML, Koolen SLW, Mathijssen RHJ, van der Rijt CCD. A review of factors explaining variability in fentanyl pharmacokinetics; focus on implications for cancer patients. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2017;83(2):294–313.
6. Vardanyan RS, Hruby VJ. Fentanyl-related compounds and derivatives: Current status and future prospects for pharmaceutical applications. Future Medicinal Chemistry. 2014;6(4):385–412.