SR-17018
chemical compound
SR-17018, also known informally as SR-17 or just SR and as 5,6-dichloro-desmethylchlorphine, is an atypical opioid receptor modulator with unusual actions and effects. It acts as a biased partial agonist of the μ-opioid receptor (MOR), showing strong selectivity for activation of G protein signaling over β-arrestin2 recruitment at this receptor. In addition, the drug appears to also act as a MOR positive allosteric modulator, with this possibly being its primary action.
Unlike conventional opioids such as morphine and fentanyl, SR-17018 produces robust analgesic effects in rodents with very little respiratory depression and with much less analgesic tolerance. Moreover, substitution of conventional opioids like morphine with SR-17018 can reverse analgesic tolerance and suppress withdrawal symptoms in rodents. However, conflicting findings exist in terms of analgesic tolerance and respiratory depression. The drug has not been formally studied in humans.
SR-17018 was first described in the scientific literature by Laura Bohn and colleagues in 2017. It was encountered online as a novel designer drug by 2023. Subsequently, discussion of SR-17018 on the social media website Reddit dramatically increased in 2024.
“SR-17018” enters the record as chemical compound. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what SR-17018, chemical and compound can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“SR-17018” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, SR-17018, chemical and compound provides the most credible route into that argument.
Datasets, specimens, observations and peer-reviewed methods provide the appropriate test for the technical claims summarized here. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 31, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q104668156. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2017, 2023 and 2024.
Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “SR-17018”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow SR-17018 primary sources, SR-17018 archive and SR-17018 research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “SR-17018”?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “SR-17018” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.