| Literature DB >> 24524242 |
Björn Over1, Patrick McCarren, Per Artursson, Michael Foley, Fabrizio Giordanetto, Gunnar Grönberg, Constanze Hilgendorf, Maurice D Lee, Pär Matsson, Giovanni Muncipinto, Mélanie Pellisson, Matthew W D Perry, Richard Svensson, Jeremy R Duvall, Jan Kihlberg.
Abstract
Profiling of eight stereoisomeric T. cruzi growth inhibitors revealed vastly different in vitro properties such as solubility, lipophilicity, pKa, and cell permeability for two sets of four stereoisomers. Using computational chemistry and NMR spectroscopy, we identified the formation of an intramolecular NH→NR3 hydrogen bond in the set of stereoisomers displaying lower solubility, higher lipophilicity, and higher cell permeability. The intramolecular hydrogen bond resulted in a significant pKa difference that accounts for the other structure-property relationships. Application of this knowledge could be of particular value to maintain the delicate balance of size, solubility, and lipophilicity required for cell penetration and oral administration for chemical probes or therapeutics with properties at, or beyond, Lipinski's rule of 5.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24524242 PMCID: PMC3968888 DOI: 10.1021/jm500059t
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Chem ISSN: 0022-2623 Impact factor: 7.446
Structure and Solubility for the Eight Stereoisomeric T. cruzi Growth Inhibitors 1–8
| compd | configuration (C8,C9,C25) | relative configuration (C8,C9) | solubility
(μM) |
|---|---|---|---|
| trans | 1 | ||
| trans | 1 | ||
| trans | 2 | ||
| trans | 1 | ||
| cis | 86 | ||
| cis | 93 | ||
| cis | 98 | ||
| cis | 87 |
Determined at pH 7.4 in PBS containing 1% DMSO.
Figure 1(a) Solubility versus lipophilicity (log D, pH 7.4) for compounds 1–8. (b) Permeability (Caco-2 Papp(AB)) versus lipophilicity (log D) for 1–8, determined with a pH gradient of 6.5 (apical) to 7.4 (basolateral) between the two sides (green squares for 1–8) and with a pH of 7.4 on both sides (orange diamonds). Standard deviations for n = 3–6 determinations are given as error bars.
pKa Values for 1–8 Determined by Spectrophotometric Titrationa
| compd | relative configuration (C8,C9) | p | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| trans | 2.76 | 6.08 | |
| trans | 2.77 | 6.18 | |
| trans | 2.76 | 6.14 | |
| trans | 2.77 | 6.08 | |
| cis | 2.98 | 7.07 | |
| cis | 2.98 | 7.08 | |
| cis | 2.98 | 7.16 | |
| cis | 2.97 | 7.16 |
Three titrations for each of 1–8 (cf. structural formulas for 1–8 in Table 1).
SD = ±0.01.
SD = ±0.02.
Figure 2Comparison of the neutral state of diastereomers 1 and 8 showing Newman projections looking down the C10–C9 bond (left) and the C9–C8 bond (center) with gauche interactions highlighted with red arrows. The lowest energy conformations found by quantum mechanics (B3LYP/6-31G*) and molecular mechanics (MMFFs force field, GB solvation) are shown in color.
Calculated Relative Energy Difference between the Minimum Energy Conformations of the Neutral Amine and the Protonated Form of Diastereomers 1 (C8,C9-Trans) and 8 (C8,C9-Cis)
| strain energy difference, MMFFs + GB (kcal/mol) | free energy (298 K), SM8//B3LYP/6-31G* (kcal/mol) | |
|---|---|---|
| Δ( | 2.6 | 3.1 |
| Δ( | 0.4 | 1.2 |
| overall Δ( | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| predicted Δp | 1.6 | 1.4 |
Experimental ΔpKa (8–1): 1.1 units.
Figure 3(a) Overlays of 1H NMR spectra of 1 (C8,C9-trans, red and green) and 8 (C8,C9-cis, blue and violet) in DMSO-d6 and CDCl3, respectively. The resonance of N28-H in 1 and 8 is marked with red and blue ovals in the overlays. (b) Parts of the ROESY spectra of 1 and 8 recorded in DMSO-d6 showing crosspeaks from N28-H. ROESY crosspeaks across the eight-membered hydrogen-bonded ring are marked with red ovals in the spectrum of 1. (c) 1H–15N HMBC of 1 in DMSO-d6. The crosspeak resulting from the coupling of N28-H and N15 is marked with a red circle.