| Literature DB >> 23648593 |
Iván Ramos-Tomillero1, Lorena Mendive-Tapia, Miriam Góngora-Benítez, Ernesto Nicolás, Judit Tulla-Puche, Fernando Albericio.
Abstract
Cys-disulfide bonds contribute to the stabilization of peptide and protein structures. The synthesis of these molecules requires a proper protection of Cys residues, which is crucial to prevent side-reactions and also to achieve the correct Cys connectivity. Here we undertook a mechanistic study of a set of well-known acid-labile Cys protecting groups, as well other new promising groups, in order to better understand the nature of their acid-lability. The stability of the carbocation generated during the acid treatment was found to have a direct impact on the removal of the protective groups from the corresponding protected Cys-containing peptides. Hence a combination of steric and conjugative effects determines the stability of the carbocations generated. Here we propose diphenylmethyl (Dpm) as a promising protecting group on the basis of its intermediate relative carbocation stability. All the optimized geometries and energies presented in this study were determined using a B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) calculation. The results discussed herein may be of broader applicability for the development of new protecting groups.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23648593 PMCID: PMC6270164 DOI: 10.3390/molecules18055155
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
TFA-lability study of the tripeptides with Dpm and Bzl scaffolds [7].
| Abbr. | Protecting group | TFA (%) | [Peptide] (mM) | T (°C) | Reaction time | Deprotected Cys (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4,4′-diMeODpm | 10 | 1 | 25 | 5 min | 100 | |
| 10 | 92 | ||||||
|
| 4,4′-diMeDpm | 20 | 1 | 25 | 5 min | 92 | |
| 10 | |||||||
| 70 | |||||||
| 1 | 30 min | 100 | |||||
| 10 | 100 | ||||||
|
| Dpm | 60 | 1 | 25 | 1 h | 100 | |
| 10 | 92 | ||||||
|
| 9-F | 95 | 1 | 25 | 1 h | 0 | |
| 10 | 0 | ||||||
|
| 2,6-diMeO-4-MeBn | 20 | 1 | 25 | 30 min | 100 | |
| 10 | 100 | ||||||
|
| 2,4-diMeOBn | 20 | 1 | 25 | 5 min | 70 | |
| 10 | 5 min | 10 | |||||
| 1 | 30 min | 100 | |||||
| 10 | 30 min | 44 | |||||
|
| 2,6-diMe-4-MeOBn | 20 | 1 | 25 | 30 min | 100 | |
| 10 | 86 | ||||||
|
| 2,6-diMeOBn | 50 | 1 | 25 | 1 h | 100 | |
| 10 | 96 | ||||||
|
| 4-MeO-2-MeBn | 50 | 1 | 25 | 1 h | 100 | |
| 10 | 95 | ||||||
|
| Mob | 95 | 1 | 25 | 2 h | 35 | |
| 10 | 26 | ||||||
| 1 | 40 | 100 | |||||
| 10 | 94 | ||||||
|
| TMeb | 95 | 1 | 25 | 1 h | 21 | |
| 10 | 14 | ||||||
|
| biPh | 95 | 1 | 25 | 1 h | 0 | |
| 10 | 0 | ||||||
|
| 2-MeOBn | 95 | 1 | 25 | 1 h | 0 | |
| 10 | 0 |
Trt derivatives.
| Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 228.3 | 222.0 | 223.2 | 217.4 |
|
| 232.9 | 226.4 | 227.6 | 221.9 |
|
| 235.8 | 229.4 | 230.6 | 224.7 |
Dpm derivatives.
| Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 232.2 | 226.2 | 227.4 | 221.5 |
|
| 235.2 | 228.9 | 230.1 | 223.6 |
|
| 243.6 | 237.1 | 238.3 | 232.4 |
|
| 251.7 | 245.2 | 246.5 | 240.6 |
|
| 262.5 | 255.5 | 256.9 | 249.2 |
Bzl derivatives.
| Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 241.9 | 235.8 | 236.9 | 230.5 |
|
| 249.1 | 242.8 | 243.9 | 237.6 |
|
| 251.8 | 245.4 | 246.6 | 239.5 |
|
| 253.4 | 247.1 | 248.2 | 241.9 |
|
| 254.0 | 247.7 | 248.8 | 242.5 |
|
| 257.7 | 251.1 | 252.4 | 245.0 |
|
| 261.0 | 254.6 | 255.7 | 249.5 |
|
| 263.2 | 256.3 | 257.5 | 250.5 |
|
| 264.5 | 258.0 | 259.1 | 253.2 |
|
| 265.4 | 258.8 | 260.1 | 252.9 |
Figure 1ΔE + ZPE values for each scaffold group.
Figure 2Optimized geometries of the carbocations derived from Xan, 3 and 4, respectively.
Figure 3Comparison of para- (10) and ortho- (13) Bzl-like resonance structures.