being highly specific for CTP. The current study, which is the first
to probe NmCSS activity as a function of unnatural nucleotide
analogs, points to significant differences in inhibitor activity as
a function of both the nucleotide base and degree of saturation.
Kinetic studies are underway to determine the mechanism of sulfo-
nucleotide inhibition, which we anticipate will provide a novel
platform for discovery of selective CSS inhibitors.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by TRDRP. NSF DBI-0722538 and NSF
CHE-0443516 provided funding for the NMR spectrometers used
on this project.
References
1 F. A. Troy, Glycobiology, 1992, 2, 5.
2 F. A. Troy, Biology of Sialic Acids, 1995, Abraham Rosenberg, Ed.
Plenum Press, New York, pp. 95.
Scheme 3 Synthesis of sulfo-uridine analogs.
3 F. A. Troy II, Encycl. Of Biol. Chem., 2004, 3, 407.
4 A. P. Moran, M. M. Prendergast and B. J. Appelmelk, FEMS Immunol.
Med. Microbiol., 1996, 16, 105.
the protected sulfo-uridine analogs 15 and 16, respectively.
Deprotection of the p-methoxybenzyl groups with CAN also led to
removal of the isopropylidenes to give 17 and 18, and the isopropyl
esters were removed by the action of TMSBr to afford sulfo-UTP
(19) and sulfo-UDP (20) analogs. Finally, hydrogenation of 20
afforded the saturated derivative 22.
NmCSS inhibition assays indicate that the sulfo-uridine analogs
are also potent inhibitors. There is little difference between sulfo-
CTP and sulfo-UTP analogs (entries 1 and 4, Table 1). Although
sulfo-UDP is essentially inactive (entry 5), saturation of the double
bond restores activity (entry 7). Saturated sulfo-UDP is not quite
as active as saturated sulfo-CDP (entry 3), which is consistent
with the substrate specificity studies indicating that CDP is a
better substrate than UDP. However, in both cases, saturation
increases inhibition relative to the unsaturated analogs suggesting
that increased flexibility enhances activity.
One motivation for replacing the phosphate with a sulfone
functionality was to create neutral molecules that may be better
suited for intracellular targets. We were curious as to whether
or not the isopropylphosphonate esters would show biological
activity. In preliminary investigations, the isopropyl protected
form of 18, which is 21, was also tested (entry 6). While activity was
diminished by about half, we still observed significant inhibition.
These studies are encouraging from the perspective of developing
pro-drug strategies.
As previously stated, there are notable differences between
bacterial and vertebrate CSS. Bacterial enzymes are cytoplasmic
and vertebrate CSS are active in the nucleus of cells. And although
only a few enzymes have been assessed for substrate specificity,
early indications suggest that there are distinct differences between
mammalian and bacterial homologs with vertebrate enzymes
5 R. E. Mandrell and M. A. Apicella, Immunobiology, 1993, 187, 382.
6 A. Preston, R. E. Mandrell, B. W. Gibson and M. A. Apicella, Crit.
Rev. Microbiol., 1996, 22, 139.
7 A. K. Mu¨nster-Ku¨hnel, J. Tiralongo, S. Krapp, B. Weinhold, V. Ritz-
Sedlacek, U. Jacob and R. Gerardy-Schahn, Glycobiology, 2004, 14,
43R.
8 H. Yu, H. Yu, R. Karpel and X. Chen, Bioorg. Med. Chem., 2004, 12,
6427.
9 M. Knorst and W.-D. Fessner, Adv. Synth. Catal., 2001, 343, 698.
10 D. Nakata, A.-K. Mu¨nster, R. Gerardy-Schahn, N. Aoki, T. Matsuda
and K. Kitajima, Glycobiology, 2001, 11, 685.
11 E. Zbiral, E. Schreiner and R. Christian, Carbohydr. Res., 1989, 194,
c15.
12 C. R. Petrie III, M. Sharma, O. D. Simmons and W. Korytnyk,
Carbohydr. Res., 1989, 186, 326.
13 I. G. Bravo, S. Barrallo, M. A. Ferrero, L. B. Rodriguez-Aparicio, H.
Martinez-Blanco and A. Reglero, Biochem. J., 2001, 358, 585.
14 L. B. Rodriguez-Aparicio, J. M. Lungo, C. Gonzalez-Clemente and A.
Reglero, J. Biol. Chem., 1992, 267, 9257.
15 K. H. Scheit and H.-J. Linke, Eur. J. Biochem., 1982, 126, 57–60.
16 A. M. Bello, E. Poduch, Y. Liu, L. Wei, I. Crandall, X. Wang, C.
Dyanand, K. C. Kain, E. F. Pai and L. P. Kotra, J. Med. Chem., 2008,
51, 439–448.
17 P. Besada, D. H. Shin, S. Costanzi, H. Ko, C. Mathe´, J. Gagneron,
G. Gosselin, S. Maddileti, T. K. Harden and K. A. Jacobson, J. Med.
Chem., 2006, 49, 5532–5543.
18 J. H. Wong, M. M. Olmstead, J. C. Fettinger and J. Gervay-Hague,
Acta Cryst., 2008, C64, o132.
19 M. J. Hadd, M. A. Smith, M. D. Carducci and J. Gervay-Hague,
Tetrahedron Lett., 2001, 42, 5137.
20 J. H. Wong, M. M. Olmstead, J. C. Fettinger and J. Gervay-Hague,
Acta Cryst. Sec. E., 2007, 63, 3046.
21 X. Chen, A. J. Wiemer, R. J. Hohl and D. F. Wiemer, J. Org. Chem.,
2002, 67, 9331.
22 For related examples of double bond migration see: J.-F. Wang, X.-D.
Yang, L.-R. Zhang, Z.-J. Yang and L.-H. Zhang, Tetrahedron, 2004,
60, 8535.
23 S. J. Danishefsky, S. L. DeNinno, S. H. Chen, L. Boisvert and M.
Barbachyn, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1989, 111, 5810.
This journal is
The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
Org. Biomol. Chem., 2009, 7, 27–29 | 29
©