Overproduction of NO by nNOS is implicated in the pathogenesis of diverse neuronal disorders. Since NO signaling is involved in diverse physiological functions, selective inhibition of nNOS over other isoforms is essential to minimize side effects. A series of α-amino functionalized aminopyridine derivatives (3-8) were designed to probe the structure-activity relationship between ligand, heme propionate, and H4B. Compound 8R was identified as the most potent and selective molecule of this study, exhibiting a Ki of 24 nM for nNOS, with 273-fold and 2822-fold selectivity against iNOS and eNOS, respectively. Although crystal structures of 8R complexed with nNOS and eNOS revealed a similar binding mode, the selectivity stems from the distinct electrostatic environments in two isoforms that result in much lower inhibitor binding free energy in nNOS than in eNOS. These findings provide a basis for further development of simple, but even more selective and potent, nNOS inhibitors.
Overproduction of NO by nNOS is implicated in the pathogenesis of diverse neuronal disorders. Since NO signaling is involved in diverse physiological functions, selective inhibition of nNOS over other isoforms is essential to minimize side effects. A series of α-amino functionalized aminopyridine derivatives (3-8) were designed to probe the structure-activity relationship between ligand, heme propionate, and H4B. Compound 8R was identified as the most potent and selective molecule of this study, exhibiting a Ki of 24 nM for nNOS, with 273-fold and 2822-fold selectivity against iNOS and eNOS, respectively. Although crystal structures of 8R complexed with nNOS and eNOS revealed a similar binding mode, the selectivity stems from the distinct electrostatic environments in two isoforms that result in much lower inhibitor binding free energy in nNOS than in eNOS. These findings provide a basis for further development of simple, but even more selective and potent, nNOS inhibitors.
The free radical nitric
oxide (NO) is an important signaling molecule,[1] controlling diverse physiological and pathological
processes in various species.[2] In mammals,
NO is endogenously produced using l-arginine and molecular
oxygen with NADPH by three principal nitric oxide synthases (NOSs):
neuronal NOS (nNOS), endothelial NOS (eNOS), and inducible NOS (iNOS).[3] Selective inhibition of each NOS can regulate
different biological functions of NO signaling because each NOS isoform
is localized differently in the neuron, endothelium, and immune system,
and is activated by a specific pathway.[4] Overproduction of NO by nNOS in the central nervous system has been
implicated in the pathogenesis of diverse neuronal disorders such
as strokes,[5] septic shock,[6] seizures,[7] migraine headaches,[8] Alzheimer’s disease,[9] Parkinson’s disease,[10] and ALS.[11] Recently, nNOS has also been
implicated to play a critical role in melanoma tumor development and
growth.[12] In the immune system, excess
NO production from iNOS is also linked to inflammation and various
cancers.[13] In addition, NO synthesis from
bacterial NOS was reported to play a critical role in antibiotic resistance
and pathogenicity.[14,15] This suggests that the inhibition
of NOSs can be effective for the control of these diverse diseases,
but because NO signaling is involved in various physiological functions,
selective inhibition is essential to minimize any unwanted side effects.[16]NOSs are homodimeric enzymes; each monomer
consists of a reductase
domain and an oxygenase domain. A C-terminal reductase domain contains
NADPH, FAD, and FMN cofactors,[17] and an
N-terminal oxygenase domain contains iron protoporphyrin IX (heme),
where the substrate l-Arg binds, and tetrahydrobiopterin
(H4B) cofactors.[18] H4B forms tight H-bonds with the propionate of the heme A-ring and
provides an electron that is crucial for activating the heme-bound
dioxygen during the catalytic reaction.[19] Although H4B binding is not required for dimerization,
it interacts with both subunits of the dimer by forming part of the
dimerization interface to enrich the structural stability of the dimer.[20,21]For over a decade, our research groups have been interested
in
the development of selective inhibitors of nNOS for the treatment
of neurodegenerative disease. Among diverse NOS inhibitors, compounds 1(22) and 2(23) (Figure 1A) are the most
potent inhibitors for nNOS. They are spotlighted by excellent isoform
selectivity for 1 and easy synthesis for 2. Compound 1 has >700-fold selectivity against iNOS
and >3800-fold selectivity against eNOS. The X-ray crystal structures
of 1 complexed with nNOS and eNOS[24] reveal features of enzyme–inhibitor interactions
that form the basis for high potency and selectivity (Figure 1B): the aminopyridine of 1 interacts
with a heme D-ring propionate via two H-bonds, as well as with Tyr706
in a π–π stacking interaction. The pyrrolidinenitrogen of 1 is located within hydrogen-bonding distances
to both H4B and the heme A-ring propionate, replacing a
water molecule, while the fluorophenyl ring stacks with the heme plane.
Despite the excellent isoform selectivity of this molecule, the construction
of the two unnaturally occurring chiral centers of 1 is
not efficient and requires multiple steps with a low overall yield.
This limits the opportunities for optimizing the pharmacokinetic properties
of the inhibitor and for carrying out in vivo studies. Compound 2, the other potent nNOS inhibitor (Ki = 25 nM), is only moderately selective (i/n = 58, e/n = 107)
but can be prepared from commercial starting materials in four chemical
steps, in an excellent overall yield. The common feature of 1 and 2 is that both utilize one aminopyridine
to make H-bonds with the heme D-ring propionate and to stack with
Tyr706 (Figure 1B). The additional H-bonds
between the other aminopyridine of 2 and Glu592 of nNOS
anchor the inhibitor to the substrate binding site above the heme
in a double-headed mode. However, 2, in contrast to 1, does not directly interact with the H4B or with
the propionate of the heme A-ring. The lack of these interactions
may explain the moderate selectivity of 2 against iNOS
and eNOS.
Figure 1
(a) Chemical structures of leads 1 and 2 and inhibitory activities; (b) overlay of inhibitors 1 (cyan) and 2 (orange) complexed with nNOS, showing
the heme (pink), H4B (yellow), and key residues (green)
in the active site (PDB: 3NLM and 3N5W); and (c) the proposed scaffold derived from compounds 1 and 2.
(a) Chemical structures of leads 1 and 2 and inhibitory activities; (b) overlay of inhibitors 1 (cyan) and 2 (orange) complexed with nNOS, showing
the heme (pink), H4B (yellow), and key residues (green)
in the active site (PDB: 3NLM and 3N5W); and (c) the proposed scaffold derived from compounds 1 and 2.A possible strategy to confirm this structure-selectivity
issue
is to install a new functional group on molecule 2 to
create an interaction with H4B and the heme A-ring propionate.
This approach will allow us to perform a SAR study in this area for
a new chemotype design in which the molecules will be easy to prepare
while still being highly isoform selective. From the structure overlay
of 1 and 2 (Figure 1B), we found that the pyrrolidine amine of 1 could be
replaced by the addition of an amino group on the side chain of 2 (Figure 1C). The alignment of an
amino group with an adapting position of the middle aromatic ring
of 2, especially maintaining the structural similarity
to the pyrrolidine amine of 1, was virtually performed
using Surflex-Sim in the Sybyl-X program. Although the R-enantiomer of the α-amino derivative was predicted to interact
with H4B and a propionate of the heme, the preparation
of the other enantiomer was also desirable to confirm the stereoactivity
relationship. After 2-amino-4-methylpyridine was selected as a head
near the α-amino group, three different meta-substituted aromatic
rings were adapted as linkers, and another 2-amino-4-methylpyridine
or a 4-methylpyridine ring was chosen as the second head in the hopes
that it would stay above the heme with a proposed interaction with
Glu592. The crystal structural information gathered with compounds
bearing an α-amino group (3–5) led to the introduction of an aminomethyl group (6–8) to further improve the binding affinity and
selectivity. Figure 2 summarizes the prepared
and assayed compounds in this study.
Figure 2
Prepared and tested molecules in this
study.
Prepared and tested molecules in this
study.
Chemistry
The synthesis of compounds 3 and 3 is shown
in Scheme 1. Benzyl alcohol 11 was prepared by coupling of 3-bromomethylbenzaldehyde (9) with two equivalents of lithiated pyrrolyl-4,6-lutidine (10). The hydroxyl group of 11 was then converted
to benzyl azide 12 via a Mitsunobu reaction with DPPA.
Reduction of the azide with LiAlH4 gave the freeamine,
which subsequently underwent amidation with (S)-camphanic
chloride to give a separable diastereomeric mixture. Each pure diastereomer, 13a and 13b, was successfully isolated using
general silica gel column chromatography. An asymmetric approach toward
the target compounds using Ellman’s chiral sulfinamide in the
synthesis of 4 and 4 (Scheme 2) was not successful; only inseparable diastereomeric mixtures
were produced. The (S)-camphanyl auxiliary and the
two protecting groups on the aminopyridine rings were removed together
by microwave-aided hydrolysis to give optically active 3 and 3 (Scheme 1).
Scheme 1
Synthesis of 3 and 3
Reagents and conditions:
(a) 9 (2.5 equiv), BuLi (2.5 equiv), THF, 0 °C to
−78
°C; (b) DEAD, DPPA, PPh3, THF, room temp., 12 h; (c)
LiAlH4; (d) (i) (S)-camphamic chloride,
TEA, CH2Cl2, room temp., (ii) chiral resolution
on a silica gel column; (e) conc HCl, AcOH, microwave, 150 °C,
5 h.
Scheme 2
Synthesis of 5 and 5
Reagents and conditions;
(a)
BuLi, THF; (b) DIBAL; (c) (S)-t-butylsulfinamide,
Ti(OEt)4; (d) 9, BuLi; (e) conc HCl, EtOH,
microwave, 120 °C, 20 min.
Synthesis of 3 and 3
Reagents and conditions:
(a) 9 (2.5 equiv), BuLi (2.5 equiv), THF, 0 °C to
−78
°C; (b) DEAD, DPPA, PPh3, THF, room temp., 12 h; (c)
LiAlH4; (d) (i) (S)-camphamic chloride,
TEA, CH2Cl2, room temp., (ii) chiral resolution
on a silica gel column; (e) conc HCl, AcOH, microwave, 150 °C,
5 h.Compounds 5 and 5 were prepared from 2,4-dimethyllutidine
and 15 using a five-step procedure (Scheme 2). Lithiated 2,4-dimethyllutidine was coupled with benzyl
bromide 15 to give nitrile 16. The cyano
group of 16 was reduced to an aldehyde (17) using DIBAL, which then underwent condensation with Ellman’s
chiral sulfinamide to give (S)-N-tert-butanesulfinyl aldimine 18 in
a moderate yield. This intermediate was coupled with lithiated pyrrolyl-4,6-lutidine 9 to give diastereomeric mixture 19a–b. Minor diasteromeric product 19b eluted first,
and the major product 19a eluted second during silica
gel column chromatography. Protecting groups on the aminopyridine
and t-butyl sulfinamide of 19a and 19b were removed by microwave-aided acidic hydrolysis to give 5 and 5 in high yields.
Synthesis of 5 and 5
Reagents and conditions;
(a)
BuLi, THF; (b) DIBAL; (c) (S)-t-butylsulfinamide,
Ti(OEt)4; (d) 9, BuLi; (e) conc HCl, EtOH,
microwave, 120 °C, 20 min.Compound 6 was also prepared from benzyl bromide 15 using
a six-step procedure (Scheme 3). Coupling of
lithiated 9 with 15 gave
nitrile 20, which was then reduced to aldehyde 21 by treatment with DIBAL. Condensation of 21 with nitromethane gave nitrovinyl compound 22 in good
yield. Michael addition of 22 with lithiated 9 produced nitro intermediate 23, which was reduced to
amine 24 using Raney-Ni under a hydrogen atmosphere.
Both aminopyridine protecting groups were removed by microwave-aided
hydrolysis to give 6 in good yields.
Scheme 3
Synthesis of 5
Reagents and conditions: (a)
(i) 9, BuLi, THF; (ii) 15; (b) DIBAL-H;
(c) (i) MeNO2, TEA, (ii) AcCl; (d) 9, BuLi;
(e) LAH; (f) conc HCl, EtOH, microwave, 120 °C, 20 min.
Synthesis of 5
Reagents and conditions: (a)
(i) 9, BuLi, THF; (ii) 15; (b) DIBAL-H;
(c) (i) MeNO2, TEA, (ii) AcCl; (d) 9, BuLi;
(e) LAH; (f) conc HCl, EtOH, microwave, 120 °C, 20 min.Compounds 7 and 8 were
prepared in five
steps from commercially available brominated pyridinylaldehydes 25a–b (Scheme 4). Condensation of 25a–b with nitromethane
in the presence of TEA and acetyl chloride, followed by Michael reaction
with lithiated 4,6-dimethylpyridine afforded 27a–b. Sonogashira coupling between 27a–b and alkyne 28, which was prepared from 6-bromo-2-aminopyridine
and trimethylsilylacetylene, produced intermediate 29a–b. Raney nickel-mediated hydrogenation of 29a–b yielded reduced product 30a–b. Finally, the protecting groups on the aminopyridine
rings were removed using microwave conditions to yield products 7 and 8. A portion of intermediate 30b was protected with Boc and then injected onto an OD-H chiral HPLC
column to separate the enantiomers. Each enantomerically pure compound
was deprotected via microwave-assisted acidic hydrolysis to give optically
active enantiomers 8 and 8. Our diverse approach for
the chiral resolution of the final deprotected compound (8) using CrownPak CR-(+), Chiralcel OD-RH, and Whelk-O 1 chiral reverse
phase HPLC columns, and a Chiralcel OD-H chiral normal phase column
with DEA, were not successful. Chiral derivatization of the final
compound using Mosher’s acid chloride, (S)-camphanyl
chloride, and (S)-mandelic chloride also were not
successful because the molecules have multiple reactive amines.
Scheme 4
Synthesis of 7 and 8
Reagents
and conditions: (a)
(i) MeNO2, TEA, (ii) AcCl; (b) 9, BuLi; (c) 28, Pd(PPh3)2Cl2, CuI, PPh3, DEA, DMF; (d) Raney-Ni, H2, MeOH/EtOH; (e) conc
HCl/EtOH (1/2), microwave, 120 °C, 20 min.
Synthesis of 7 and 8
Reagents
and conditions: (a)
(i) MeNO2, TEA, (ii) AcCl; (b) 9, BuLi; (c) 28, Pd(PPh3)2Cl2, CuI, PPh3, DEA, DMF; (d) Raney-Ni, H2, MeOH/EtOH; (e) conc
HCl/EtOH (1/2), microwave, 120 °C, 20 min.
Results
and Discussion
In Vitro Inhibitory Assays
The NOS
isoform assays involved
subjecting 3–8 to an oxyhemoglobin
NO capture assay using a Biotek Gen5 microplate reader. IC50 values for each compound were determined in duplicate or triplicate
using dose–response curves with nine concentration points (1
pM–3 mM). The standard deviation of the assays were less than
15% with nNOS or iNOS and less than 25% with eNOS. The inhibition
constants (Ki) of these compounds were
determined from the IC50 and Km values (ratnNOS = 1.3 μM; murineiNOS = 8.2 μM; and
bovineeNOS = 1.7 μM) for all three NOS isoforms using the following
relationship: Ki = IC50/(1
+ [S]/KM)The selectivity of antagonism
of nNOS relative to iNOS or eNOS was determined by calculating the
ratios of the Ki values with iNOS or eNOS
to those with nNOS. Compounds 3–8, having various amino functional groups, were found to have moderate
to excellent selectivity (50–2822 of e/n, 36–273 of
i/n) and moderate to good binding affinity (24–4370 nM) to
nNOS. All of the synthesized molecules as well as three reference
molecules (31, 32, and 2; for
comparative purpose) and their associated activities are shown in
Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1
List of Ki Values and
Selectivity of 3–8
Reference
molecules that were reported
previously.[23]
Table 2
Ki Values
and Selectivity of 8 and 8
Reference
molecules that were reported
previously.[23]The compounds with an α-amino (or a hydroxyl)
group and symmetric
double heads, 3, 3, and 4, exhibited
about a 100 nM binding affinity to nNOS and modest selectivity against
eNOS and iNOS, whereas 5 and 5, having α-amino
tailed asymmetric double heads, showed poor potency. Compounds 6–8, having an α-aminomethyl tail
with two aminopyridine head groups, showed improved potency by 1-
to 5-fold. The orientation of the nitrogen on the middle aromatic
ring was important; compound 7 was a relatively poor
inhibitor of nNOS when the nitrogen was located in the narrow arc
of the middle ring. Although the α-aminomethyl derivatives 6, 7, and 8 did not display improved
binding affinity for nNOS compared with that of their parent molecules 31, 32, and 2, it is noteworthy
that all of those α-aminomethyl derivatives have better selectivity
(Table 1) against iNOS and eNOS. In general,
the α-aminomethyl derivatives are 2- to 3-fold (i/n) and 3-
to 10-fold (e/n) more selective than their parent molecules. To further
explore the inhibition potency and selectivity of racemic 8, each enantiomer was prepared and assayed with the three NOS isoforms.
Compound 8, the (R)-enantiomer of 8, showed excellent potency
(Ki = 24 nM) for nNOS with a 273-fold
selectivity over iNOS and a 2822-fold selectivity over eNOS, the best
in the series.We also assayed compound 8 against
humannNOS to explore
whether the interactions are acceptable for the human isoform as well.
HumannNOS is very similar to ratnNOS, except that the hydrophobic
pocket surrounded by Met341, Leu337, and Tyr706 in ratnNOS is replaced
by Met340, His342, and Tyr711. This pocket is where the second headgroup
of this series of double-headed inhibitors fits. The inhibitory potency
of 8 for humannNOS is 90 nM, similar to that (70 nM)
of compound 1,[25] which is
our most potent humannNOS inhibitor with potential selectivity over
humaniNOS and eNOS.
Structure–Activity Relationship Studies
To aid
in the structure–activity relationship studies for the series
of double-headed aminopyridine compounds, we first determined the
crystal structures of nNOS in complex with 3, 3, 4, and 5 that bear an α-amino group (Table 1). Both 3 and 3 are able to bind
to nNOS with both aminopyridine heads involved in H-bonds, one with
Glu592 and the other with the propionate of the heme D-ring, respectively
(Figure 3). In contrast, the parent compound
(31) showed only one aminopyridine H-bonded with Glu592,
while the rest of the inhibitor was badly disordered in structure
(unpublished data). Introducing an α-amino group next to the
center phenyl ring in 3 and 3 helps to stabilize
the double-headed binding. Interestingly, the binding orientation
of 3 is dependent on the chirality leading to different
positions for the α-amine. The α-amino group of 3 is next to the aminopyridine
that H-bonds with Glu592 and points downward to the heme (Figure 3A), while the α-amino group of 3 is on the side of the aminopyridine
that H-bonds with the propionate of the heme D-ring (Figure 3B). This amino group can H-bond with a conserved
water molecule that is bridging between the H4B and the
propionate of heme A-ring rather than replace the water as expected
from modeling.
Figure 3
Active site structures of rat nNOS in complex with (A) 3 (PDB: 4CTP), (B) 3 (PDB: 4CTQ), (C) 4 (PDB: 4CTR), and (D) 5 or 5 (PDB: 4CTT). The Fo – Fc omit electron
density for the inhibitor is displayed
at the 2.5 σ contour level. The weaker density in the tail part
of 4 and 5 indicates disordering. The major
H-bonds are depicted with dashed lines. All crystal structure figures
were prepared with PyMol (www.pymol.org).
Active site structures of ratnNOS in complex with (A) 3 (PDB: 4CTP), (B) 3 (PDB: 4CTQ), (C) 4 (PDB: 4CTR), and (D) 5 or 5 (PDB: 4CTT). The Fo – Fc omit electron
density for the inhibitor is displayed
at the 2.5 σ contour level. The weaker density in the tail part
of 4 and 5 indicates disordering. The major
H-bonds are depicted with dashed lines. All crystal structure figures
were prepared with PyMol (www.pymol.org).When the α-amino group is replaced with a
hydroxyl group
in 4, the compound can no longer achieve a double-headed
binding (Figure 3C). Instead, the aminopyridine
next to the hydroxyl group forms H-bonds with Glu592 so that the hydroxyl
points toward the heme, similar to the position of the amino group
in 3, but the second aminopyridine
is partially disordered, hanging in the active site access channel
and making only van der Waals contacts with the protein.The
structure of nNOS complexed with 5 was also checked
to explore the binding mode for the compound bearing asymmetric double
head groups. As expected, only the aminopyridine is able to anchor
the inhibitor above the heme via H-bonds with Glu592, while the 4-methylpyridine
head is poorly defined in the active site access channel (Figure 3D). Although a racemic mixture of 5 and 5 was used in crystal soaking, only the 5 enantiomer was picked up by the nNOS in the
crystal, which agrees with the better affinity of 5 compared to that of (Table 1). The α-amino nitrogen
is also able to H-bond with Glu592, which forces the center phenyl
ring to bend toward the heme, causing a distortion of the propionate
of the heme D-ring. Both the α-amino group and the aminopyridine
ring in 5S wrap around the Glu592 side chain, which resembles
the binding mode of the substrate, l-Arg, where the α-amino
and guanidinium groups embrace Glu592. Note that the α-amino
group from the same S-chiral centers of 3 and 5 ends up with two totally different positions, H-bonding
either with a water molecule (3) or with the heme D-ring propionate (5), because the binding orientation of 3 and 5 is flipped by 180° relative to each
other.Both 3 and 5 showed modest isoform selectivity
for nNOS over eNOS. We, therefore, also determined the crystal structures
of 3, 3, and 5 bound to eNOS. In the eNOS-3 structure (data not shown), only one aminopyridine
was visible in the electron density that H-bonds with Glu363; the
rest of 3 was disordered,
which prevented us from obtaining a fully refined structure. Nevertheless,
double-headed binding, as seen in the nNOS-3 structure, can be ruled out because the Tyr477
side chain still H-bonds with the propionate of the heme D-ring, thus
blocking the access of the second aminopyridine to the site. The one-headed
binding of 3 results in
its poorer affinity to eNOS, leading to ∼500-fold selection
for nNOS over eNOS (Table 1). In contrast, 3 binds to eNOS in a bouble-headed
mode, as seen in Figure 4A, which is almost
no different from what is observed in the nNOS-3 structure (Figure 3B), thus giving 5-fold improved affinity to eNOS compared with that
of 3 (Table 1). Although having a similar binding mode to both nNOS and
eNOS, 3 still shows 118-fold
better affinity to nNOS than eNOS. Below, we discuss in more detail
what gives rise to the isoform selection when the binding mode for
an inhibitor is identical in the two isoforms.
Figure 4
Active site structures
of bovine eNOS in complex with (A) 3 (PDB: 4CTY) and (B) 5 or 5 (PDB: 4CTZ). The Fo – Fc omit electron
density for the inhibitor is displayed at the 2.5 σ contour
level. The major H-bonds are depicted with dashed lines.
Active site structures
of bovineeNOS in complex with (A) 3 (PDB: 4CTY) and (B) 5 or 5 (PDB: 4CTZ). The Fo – Fc omit electron
density for the inhibitor is displayed at the 2.5 σ contour
level. The major H-bonds are depicted with dashed lines.The structure of eNOS-5 shows some intriguing features (Figure 4B).
While the aminopyridine makes H-bonds with Glu363, which is the same
as that seen in the nNOS-5 structure, the α-amino group does not directly H-bond with
Glu363. Instead, a water molecule is bridging in between. This binding
preference resembles what we have observed for some nNOS selective
dipeptide amide inhibitors, where the α-amino group of the dipeptide
inhibitor made a direct H-bond with Glu592 in nNOS but was bridged
by a water molecule in between the α-amino of the inhibitor
and Glu363 in eNOS.[26] This different binding
preference results from the better electrostatic stabilization that
the α-amino group of the inhibitor experiences by its proximity
next to two negatively charged residues, Glu592 and Asp597 in nNOS,
compared with just one negatively charged residue, Glu363 and Asn368
in eNOS. Therefore, the loss of the electrostatic interactions in
eNOS explains the 363-fold selectivity observed for 5 (Table 1).The double-headed compounds with only an α-amino group on
the side chain (3, 3, 4, and 5) do not quite reach the position
of the pyrroline amine of parent compound 1 that can
replace a water molecule (Figure 1B). This
might be why the low nanomolar affinity and good isoform selectivity
of 1 had not been achieved with 3–5. We, therefore, introduced an aminomethyl group to racemic
compounds 6, 7, and 8 (Figure 2). We also designed three different center aromatic
rings to further explore the influence of the polarity of this ring
to the potency and selectivity of inhibitors. The inhibitory assays
indicated that 6 and 8 indeed have improved
potency (Table 1). The crystal structures of 6 and 8 bound to nNOS showed that they share
a similar double-headed binding mode (Figure 5). Although the racemic samples were used for crystal preparation,
the resulting structures were dominated by the R-enantiomer
in both cases. The structure of nNOS-6 (Figure 5A) overlays well with that
of nNOS-3 (Figure 3B) except that the aminomethyl group of 6 replaces a water molecule, thereby allowing it to make H-bonds with
both the H4B and the propionate of heme A-ring, as was
expected from the design. The better interactions from the aminomethyl
group of 6 to both the H4B and the propionate
afford a 2-fold improvement in potency compared with that of 3 (Table 1).
Figure 5
Active site structures
of rat nNOS in complex with (A) 6 (PDB: 4CTU), (B) 8 or 8 (PDB: 4CTW), and (C) 7 or 7 (PDB: 4CTV). The Fo – Fc omit electron
density for the inhibitor is displayed
at the 2.5 σ contour level. The major H-bonds are depicted with
dashed lines. The weak H-bond in nNOS-8 is labeled with a distance in Å.
Active site structures
of ratnNOS in complex with (A) 6 (PDB: 4CTU), (B) 8 or 8 (PDB: 4CTW), and (C) 7 or 7 (PDB: 4CTV). The Fo – Fc omit electron
density for the inhibitor is displayed
at the 2.5 σ contour level. The major H-bonds are depicted with
dashed lines. The weak H-bond in nNOS-8 is labeled with a distance in Å.Compound 8 exhibits even better potency
with nNOS
than does 6 (Table 1), which may
result from the extra nitrogen on the center pyridine ring of 8 (Figure 5B) versus the phenyl ring
in 6 (Figure 5A). This pyridine
ring in 8 is pulled a bit further up toward Asp597 in
nNOS than is the phenyl ring of 6, making water bridged
H-bonds with the acidic residue and another weak H-bond (3.4 Å)
with Gln478 (Figure 5B). We have also designed
compound 7, having the pyridinenitrogen at an ortho-position
relative to the other two substituents in contrast to the meta-position
in 8. To our surprise, 7 binds to nNOS (Figure 5C) in an orientation that is 180° flipped from
that of 8 (Figure 5B). Moreover,
it is the S-enantiomer of 7 that populates
the structure, even though a racemic mixture of 7 was
used in crystal preparation. In this binding orientation, the aminomethyl
group of 7 makes a tight H-bond with Glu592. The positions
of the neighboring aminopyridine, H-bonding to Glu592, and the center
phenyl ring, bending toward the heme, overlay well with their counterparts
in 5 (Figure 3D). In addition, the second aminopyridine of 7 can also reach the site of the heme D-ring propionate in
a double-headed mode (Figure 5C). Although
in this flipped binding orientation, 7 shows poorer potency
than 6 or 8, it does have an impressive
isoform selectivity (Table 1). We have tried,
but failed, to get an eNOS-7 structure because the inhibitor
was badly disordered except for the aminopyridine that H-bonds with
Glu363 (data not shown). From the known structure of eNOS-5 (Figure 4B),
we reasoned that the poor binding affinity of 7 toward
eNOS must result from its inability to establish direct H-bonds with
Glu363 by its aminomethyl group because of the more electropositive
environment of Glu363 and Asn368 in eNOS, which would not allow a
positively charged aminomethyl group to enter the pocket.Compound 8 exhibits the best potency toward nNOS in
the series, which prompted us to further explore the effects of chirality
on the inhibitory potency and selectivity. Enantiopure 8 and 8 were synthesized, and crystal structures of both enantiomers
bound to nNOS and eNOS were determined. Indeed, 8 gives the best potency (24 nM) with nNOS
and 2822-fold selectivity for nNOS over eNOS (Table 2). Both 8 and 8 show very similar double-headed
binding to nNOS; the nNOS-8 structure is the same as that of nNOS-8 (Figure 5B), while the nNOS-8 structure (Figure 6A) can be, more
or less, superimposed on nNOS-8, with the only exception being around the chiral center.
Also, the center pyridine of 8 can make a better H-bond (2.9–3.0 Å) with Gln478. Regardless
of the chirality, the aminomethyl group in both 8 and 8 can replace a water molecule equally well, thus making direct H-bonds
with both the H4B and the propionate of the heme D-ring.
The similarity in structure seems to be reasonable considering the
∼3-fold difference in potency between 8 and 8. The eNOS-8 structure
(Figure 6B) shows a one-headed binding mode
since the access to the heme D-ring propionate from the second aminopyridine
of 8 is blocked by the
Tyr477 side chain, which remains in its position, H-bonding with the
same propionate. Therefore, the second aminopyridine group is poorly
defined in structure, although the first aminopyridine and aminomethyl
groups maintain the H-bonding interactions that are also observed
in nNOS-8 (Figure 6A). To our surprise, we found no significant difference
in the binding mode of 8 to eNOS (Figure 6C) versus that to nNOS (Figure 5B). With a double-headed binding mode, the center
pyridine of 8 in eNOS
points toward the direction of Asn368, just like its counterpart in
nNOS, which points toward Asp597. In contrast, the central pyridine
ring of 8 in eNOS, in
a one-headed binding, bends away from Asn368 and makes a better H-bond
with Gln249 (Figure 6B). This may be part of
the reason that 8 binds
better to eNOS than does 8 (Table 2).
Figure 6
Active site structures of rat nNOS in
complex with (A) 8 (PDB: 4CTX) and of bovine eNOS
with (B) 8 (PDB: 4CU1) and (C) 8 (PDB: 4CU0). The Fo – Fc omit electron density for inhibitor is displayed
at 2.5 σ contour level. The major H-bonds are depicted with
dashed lines. The weak H-bond in eNOS-8 is labeled with a distance in Å.
Active site structures of ratnNOS in
complex with (A) 8 (PDB: 4CTX) and of bovineeNOS
with (B) 8 (PDB: 4CU1) and (C) 8 (PDB: 4CU0). The Fo – Fc omit electron density for inhibitor is displayed
at 2.5 σ contour level. The major H-bonds are depicted with
dashed lines. The weak H-bond in eNOS-8 is labeled with a distance in Å.The structural binding mode alone cannot explain
the 2822-fold
isoform selectivity of 8 for nNOS over eNOS. This is not the first time that a highly selective
NOS inhibitor shows an almost identical binding mode to nNOS and eNOS.
The previous examples were parent compound 1(22) and its amino-analogue.[24] To better understand the basis for isoform selectivity, we turned
to a computational approach that proved useful in previous studies
with NOS inhibitors.[24] Using the MM-PBSA
approach, we first calculated the ΔG for 8 bound to nNOS. The value
from this calculation is called PBtotal and includes the
solvation and enthalpic terms but not the decrease in entropy upon
inhibitor moving from solution to the active site. Since we are examining
exactly the same inhibitor binding to nNOS and eNOS, ignoring this
entropic contribution introduces little error. Table 3 provides the results of the MM-PBSA calculations.
Table 3
Results of the MM-PBSA Calculations
(kcal/mol)
protein
ELE
VDW
PBele
PBtotal
ΔGcalc
ΔGexp
nNOS
–1018.7
–44.92
–41.1
–92.2
–10.4a
–10.4
eNOS
–818.7
–41.82
–9.57
–57.51
–6.5
–5.7
ΔGcalc for nNOS was normalized to match ΔGexp by dividing PBtotal by ΔGexp and then using this conversion factor to
compute ΔGclac for eNOS. ELE and
VDW are the electrostatic
and van der Waals contributions, respectively, to inhibitor binding.
PBele is the sum of ELE and the reaction field energy calculated
with the Poisson–Boltzmann equation and thus represents the
total electrostatic component of inhibitor binding. PBtotal is the sum of all energies and represents the total free energy
of binding uncorrected for the entropic contribution of the inhibitor
moving from solution to the active site.
ΔGcalc for nNOS was normalized to match ΔGexp by dividing PBtotal by ΔGexp and then using this conversion factor to
compute ΔGclac for eNOS. ELE and
VDW are the electrostatic
and van der Waals contributions, respectively, to inhibitor binding.
PBele is the sum of ELE and the reaction field energy calculated
with the Poisson–Boltzmann equation and thus represents the
total electrostatic component of inhibitor binding. PBtotal is the sum of all energies and represents the total free energy
of binding uncorrected for the entropic contribution of the inhibitor
moving from solution to the active site.This approach comes to within 0.8 kcal/mol of estimating
the ΔG of binding to eNOS and also shows that
the primary difference
between eNOS and nNOS is the more favorable electrostatic interactions
between the inhibitor and nNOS than those in eNOS. We attribute this
primarily to Asp597 in nNOS vs Asn368 in eNOS, even though Asp597
does not directly contact the inhibitor. If the active site pocket
exhibits a relatively low dielectric milieu, then long-range electrostatic
stabilization by Asp597 on both the aminomethyl group and the central
pyridine of 8 could be
quite substantial. However, when the binding of 8 to eNOS is forced into the same double-headed
mode as that with nNOS, the penalty toward electrostatic interactions
leads to poorer binding and, therefore, higher isoform selectivity.
Conclusions
A series of α-amino functionalized aminopyridine
derivatives
(3–8) were designed based on the
comparison and rationale that the pyrrolidine of lead 1, interacting with a heme propionate and H4B, is the key
to isoform selectivity. Therefore, an α-amino or aminomethyl
group has been installed in the other lead (2) to probe
the structure–selectivity relationship, while providing a substantially
simple scaffold that retains selectivity (Figure 1). In general, the symmetric double-headed aminopyridine compounds
(3 and 4) showed better potency than the
asymmetric one (5) because the former can establish H-bonds
through both head groups. Although a simple α-amino group installed
on the side chain can stabilize the double-headed inhibitor binding
mode, only the aminomethyl group is long enough to reach a water site.
By replacing the water molecule, the inhibitor is able to make H-bonds
with both the H4B and the propionate of the heme A-ring.
These interactions seem to be crucial to gain the isoform selectivity
for the inhibitors. Compound 8, the best inhibitor discovered in this study, exhibits excellent
nNOS potency (24 nM) and isoform selectivity (273-fold for i/n and
2822-fold for e/n). It also showed <100 nM potency for humannNOS.
However, the crystal structures of 8 complexed with nNOS and eNOS share an almost identical
binding mode, which is similar to what was observed with parent compound 1.[22] A free energy calculation
indicated that the different electrostatic environments in the active
site of the two NOS isoforms give rise to the isoform distinct binding
affinity, even for inhibitors that exhibit the same binding mode.
The knowledge gained by this study will provide the basis for the
design of further novel and isoform-selective inhibitors.
Experimental Section
Materials, Synthetic Methods, and Molecular
Characterization
All starting reagents and solvents were
purchased from Sigma-Aldrich,
TCI America, and Matrix Scientific and were used without further purification.
Solvents were purified by passage through a solvent column composed
of activated alumina and a supported copper redox catalyst. Moisture
or oxygen-sensitive reactions were performed under an atmosphere of
dry N2 or argon. A Biotage Initiator microwave system was
used for microwave-assisted reactions. Thin-layer chromatography was
carried out on E. Merck precoated silica gel 60 F254 plates. An Agilent
971-FP flash purification system with various SiliaSep (Silicycle,
40–63 μm, 60 Å) prepacked silica gel cartridges
was used for flash column chromatography. 1H NMR and 13C NMR spectra were recorded in the indicated solvent on a
Bruker Avance-III (500 and 126 MHz for 1H and 13C, respectively) spectrometer. Chemical shifts are reported as δ
values in parts per million downfield from TMS (δ 0.0) as the
internal standard in CDCl3. MS was performed on a system
consisting of an electrospray ionization (ESI) source in a Thermo
Finnigan LCQ and Bruker amaZon SL mass spectrometer. High-resolution
mass spectra were obtained using an Agilent 6210 LC-TOF spectrometer.
The purity of the compounds was evaluated on an Beckman Gold reverse
phase analytical HPLC system using an Phenonemex Gemini C-18 (4.6
× 250 mm, 5 μm) or Luna C-8 (4.6 × 250 mm, 5 μm)
reverse phase columns with UV absorbance and evaporative light scattering
detection. Purities of all compounds that were subjected to the biological
assay were >95%. The direct chiral resolutions of racemic 8 and 8 were performed on a Beckman Gold HPLC system
using a Chiralcel
OD-H HPLC column (Daicel, 250 × 4.6 mm i.d., 5 mm). Hexanes and
isopropanol (85–92% hexanes) were used as the mobile phases.
The operation temperature was 25 °C, and the flow rate was 0.8
mL/min with 254 nm UV detection. Optical rotations were measured on
a PerkinElmer Model 341 digital readout polarimeter.
General Procedure
for the Deprotection of 2-(2,5-Dimethyl-1H-pyrrol-1-yl)pyridine
Derivatives Using Microwave Irradiation:[27] Method A
To a 5 mL microwave vial equipped
with a magnetic stir bar was added the protected aminopyridine (1.0
mmol), ethanol (2.5 mL), and concentrated hydrochloric acid (0.5 mL).
After being capped, the vial was shaken vigorously and then heated
in the microwave irradiator for 20 min at 120 °C (as recorded
via the IR sensor of the microwave instrument). After being cooled
to room temperature, the reaction mixture was concentrated in vacuo
and purified by flash column chromatography using a SiliaSep C18 flash
cartridge (25g, 40–63 μm/230–400 mesh, pore size
60 Å) with 5 to 80% MeOH in water as the mobile phase.
(S)-6-(2-Amino-2-(3-(2-(6-amino-4-methylpyridin-2-yl)ethyl)phenyl)ethyl)-4-methylpyridin-2-amine
(3) and (R)-6-(2-Amino-2-(3-(2-(6-amino-4-methylpyridin-2-yl)ethyl)phenyl)ethyl)-4-methylpyridin-2-amine
(3)
The title
compounds were synthesized using general method A. 3 (55 mg, 58%) was prepared as a pale yellow
gel from 13a (180 mg, 0.26 mmol), and 3 (50 mg, 60%) was prepared as a pale yellow
gel from 13b (160 mg, 0.23 mmol). 3, [α]20D = +72.1°
(c 3 g/L, MeOH); 3, [α]20D = −79.2° (c 2 g/L, MeOH). 1H NMR (500 MHz, MeOD) δ 7.22–7.17 (m, 1H), 7.14 (qt, J = 2.9, 1.9, 1.4 Hz, 2H), 7.05 (dt, J =
7.4, 1.6 Hz, 1H), 6.25 (s, 1H), 6.24 (ss, 2H), 6.18 (s, 1H), 4.21
(t, J = 7.1 Hz, 1H), 2.89 (dd, J = 9.6, 6.4 Hz, 2H), 2.81 (d, J = 7.1 Hz, 2H), 2.79–2.71
(m, 2H), 2.13 (s, 3H), 2.11 (s, 3H); 13C NMR (126 MHz,
MeOD) δ 160.86, 160.70, 159.73, 157.35, 151.03, 150.86, 145.85,
143.10, 129.46, 128.35, 127.82, 125.18, 115.89, 114.67, 108.22, 107.92,
57.15, 48.09, 40.64, 37.32, 21.08, 21.05. HRMS (ESI): calcd for C22H28N5 [M + H]+, 362.2339;
found, 362.2338.
(R)-6-(2-Amino-2-(3-(2-(4-methylpyridin-2-yl)ethyl)phenyl)ethyl)-4-methylpyridin-2-amine
(5) and (S)-6-(2-Amino-2-(3-(2-(4-methylpyridin-2-yl)ethyl)phenyl)ethyl)-4-methylpyridin-2-amine
(5)
(S)-6-(3-Amino-2-(5-(2-(6-amino-4-methylpyridin-2-yl)ethyl)pyridin-3-yl)propyl)-4-methylpyridin-2-amine
(8) and (R)-6-(3-Amino-2-(5-(2-(6-amino-4-methylpyridin-2-yl)ethyl)pyridin-3-yl)propyl)-4-methylpyridin-2-amine
(8)
To a solution of 9 (1.0 g,
5.0 mmol) in THF (25 mL) was added n-BuLi (1.6 M
solution in hexanes, 3.12 mL, 5.0 mmol), and the reaction was stirred
for 30 min at 0 °C. This mixture was transferred to a solution
of 3-(bromomethyl)benzaldehyde (10, 396 mg, 2.0 mmol)
in THF (25 mL) at −78 °C via a cannula. The reaction mixture
was allowed to stir for an additional 20 min and then quenched with
H2O (50 mL). After the addition of ethyl acetate (50 mL),
the organic layer was partitioned, dried with MgSO4, and
concentrated by rotary evaporation. The resulting yellow oil was purified
by flash chromatography (EtOAc/hexanes) to yield 2,5-dimethylpyrrole-protected
product 11 as a yellow oil (663 mg, 64%). 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.33–7.25 (m, 3H),
7.14–7.09 (m, 1H), 6.99 (s, 1H), 6.95 (s, 2H), 6.89 (s, 1H),
5.93 (s, 2H), 5.91 (s, 2H), 5.15 (m, 1H), 3.17 (m, 2H), 3.10 (m, 4H),
2.42 (s, 3H), 2.40 (s, 3H), 2.18 (s, 6H), 2.16 (s, 6H); 13C NMR (126 MHz, CDCl3) δ 161.01, 159.29, 151.62,
151.13, 150.28, 149.53, 143.99, 141.63, 128.56, 128.50, 128.40, 127.51,
125.97, 123.52, 123.46, 122.67, 120.77, 120.10, 106.93, 106.68, 73.25,
45.73, 39.78, 36.64, 35.98, 24.72, 21.10, 13.31; MS (ESI) m/z 519.32 [M + H]+.
To a stirred solution of triphenylphosphine (314 mg, 1.2 mmol) and
diethylazodicarboxylate (210 mg, 1.2 mmol) in dry THF (15 mL), diphenylphosphonyl
azide (331 mg, 1.2 mmol) was added dropwise followed by a THF solution
of 11 (518 mg, 1.0 mmol). After stirring for 1 h at room
temperature, the reaction mixture was concentrated in vacuo and purified
by flash column chromatography to yield the title compound (522 mg,
96%) as a colorless oil. 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.30 (t, J = 7.9 Hz, 2H), 7.22–7.15
(m, 3H), 6.99 (s, 1H), 6.94 (s, 1H), 6.92 (s, 1H), 6.89 (s, 1H), 5.94
(s, 2H), 5.92 (s, 2H), 5.12 (t, J = 7.3 Hz, 1H),
3.16 (d, J = 7.4 Hz, 2H), 3.10 (s, 4H), 2.38 (s,
3H), 2.16 (ss, 12H); 13C NMR (126 MHz, CDCl3) δ 160.66, 157.25, 151.78, 151.67, 149.86, 149.52, 142.22,
139.42, 128.84, 128.52, 128.48, 126.94, 124.55, 123.86, 122.67, 120.85,
120.13, 106.80, 106.70, 65.75, 44.75, 39.66, 35.79, 21.05, 20.99,
13.29, 13.25; MS (ESI) m/z 544.21
[M + H]+.
(1S,4S)-N-((S)-2-(6-(2,5-Dimethyl-1H-pyrrol-1-yl)-4-methylpyridin-2-yl)-1-(3-(2-(6-(2,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrrol-1-yl)-4-methylpyridin-2-yl)ethyl)phenyl)ethyl)-4,7,7-trimethyl-3-oxo-2-oxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-1-carboxamide
(13a) and (1S,4S)-N-((R)-2-(6-(2,5-Dimethyl-1H-pyrrol-1-yl)-4-methylpyridin-2-yl)-1-(3-(2-(6-(2,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrrol-1-yl)-4-methylpyridin-2-yl)ethyl)phenyl)ethyl)-4,7,7-trimethyl-3-oxo-2-oxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-1-carboxamide
(13b)
To the solution of 12 (500
mg, 0.92 mmol) in THF (25 mL) was added dropwise a 1.0 M solution
of LiAlH4 in THF (1.4 mL, 1.4 mmol) at 0 °C. After
being stirred for 3 h at the same temperature, the reaction mixture
was allowed to warm to room temperature, and the reaction was quenched
by sequential addition of i-PrOH (1 mL), water (15 mL), and then 1
M NaOH aq (10 mL). The organic materials were extracted with ethyl
acetate (25 mL) three times, and the combined organic layers were
washed with brine, dried over anhydrous MgSO4, and then
concentrated in vacuo to yield a crude amine (2-(6-(2,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrrol-1-yl)-4-methylpyridin-2-yl)-1-(3-(2-(6-(2,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrrol-1-yl)-4-methylpyridin-2-yl)ethyl)phenyl)ethan-1-amine).
To the solution of the produced amine in dichloromethane (25 mL) was
added (S)-camphamic chloride (325 mg, 1.5 mmol) and
triethylamine (0.279 mL, 2.0 mmol) at 0 °C. After being stirred
for 12 h at room temp, the reaction mixture was quenched with H2O (50 mL). After the addition of dichloromethane (25 mL),
the organic layer was partitioned, dried with MgSO4, concentrated
by rotary evaporation, and purified by flash chromatography (EtOAc/hexanes)
to yield diastereomeric pure compounds 13a (180 mg, 28%)
and 13b (161 mg, 25%) as a pale yellow oil. 13a: 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.19 (t, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H), 7.14 (t, J = 1.8 Hz, 1H),
7.11 (dt, J = 7.6, 1.5 Hz, 1H), 7.06 (dt, J = 7.5, 1.4 Hz, 1H), 6.98 (d, J = 8.4
Hz, 1H), 6.93 (s, 1H), 6.92 (s, 1H), 6.84 (ss, 2H), 5.87 (s, 2H),
5.86 (s, 2H), 5.51 (td, J = 8.7, 5.8 Hz, 1H), 3.26
(dd, J = 14.0, 5.9 Hz, 1H), 3.17 (dd, J = 14.0, 9.0 Hz, 1H), 3.01 (q, J = 2.5, 1.8 Hz,
4H), 2.40 (ddd, J = 13.4, 10.4, 4.1 Hz, 1H), 2.36
(s, 3H), 2.31 (s, 3H), 2.11 (s, 6H), 2.06 (s, 6H), 1.90–1.73
(m, 2H), 1.61 (ddd, J = 12.7, 8.9, 4.2 Hz, 1H), 1.04
(s, 3H), 0.97 (s, 3H), 0.57 (s, 3H); 13C NMR (126 MHz,
CDCl3) δ 178.24, 165.99, 160.78, 157.36, 151.82,
151.54, 149.74, 142.05, 141.27, 128.80, 128.51, 128.49, 127.75, 126.68,
124.04, 123.29, 122.58, 120.64, 120.12, 106.85, 106.73, 92.49, 55.28,
53.72, 53.23, 44.37, 39.63, 35.88, 30.27, 29.03, 21.04, 20.95, 16.61,
16.18, 13.36, 13.30, 9.72; MS (ESI) m/z 720.36 [M + Na]+. 13b: 1H NMR
(500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.16 (t, J =
7.6 Hz, 1H), 7.14–7.09 (m, 2H), 7.06 (dd, J = 7.7, 1.6 Hz, 1H), 7.03 (dt, J = 7.6, 1.4 Hz,
1H), 6.89 (s, 2H), 6.84 (s, 2H), 5.87 (s, 2H), 5.84 (s, 2H), 5.44
(td, J = 8.2, 6.1 Hz, 1H), 3.27 (dd, J = 14.0, 6.1 Hz, 1H), 3.20 (dd, J = 14.0, 8.3 Hz,
1H), 2.98 (d, J = 2.0 Hz, 4H), 2.40–2.34 (m,
4H), 2.32 (s, 3H), 2.11 (s, 6H), 2.04 (s, 6H), 1.85 (ddd, J = 13.0, 10.8, 4.2 Hz, 1H), 1.67 (ddd, J = 13.0, 9.3, 4.1 Hz, 1H), 1.59 (ddd, J = 13.2,
9.3, 3.8 Hz, 1H), 1.04 (s, 3H), 0.98 (s, 3H), 0.74 (s, 3H); 13C NMR (126 MHz, CDCl3) δ 178.22, 166.28, 160.74,
157.33, 151.67, 149.73, 141.92, 141.45, 128.66, 128.49, 127.63, 126.64,
124.05, 123.42, 122.51, 120.77, 120.12, 106.75, 106.70, 92.30, 55.25,
54.01, 53.37, 43.95, 39.64, 35.87, 30.23, 29.06, 21.04, 21.01, 16.69,
16.43, 13.30, 13.24, 9.69; MS (ESI) m/z 720.37 [M + Na]+.
To a solution of 14 (0.804
g, 7.5 mmol) in
dry THF (30 mL) was added n-BuLi (1.6 M solution
in hexanes, 4.68 mL, 7.5 mmol), and the reaction was stirred for 30
min at 0 °C. This solution (red color) was added dropwise to
a solution of 3-(bromomethyl)benzonitrile (15, 1.16 g,
6.0 mmol) in THF (20 mL) at −78 °C using a cannula, until
the solution became pale red. The reaction mixture was allowed to
stir for an additional 20 min and then quenched with H2O (50 mL). After the addition of ethyl acetate (100 mL), the organic
layer was partitioned, dried with MgSO4, and concentrated
in vacuo. The resulting yellow oil was purified by flash chromatography
(EtOAc/hexanes) to yield the title compound as a yellow oil (680 mg,
51%). 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 8.40 (d, J = 5.0 Hz, 1H), 7.52–7.39 (m, 3H), 7.36 (t, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H), 6.96 (dd, J = 5.1, 1.5
Hz, 1H), 6.89 (d, J = 1.6 Hz, 1H), 3.19–2.94
(m, 4H), 2.30 (s, 3H); 13C NMR (126 MHz, CDCl3) δ 159.85, 149.15, 147.57, 143.05, 133.15, 132.02, 129.78,
129.12, 123.96, 122.49, 119.04, 112.24, 39.44, 35.32, 20.97; MS (ESI) m/z 222.97 [M + H]+.
To a solution of 16 (660 mg,
2.94 mmol) in
dichloromethane (30 mL) was added 1.0 M solution of DIBAL in toluene
(8.8 mL, 8.8 mmol) at 0 °C, and it was stirred for 3 h. The reaction
mixture was then quenched with MeOH (3 mL) and water (25 mL). The
mixture was warmed to ambient temperature, stirred for 30 min, and
diluted with CH2Cl2 (50 mL). The organic layer
was washed with Rochelle’s solution and brine, dried over MgSO4, and concentrated in vacuo. The resulting residue was purified
by flash chromatography (EtOAc/hexanes) to yield the title compound
as a yellow oil (350 mg, 53%). 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 10.01 (s, 1H), 8.44 (d, J = 5.0
Hz, 1H), 7.77–7.68 (m, 2H), 7.52–7.42 (m, 2H), 6.98
(dd, J = 5.2, 1.6 Hz, 1H), 6.93 (s, 1H), 3.21–3.13
(m, 2H), 3.13–3.05 (m, 2H), 2.32 (s, 3H); 13C NMR
(126 MHz, CDCl3) δ 192.58, 160.31, 149.17, 147.49,
142.80, 136.55, 134.81, 129.59, 129.03, 127.69, 123.94, 122.39, 39.79,
35.61, 21.00.
To a solution of (S)-tert-butanesulfinamide (0.210 g, 1.7 mmol) in THF (5 mL)
was added 17 (350 mg, 1.55 mmol) followed by Ti(OEt)4 (0.70 g, 3 mmol). The reaction solution was stirred overnight
at room temperature (16 h), and then the reaction was quenched by
the slow addition of saturated aqueous NaHCO3 (10 mL).
The resulting mixture was diluted with EtOAc (20 mL) and filtered
through Celite, and the Celite pad was washed with EtOAc (20 mL).
The organic layers were partitioned, dried over MgSO4,
and concentrated in vacuo. The residue was purified by silica gel
chromatography (EtOAc/hexanes) to give the title compound (361 mg,
71% yield) as a pale yellow solid. 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 8.56 (s, 1H), 8.43 (d, J = 5.0
Hz, 1H), 7.70 (d, J = 1.6 Hz, 1H), 7.67 (dt, J = 6.9, 1.8 Hz, 1H), 7.43–7.34 (m, 2H), 6.96 (dd, J = 5.0, 1.6 Hz, 1H), 6.94 (s, 1H), 3.16–3.00 (m,
4H), 2.31 (s, 3H), 1.28 (s, 9H); 13C NMR (126 MHz, CDCl3) δ 162.85, 160.44, 149.12, 147.45, 142.62, 134.13,
132.75, 129.08, 128.98, 127.46, 123.95, 122.36, 57.77, 39.87, 35.75,
22.63, 20.99; MS (ESI) m/z 329.35
[M + H]+.
(S)-N-((R)-2-(6-(2,5-Dimethyl-1H-pyrrol-1-yl)-4-methylpyridin-2-yl)-1-(3-(2-(4-methylpyridin-2-yl)ethyl)phenyl)ethyl)-2-methylpropane-2-sulfinamide
(19a down, major) and (S)-N-((S)-2-(6-(2,5-Dimethyl-1H-pyrrol-1-yl)-4-methylpyridin-2-yl)-1-(3-(2-(4-methylpyridin-2-yl)ethyl)phenyl)ethyl)-2-methylpropane-2-sulfinamide
(19b)
To a solution of 9 (250 mg,
1.25 mmol) in dry THF (15 mL) was added n-BuLi (1.6
M solution in hexanes, 0.781 mL, 1.25 mmol), and the reaction was
stirred for 30 min at 0 °C. This solution was added dropwise
to a solution of sulfonamide (18, 350 mg, 1.07 mmol)
in THF (15 mL) at −78 °C using a cannula. After being
stirred for an additional 20 min, the reaction mixture was quenched
with H2O (20 mL) and diluted with EtOAc (25 mL). The organic
layer was partitioned, dried with MgSO4, and concentrated
in vacuo. The resulting yellow oil was purified by flash chromatography
(EtOAc/hexanes) to yield title compounds 19a (367 mg,
65%) and 19b (62 mg, 11%). The minor product (19b) eluted first. 19a: pale brown oil; 1H NMR
(500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 8.43 (dd, J =
4.9, 0.9 Hz, 1H), 7.25–7.17 (m, 3H), 7.14–7.09 (m, 1H),
6.97–6.94 (m, 2H), 6.88 (s, 1H), 6.87 (s, 1H), 5.89 (s, 2H),
4.92–4.82 (m, 1H), 4.33 (d, J = 4.8 Hz, 1H),
3.47–3.34 (m, 1H), 3.20 (dd, J = 13.9, 6.1
Hz, 1H), 3.02 (s, 3H), 2.35 (s, 3H), 2.32 (s, 3H), 2.08 (s, 6H), 1.10
(s, 9H); 13C NMR (126 MHz, CDCl3) δ 160.87,
158.06, 151.49, 149.57, 149.03, 147.43, 142.08, 141.84, 128.64, 128.44,
127.94, 127.34, 124.90, 123.91, 123.87, 122.24, 120.59, 106.67, 59.49,
56.09, 45.43, 40.14, 36.09, 22.47, 22.13, 21.01, 20.97, 13.26; MS
(ESI) m/z 551.15 [M + H]+. 19b: pale brown oil; 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 8.44 (d, J = 5.1 Hz, 1H), 7.30–7.19
(m, 3H), 7.15 (dt, J = 7.5, 1.6 Hz, 1H), 6.97 (dd, J = 5.1, 1.5 Hz, 1H), 6.95 (s, 1H), 6.94 (s, 2H), 5.88 (s,
2H), 4.76 (ddd, J = 9.3, 4.1, 1.9 Hz, 1H), 3.21–3.09
(m, 2H), 3.04 (p, J = 2.8 Hz, 4H), 2.40 (s, 3H),
2.33 (s, 3H), 2.14 (s, 6H), 1.09 (s, 9H); 13C NMR (126
MHz, CDCl3) δ 160.89, 158.28, 151.28, 150.35, 149.07,
147.41, 142.17, 141.93, 128.58, 128.48, 127.83, 127.62, 125.13, 123.89,
123.57, 122.25, 120.91, 106.50, 57.95, 55.45, 45.58, 40.14, 36.12,
22.59, 21.08, 21.03, 13.27; MS (ESI) m/z 551.22 [M + Na]+.
Compound 21 (600 mg, 1.88
mmol), nitromethane (0.151 mL, 2.83 mmol), and triethylamine (0.524
mL, 3.76 mmol) were dissolved in dichloromethane and stirred at room
temperature for 2 h. After the solvent was removed under reduced pressure,
the organic residue was redissolved in dichloromethane and then mixed
with acetyl chloride (0.134 mL, 3.76 mmol) and triethylamine (0.655
mL, 4.7 mmol). After being stirred at room temperature for 1 h, the
mixture was concentrated in vacuo and purified by column chromatography
to give the title compound (577 mg, 85%) as a yellow solid. 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 8.00 (d, J = 13.7 Hz, 1H), 7.58 (d, J = 13.6 Hz, 1H), 7.45–7.34
(m, 4H), 6.97 (s, 1H), 6.91 (s, 1H), 5.92 (s, 2H), 3.14 (h, J = 3.0 Hz, 4H), 2.41 (s, 3H), 2.15 (s, 6H); 13C NMR (126 MHz, CDCl3) δ 151.74, 149.66, 142.97,
139.23, 137.00, 132.50, 130.11, 129.45, 129.28, 128.47, 128.44, 126.97,
122.67, 120.31, 120.07, 106.79, 106.63, 39.36, 35.36, 21.03, 13.28,
13.25; MS (ESI) m/z 362.45 [M +
H]+.
To a portion of the crude product of 30b (∼0.27 mmol, 150 mg) in 10 mL of dichloromethane
was added Boc2O (109 mg, 0.5 mmol) and triethylamine (70
μL, 0.5 mmol), and it was stirred for 12 h. The reaction mixture
was concentrated in vacuo and then purified by flash chromatography
(EtOAc/hexanes) to give the title compound (110 mg, 62%) as a colorless
oil. The chiral resolution of racemic 30c was performed
using an OD-H chiral column with an autocollector-equipped HPLC system; 30c (100 mg) was dissolved in 2 mL of EtOH, and then 0.1 mL
of the solution per time was injected until the parent solution was
all consumed. The separated enantiomers were collected and concentrated
in vacuo to give 30c-1 (43 mg, Rt = 16.1 min, ee = 98%) and 30c-2 (32 mg, Rt = 23.1 min, ee = 97%). 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 8.27
(s, 1H), 8.22 (s, 1H), 7.42 (s, 1H), 6.93 (s, 1H), 6.90 (s, 1H), 6.84
(s, 2H), 5.91 (s, 2H), 5.89 (s, 2H), 4.64 (d, J =
6.7 Hz, 1H), 3.55–3.37 (m, 3H), 3.35–3.24 (m, 1H), 3.24–3.14
(m, 1H), 3.06–2.93 (m, 3H), 2.39 (s, 3H), 2.33 (s, 3H), 2.15
(s, 6H), 2.07 (s, 6H), 1.40 (s, 9H); 13C NMR (126 MHz,
CDCl3) δ 160.02, 158.72, 155.74, 151.75, 151.64,
149.74, 149.69, 148.28, 147.32, 137.04, 136.73, 135.32, 128.42, 123.41,
122.64, 120.54, 120.33, 106.79, 106.67, 79.38, 45.18, 43.46, 41.36,
39.13, 32.69, 28.35, 21.02, 20.98, 13.30, 13.21; MS (ESI) m/z 654.56 [M + Na]+.
Computational Methods
The MM-PBSA
method, as implemented
in Amber 9.0[28] used in our previous work,
was used to calculate free energies of binding. In this method, the
total free energy of the NOS–inhibitor complex is taken as
the sum of the following energy terms:where EMM = the
total molecular mechanics energy computed with the Sander module in
Amber 9.0, Gsolv is the solvation free
energy estimated from the Poisson–Boltzmann equation, Gnp = the nonpolar solvation energy estimated
from the solvent accessible surface area, and TSsolute = the solute entropy. From a single energy-minimized
structure, the free energy is computed for the NOS–inhibitor
complex, NOS alone with the inhibitor removed, and the inhibitor alone.
The overall free energy of binding is computed from the following
equation:As others have done, the solute entropy
is ignored.[29] Given that the inhibitors
used for these calculations are exactly the same, ignoring entropy
introduces little error. Parameters for the inhibitor and heme were
the same as described previously.[24]
Enzyme Assay
Methods
All of the NOS isoforms were overexpressed
and purified,[30−32] and enzyme kinetics data were determined using the
hemoglobin capture assay (HCA) at 37 °C in a high-throughput
method using 96-well plates. A typical assay mixture for nNOS and
eNOS contained various concentrations of the test compound, 10 μM l-Arg, 1.0 mM CaCl2, 300 units/mL calmodulin (Sigma,
P-2277), 100 μM NADPH, 0.125 mg/mL hemoglobin-A0 (ferrous
form, Sigma, H0267), and 10 μM H4B in 100 mM HEPES
(pH 7.5). A typical assay mixture for iNOS contained various concentrations
of the test compound, 100 μM NADPH, 0.125 mg/mL hemoglobin-A0 (ferrous form), and 10 μM H4B in 100 mM
HEPES (pH 7.5). All assays were in a final volume of 100 μL
and were initiated by the addition of enzyme (approximately 100 nM
final concentration). Nitric oxide-mediated oxidation of hemoglobin-A0 was monitored at 401 nm for 1 min on a Synergy H1 reader
by Biotek. Curves were fitted using the Michaelis–Menten equation
in GraphPad Prism 5.0 (GraphPad Software, Inc.). For Ki determinations, IC50 values were calculated
using nonlinear regressions (dose–response inhibition, four-parameter
variable slope). Subsequent Ki values
were calculated using the Cheng-Prusoff relationship: Ki = IC50/(1 + [S]/Km) (Km values used for ratnNOS, murineiNOS, bovineeNOS, and humannNOS were 1.3, 8.3, 1.7, and 1.6 μM
respectively).
Authors: B I Giasson; J E Duda; I V Murray; Q Chen; J M Souza; H I Hurtig; H Ischiropoulos; J Q Trojanowski; V M Lee Journal: Science Date: 2000-11-03 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Mack L Flinspach; Huiying Li; Joumana Jamal; Weiping Yang; Hui Huang; Jung-Mi Hah; José Antonio Gómez-Vidal; Elizabeth A Litzinger; Richard B Silverman; Thomas L Poulos Journal: Nat Struct Mol Biol Date: 2003-12-29 Impact factor: 15.369
Authors: Maris A Cinelli; Huiying Li; Anthony V Pensa; Soosung Kang; Linda J Roman; Pavel Martásek; Thomas L Poulos; Richard B Silverman Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Jeffrey K Holden; Dillon Dejam; Matthew C Lewis; He Huang; Soosung Kang; Qing Jing; Fengtian Xue; Richard B Silverman; Thomas L Poulos Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Qing Jing; Huiying Li; Linda J Roman; Pavel Martásek; Thomas L Poulos; Richard B Silverman Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Lett Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 2.823
Authors: Soosung Kang; Huiying Li; Wei Tang; Pavel Martásek; Linda J Roman; Thomas L Poulos; Richard B Silverman Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Jeffrey K Holden; Soosung Kang; Federico C Beasley; Maris A Cinelli; Huiying Li; Saurabh G Roy; Dillon Dejam; Aimee L Edinger; Victor Nizet; Richard B Silverman; Thomas L Poulos Journal: Chem Biol Date: 2015-06-18
Authors: Dhananjayan Vasu; Huiying Li; Christine D Hardy; Thomas L Poulos; Richard B Silverman Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Date: 2022-06-11 Impact factor: 3.461
Authors: Paramita Mukherjee; Huiying Li; Irina Sevrioukova; Georges Chreifi; Pavel Martásek; Linda J Roman; Thomas L Poulos; Richard B Silverman Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2014-12-29 Impact factor: 7.446