Steven B Dulaney1, Yongmei Xu2, Peng Wang1, Gopinath Tiruchinapally1, Zhen Wang1, Jolian Kathawa1, Mohammad H El-Dakdouki1,3, Bo Yang1, Jian Liu2, Xuefei Huang1. 1. Department of Chemistry, Michigan State University , 578 S. Shaw Lane, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, United States. 2. Division of Medicinal Chemistry and Natural Products, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States. 3. Department of Chemistry, Beirut Arab University , P.O. Box 11-5020, Riad El Solh 11072809, Beirut, Lebanon.
Abstract
Heparan sulfates are implicated in a wide range of biological processes. A major challenge in deciphering their structure and activity relationship is the synthetic difficulties to access diverse heparan sulfate oligosaccharides with well-defined sulfation patterns. In order to expedite the synthesis, a divergent synthetic strategy was developed. By integrating chemical synthesis and two types of O-sulfo transferases, seven different hexasaccharides were obtained from a single hexasaccharide precursor. This approach combined the flexibility of chemical synthesis with the selectivity of enzyme-catalyzed sulfations, thus simplifying the overall synthetic operations. In an attempt to establish structure activity relationships of heparan sulfate binding with its receptor, the synthesized oligosaccharides were incorporated onto a glycan microarray, and their bindings with a growth factor FGF-2 were examined. The unique combination of chemical and enzymatic approaches expanded the capability of oligosaccharide synthesis. In addition, the well-defined heparan sulfate structures helped shine light on the fine substrate specificities of biosynthetic enzymes and confirm the potential sequence of enzymatic reactions in biosynthesis.
Heparan sulfates are implicated in a wide range of biological processes. A major challenge in deciphering their structure and activity relationship is the synthetic difficulties to access diverse n class="Chemical">heparan sulfate oligosaccharides with well-defined sulfation patterns. In order to expedite the synthesis, a divergent synthetic strategy was developed. By integrating chemical synthesis and two types of O-sulfo transferases, seven different hexasaccharides were obtained from a single hexasaccharide precursor. This approach combined the flexibility of chemical synthesis with the selectivity of enzyme-catalyzed sulfations, thus simplifying the overall synthetic operations. In an attempt to establish structure activity relationships of heparan sulfate binding with its receptor, the synthesized oligosaccharides were incorporated onto a glycan microarray, and their bindings with a growth factor FGF-2 were examined. The unique combination of chemical and enzymatic approaches expanded the capability of oligosaccharide synthesis. In addition, the well-defined heparan sulfate structures helped shine light on the fine substrate specificities of biosynthetic enzymes and confirm the potential sequence of enzymatic reactions in biosynthesis.
Heparan sulfate (n class="Chemical">HS) is a class of highly
charged polysaccharides,
which play important roles in a variety of biological events such
as cell proliferation, viral infection, and cancer development.[1−4] HS is made of disaccharide units of glucosamine α-1,4-linked
with a uronic acid.[5] In nature, the backbone
of HS can be extensively sulfated by a variety of enzymes.[6] For example, the glucosamine residue can bear
sulfates on its amine, 3-OH or 6-OH, while the uronic acid including
both glucuronic acid and iduronic acid can be 2-Osulfated. As the enzymatic reactions are often not complete, natural
sources of HS are highly heterogeneous.[7] The structural diversity bestows HS the abilities to interact with
a wide range of biological targets.[4] To
better understand its structure activity relationship, synthesis of
well-defined HS structures becomes crucial to avoid structural heterogeneities
of naturally existing HS.
Tremendous advances have been made
in HS oligosaccharide synthesis
during the past two decades.[5,8−11] Chemical synthesis of n class="Chemical">HS relies on stepwise construction of the
backbone and strategic protection of the hydroxyl groups that will
be ultimately sulfated. Although complex HS structures have been constructed,[12−39] chemical synthesis is still highly challenging and unexpected obstacles
in stereoselectivity and reactivity can rise.[40,41] Thus, continual efforts are needed to expedite the synthesis and
enable the creation of diverse HS structures.[17,28,31,34,42,43]
Recently, enzymatic
synthesis of HS has emerged as a synthetic
tool,[23,27,44,45] which proved highly efficient for certain targets
without the need for selective protection/deprotection. However, one
limitation is that some n class="Chemical">HS sequences are not accessible through the
enzymatic approach due to substrate specificities of the enzymes.
Herein, we report the development of a synthetic approach by combining
the flexibility of chemical synthesis and the regioselectivities of
HS biosynthetic enzyn class="Chemical">mes. The iduronic acid containing HS backbones
were chemically prepared, and a selective chemical sulfation strategy
was developed to create multiple HS sequences. To further diversify
HS structures, enzymatic sulfations were carried out using 2-O-sulfotransferase (2-OST) and 6-O-sulfotransferase
(6-OST). The synthetic HS oligosaccharides were subsequently immobilized
on a carbohydrate microarray to analyze the structural requirements
for HS binding with fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2).
Results and Discussion
Chemical
Synthesis of HS Backbones
Our synthesis commenced
from the construction of HS backbones with n class="Chemical">disaccharide donor 1 as a key building block. 1 can serve as the
nonreducing end of HS. At the same time, it can be readily transformed
to the bifunctional module 2 for backbone elongation,
as well as disaccharide 3 with a functional linker at
the reducing terminal of HS.
The preparation of disaccharide 1 began
from the reaction of n class="Chemical">glucosamine derivative 4(17) and idoside 5(17) (Scheme a). Preactivation[46] of donor 4 with p-TolSCl and AgOTf at −78 °C,
followed by the addition of acceptor 5 and 2,4,5-tri-tert-butylpyrimidine (TTBP)[47] as the base, led to the α-linked disaccharide 6 in 85% yield as the sole anomer isolated. The stereochemistry of
the newly formed glycosyl linkage was confirmed by NMR analysis with 3JH1B–H2B = 3.7 Hz and 1JC1B–H1B = 171 Hz.[48] As the 6-O-p-methoxylbenzyl (PMB) moiety on a glycosyldonor tends to participate
during glycosylation, forming 1,6-anhydro glycan,[49] the 6-O-PMB group on disaccharide 6 was replaced with levuniloyl (Lev), producing the key building
block 1. Direct glycosylation of 6-O-Lev-containing idoside acceptor by donor 4 failed to
give disaccharide 1 in high yield, presumably because
Lev was more electron-withdrawing than PMB, leading to lower nucleophilicity
of the 6-O-Lev-containing acceptor. Removal of the tert-butyldimethylsilyl (TBS) moiety from 1 generated disaccharide acceptor 2 in 98% yield (Scheme a). Glycosylation
of alcohol 7(17) by 1 with subsequent TBS removal produced disaccharide 3 in 77% overall yield (Scheme b).
Scheme 1
With disaccharide building blocks 1–3 in hand, n class="Chemical">glycosylation was performed to elongate
the chain length
(Scheme ). Glycosylation
of acceptor 2 by disaccharidedonor 1 produced
tetrasaccharide 9 in 81% yield. The 4 + 2 glycosylation
between 9 and disaccharide 3 generated the
fully protected HS hexasaccharide backbone 10 (61% yield)
(Scheme a). Analogously,
tetrasaccharide 11 was prepared from the reaction of 1 with 3 (Scheme b). In order to improve the synthetic efficiency, one-pot
synthesis of hexasaccharide 10 was tested (Scheme c). Upon preactivation of 1 by p-TolSCl/AgOTf at −78 °C,
acceptor 2 was added. The reaction temperature was warmed
up to −30 °C over 2 h when TLC analysis showed complete
consumption of acceptor 2. Subsequently, acceptor 3 was added to the reaction, followed by p-TolSCl/AgOTf, which led to the formation of hexasaccharide 10 in 67% yield without the need to purify the tetrasaccharide
intermediate 9.
Scheme 2
Synthesis of Heparan Sulfate Backbones 10 and 11
Challenges in Deprotection and Chemical Sulfation of HS Hexasaccharide
To produce HS oligosaccharides, 10 was subjected to
deprotection and chemical sulfation. Since n class="Chemical">idose was utilized as an
iduronic acid surrogate in backbone formation, the first step in the
deprotection was to convert the idosyl units to iduronic acids. The
6-O Lev esters in 10 were removed selectively
with hydrazine, followed by bis(acetoxy)iodobenzene (BAIB) assisted
2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-1-piperidinyloxyl (TEMPO) oxidation (Scheme ).[50] The newly formed carboxylic acids were protected as benzyl
esters with phenyl diazomethane,[51] forming 12 for the ease of purification and characterization.
Scheme 3
In order to install sulfates, the temporary acyl protective
groups
needed to be removed. This was accomplished by treating 12 with n class="Chemical">lithium hydroxide and hydrogen peroxide, followed by sodium
hydroxide (Scheme ). Staudinger reduction of the azides provided hexasaccharide bearing
free alcohols and amines. However, sulfation of this newly formed
hexasaccharide failed to generate the desired hexasaccharide with
several undersulfated and unidentified side products found in the
reaction mixture. Addition of excess sulfation agents (up to 1 M),
exploration of different sulfation conditions including SO3·NEt3 in DMF, prolonging the reaction time, and raising
the reaction temperatures did not lead to the anticipated fully N- and O-sulfated hexasaccharide.
In order to overcome the difficulty in sulfation, we explored the
alternative of sulfating carboxylic ester containing substrate.[29,36] n class="Chemical">Methyl ester 14 was prepared, and its acyl protective
groups were removed under trans-esterification conditions with sodium
methoxide, producing hexa-ol 15 in 91% yield (Scheme ). However, Staudinger
reduction of the azides in 15 led to several products
due to backbone cleavage. This is consistent with the previous observation
that HS backbones bearing uronic esters were not stable under the
Staudinger reduction conditions.[25] Instead,
the azides in 15 were transformed to amines with 1,3-propanedithiol[29] in 91% yield and the resulting amino alcohol
was sulfated with SO3·pyridine. The subsequent removal
of TBS turned out to be very challenging. HF·pyridine only partially
cleaved TBS, while leading to the loss of sulfate groups from the
molecule. Addition of pyridine to reduce the acidity of the reaction
or performing the reaction at lower temperatures did not improve the
result. The use of other fluoride sources such as NaF or tetrabutylammonium
fluoride (TBAF) was unsuccessful with the recovery of starting terial.
Scheme 4
The difficulty in TBS deprotection from the highly n class="Chemical">sulfated
hexasaccharide
suggested that this transformation should be carried out earlier.
Treatment of hexasaccharide 14 with HF·pyridine
in pyridine removed the TBS group smoothly in 94% yield (Scheme a). The hydroxyl
group freed needed to be protected to avoid its sulfation. To differentiate
this group from the hydroxyl groups to be sulfated, benzyl ether was
used as the protective group. Benzylation of 17 under
acidic conditions with benzyl 2,2,2-trichloroacetimidate[52] was tested first. Despite multiple trials with
several acid catalysts and reaction solvents, no desired benzylated
hexasaccharide 18 was obtained. Next, the basic benzylation
conditions with benzyl bromide and a host of bases were screened.
Strong bases such as NaH and NaHMDS[53] led
to multiple products due to acyl migration. Finally, the hydroxyl
group was successfully masked as a benzyl ether using benzyl bromide
promoted by freshly prepared silver oxide, leading to hexasaccharide 18 in 50% yield (62% based on recovered starting material)
(Scheme a).
Scheme 5
With the newly benzylated backbone 18, deprotection
and sulfation were performed. The acyl protective groups in 18 were removed with sodium methoxide, which was followed
by n class="Chemical">azide reduction with 1,3-propanedithiol (Scheme b). The resulting hexasaccharide 19 was subjected to sulfation. Interestingly, by controlling the amount
of the sulfation agents, divergent sulfation could be achieved. Treatment
of 19 with SO3·pyridine (120 mM, 24 equiv)
at 55 °C for 24 h installed six O-sulfates without
any N-sulfates (Scheme c). This was presumably due to the protonation
of the free amines under the slightly acidic reaction conditions,
reducing their nucleophilicities. The O-sulfated
hexasaccharide was hydrogenated to remove all benzyl ethers, and the
methyl esters were cleaved, producing the fully deprotected HS hexasaccharide 20. Alternatively, the amines were acylated with acetic anhydride
after sulfation of 19. Subsequent hydrogenolysis and
ester cleavage generated the acetamide-containing hexasaccharide 21. In order to prepare the N-sulfated sequence, 19 was treated with 600 mM of SO3·pyridine,
which was followed by catalytic hydrogenolysis and mild base hydrolysis,
producing the N- and O-sulfated
hexasaccharide 22 with an overall yield of 63% from 19 (Scheme d).
The dichotomy in the outcome of sulfation prompted further
investigation.
It should be pointed out that HS hexasaccharides or longer bearing
free n class="Chemical">uronic acids have been successfully sulfated.[12−20] However, in those cases, at most, two sulfates were installed per
disaccharide unit, while, for 13, three sulfates would
need to be introduced on each disaccharide. To better understand the
structural requirements for chemical sulfation, the free uronic acid
bearing tetrasaccharide 23 was synthesized from deprotection
of tetrasaccharide 11, followed by sulfation (Scheme a). The successful
generation of 23 combined with prior observations[12−20] suggests that, for extensive sulfations (i.e., introduction of 3
sulfates including N- and O-sulfates
per disaccharide) of HS oligosaccharides longer than tetrasaccharides,
it is crucial that the uronic acids are protected as carboxylic esters.[29,36]
Scheme 6
Enzymatic Sulfation
To increase the sequence diversity
that can be generated, hexasaccharide 24 bearing only n class="Chemical">N-sulfation was prepared from hexasaccharide 18 (Scheme b). Enzymatic
sulfations of hexasaccharide 24 were explored with two
main O-sulfotransferases, namely, 2-OST and 6-OST.
The enzymatic sulfation reactions were found to be sensitive to substrate
concentration. Trials on backbone 24 using a combination
of 6-OST-1 and 6-OST-3 in the presence of 3′-phosphoadenosine
5′-phosphosulfate (PAPS) as the sulfatedonor proceeded with
very low yields when performed at a substrate concentration of 100
μg/mL.[54] Diluting the reaction to
a concentration of 50 μg/mL while maintaining the concentrations
of enzymes, PAPS and buffer capacity enabled successful reaction (67%
isolated yield), producing hexasaccharide 25 bearing
three O-sulfates, indicating full 6-O sulfation (Scheme ). Performing the reaction at a lower concentration presumably overcame
product inhibition of enzymatic activities. Interestingly, when the
reaction was stopped prior to completion, only hexasaccharides 24 and 25 were observed with no partially O-sulfated hexasaccharides in the reaction mixture based
on mass spectrometry analysis. This is possibly because, once one O-sulfate was added, the subsequent sulfation reactions
proceeded more readily.
Scheme 7
To install the 2-O sulfates, 24 was
treated with n class="Gene">2-OST and PAPS, which led to hexasaccharide 26 containing two additional sulfates in 82% yield. NMR analysis was
performed on 26. Compared to 24, the chemical
shifts of H1 and H2 of the reducing end iduronic acid of 26 were changed little with H1 appearing at 4.78 ppm (vs 4.83 ppm in 24) and H2 at 3.58 ppm (3.59 ppm for 24). The
chemical shifts of the other two iduronic acid residues were significantly
altered. Chemical shifts of H-1s were shifted from 4.90 ppm in 24 to 5.16 ppm in 26 presumably due to the installation
of electron-withdrawing O-sulfates. H 2s were more
deshielded and both moved downfield from 3.64 to 4.22 ppm. On the
basis of these observations, the structure of hexasaccharide 26 was assigned to contain 2-O sulfates on
the nonreducing end and internal disaccharides. The fact that the
reducing end iduronic acid is not modified in 26 suggests
that 2-OST requires additional glycans at the reducing end of the
iduronic acid to be sulfated.[54]
Further
elaborations of 25 and 26 were
carried out. Treatment of the 6-O sulfate bearing
n class="Chemical">hexasaccharide 25 with 2-OST only furnished the starting
material, indicating that it is a poor substrate for 2-OST. When the
2-OST product 26 was treated with 6-OST and PAPS, the
resulting hexasaccharide product 26 was found to contain
two additional sulfates. Through NMR analysis, the H-6 protons of
the glucosamine in the nonreducing and internal disaccharides of the
product 27 were found to appear at 4.15 and 4.30 ppm,
respectively. In contrast, those belonging to the reducing end disaccharide
had chemical shifts of 3.60 and 3.72 ppm. Therefore, the 6-O sulfates of 27 were determined to be located
on the nonreducing and internal disaccharide units. The 2-O sulfations in 26 directed the 6-OST to selectively
modify the disaccharides already carrying 2-O-sulfation.
The results from these enzymatic sulfations suggest that, in biosynthesis
of naturally existing HS, 2-O sulfation most likely
precedes the installation of 6-O sulfates on the
same disaccharide unit. This is consistent with the observations from
enzymatic modification of HS polysaccharides.[55]
Hexasaccharides 24–27 contain
three consecutive n class="Chemical">iduronic acid bearing disaccharides. This type of
backbone structure is inaccessible through the current enzymatic synthesis
strategy. At the same time, it should be pointed out that the disaccharide
units in hexasaccharides 26 and 27 are not
uniformly sulfated. To prepare these compounds via a pure chemical
approach, a new disaccharide module with the potential O-sulfation sites blocked by protective groups different from those
in disaccharide 1 must be prepared, which would increase
the total number of synthetic steps. Thus, the combination of chemical
synthesis with enzymatic modification improves the overall synthetic
efficiencies.
Higher Sulfation and Longer Backbone Enhance
HS Binding with
FGF-2
In order to probe the effects of length and sulfation
pattern of synthetic HS oligosaccharides on their biological properties,
their bindings with n class="Gene">FGF-2 were investigated. FGF-2 is an important
protein involved in angiogenesis, cell proliferation, and tumor development.[56,57] Through direct FGF-2 binding, HS and its highly sulfated form heparin
are known to play a central role in regulating FGF-2 activities.[58]
To increase the speed of analysis of FGF-2
binding, the n class="Chemical">glycan microarray technology was utilized,[59−62] which is a powerful technique for analyzing carbohydrate–protein
interactions including HS studies.[19,63,64] As all synthetic HSglycans bear amino moieties at
their respective reducing ends, the glycans were printed onto an N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS) ester functionalized glass slide
to covalently immobilize the glycans through amide bonds. Furthermore,
serial dilutions of each HS oligosaccharide (from 400 to 3.2 nM) were
printed onto the microarray for semiquantitative analysis of the affinity.
The unreacted NHS esters were quenched with ethanolamine. HS disaccharide 28, heparin, and chondroitin sulfate A (CS-A) polysaccharides
were also added to the slides at the same concentrations.
The HS slides were incubated with a solution of n class="Gene">FGF-2, followed
by washing to remove the unbound protein. The slides were subsequently
treated with a fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) labeled anti-FGF-2
antibody. The binding of FGF-2 with an HS oligosaccharide would enable
the immobilization of the anti FGF-2 antibody on the array and allow
its detection by fluorescence. Slides from multiple sources were examined,
and those from Xantec Bioanalytics were found to give the highest
signal-to-noise ratio and most reproducible results in our hands.
As shown in Figure , the spots with immobilized heparin polysaccharide exhibited intense
signals, indicating strong binding between heparin and FGF-2. In contrast,
despite the presence of multiple sulfates, CS-A polysaccharide gave
little signals, suggesting that the nonspecific electrostatic interactions
between a cluster of negative charges on the microarray surface and
FGF-2 most likely do not play important roles in FGF-2 binding to
array components. Similar phenomena have been observed previously.[62]
Figure 1
(a) A representative image of HS microarray upon incubation
with
FGF-2, which was detected by an anti-FGF2 IgG antibody, followed by
a FITC labeled secondary antibody. Columns 1, 2, 3, and 4 represented
spots printed with 400, 80, 16, and 3.2 nM of glycans, respectively.
(b) Quantification of the fluorescence signals from the microarray.
Additional images are presented in the Supporting Information.
(a) A representative image of HS microarray upon incubation
with
n class="Gene">FGF-2, which was detected by an anti-FGF2 IgG antibody, followed by
a FITC labeled secondary antibody. Columns 1, 2, 3, and 4 represented
spots printed with 400, 80, 16, and 3.2 nM of glycans, respectively.
(b) Quantification of the fluorescence signals from the microarray.
Additional images are presented in the Supporting Information.
Comparisons of the fluorescence
signals from the oligosaccharides
on the array revealed n class="Chemical">HS structural impact on binding. Disaccharide 28, tetrasaccharide 23, and hexasaccharide 22 all bear full N-, 2-O, and 6-O sulfations. Whereas disaccharide 28 did not bind much with FGF-2, tetrasaccharide 23 and hexasaccharide 22 exhibited strong binding, with
the signal intensities of 22 approaching those of heparinpolysaccharides (Figure b). This suggested that tetrasaccharide is the minimum length for
strong binding in this assay.[65] Previously,
an HS disaccharide similar to 28 was shown to bind with
FGF-2,[19] which was most likely due to the
higher glycan concentrations (16 μM to 2 mM) utilized in that
study.
The number of sulfates and backbone sequence are important
factors
inn class="Gene">FGF-2 binding. The seven HS hexasaccharides (20–22, 24–27) contain small
variations in the number of sulfates. However, based on the array
signals, 22 exhibited the strongest binding to FGF-2,
suggesting that full 2-O, 6-O, and N-sulfations are important with the lack of any sulfation,
leading to significant reduction in binding. It is interesting that,
although 27 contains the full structure of tetrasaccharide 23, its binding with FGF-2 was much weaker. This indicates
that the reducing end disaccharide without any O-sulfations
in 27 was detrimental to binding. The knowledge gained
through the microarray studies can be helpful to guide future design
of HS oligosaccharide based probes to modulate FGF-2 activities.
Conclusions
We report a divergent methodology allowing the
access to seven
HS hexasaccharides from a single commonn class="Chemical">hexasaccharide precursor.
An efficient chemical glycosylation strategy was developed to prepare
the HStetra- and hexasaccharide backbones. Difficulties were encountered
in chemical sulfation and deprotection of the hexasaccharide. The
substrate structure and concentration of the sulfation agent were
found to be crucial for successful sulfations. To enhance sequence
diversity, chemically synthesized HS hexasaccharide backbones were
enzymatically sulfated. Besides synthetic utilities, the well-defined
oligosaccharide structures helped shine light on the fine substrate
specificities of the 6-OST and 2-OST and confirm the potential sequence
of enzymatic reactions in HS biosynthesis. The synthetic HS oligosaccharides
were then immobilized onto an HS oligosaccharide microarray, which
was used to decipher the impacts of HS structures on FGF-2 binding.
Both high sulfation and longer sequences were found to enhance the
affinity with FGF-2. Further studies are ongoing to expand this divergent
strategy in order to access a wide range of HS structures.
Experimental Section
General Experimental Procedures
All reactions were
performed under a nitrogen atmosphere with anhydrous solvents. Solvents
were dried using a solvent purification system. n class="Chemical">Glycosylation reactions
were performed with 4 Å molecular sieves that were flamed-dried
under high vacuum. Chemicals used were reagent grade unless noted.
Reactions were visualized by UV light (254 nm) and by staining with
either Ce(NH4)2(NO3)6 (0.5
g) and (NH4)6Mo7O24·4H2O (24.0 g) in 6% H2SO4 (500 mL), 5%
H2SO4 in EtOH, or, for deprotected oligosaccharides,
0.2 g of 1,3-dihyroxynaphthalene in 50 mL of 5% H2SO4 in EtOH. Flash chromatography was performed on silica gel
601 (230–400 Mesh). NMR spectra were referenced using residual
CHCl3 (δ 1HNMR 7.26 PPM 13CNMR 77.0 PPM). Peak and coupling constants assignments are based
on 1HNMR, 1H–1H gCOSY, 1H and 1H–1H TOCSY, 1H–1HNOESY, 1H–13C
gHMQC/1H–13CHSQC, and 1H–13C gHMBC. For NMR assignments, the glycosyl units in an oligosaccharide
were designated as A, B, C, D, E, and F sequentially where necessary
from the reducing end to the nonreducing end.
Characterization of Anomeric
Stereochemistry
The stereochemistries
of newly formed glycosidic bonds for idose and n class="Chemical">glucosamine were determined
by 3JH1,H2 through 1HNMR and/or 1JC1,H1 through
gHMQC 2-D NMR (without 1H decoupling). Smaller 3JH1,H2 (3 Hz) indicate α linkages,
and larger 3JH1,H2 (7 Hz or
larger) indicate β linkages. 1JC1,H1 coupling constants around 170 Hz suggest α linkages,
whereas values around 160 Hz imply β linkages.[48]
General Procedure for Preactivation Based
Glycosylation
A solution of donor (60 μmol) and freshly
activated 4 Å
molecular sieves (200 mg) inn class="Chemical">CH2Cl2 was stirred
at room temperature for 30 min and then cooled to −78 °C.
AgOTf (31 mg, 120 μmol) dissolved in Et2O was added
directly to the solution making sure the solution did not touch the
walls of the flask. After 5 min, orange-colored p-TolSCl (9.5 μL, 60 μmol) was added via a microsyringe
directly to the flask, as the reaction temperature was lower than
the freezing point of p-TolSCl and it would freeze
on the walls of the flask. The color of p-TolSCl
disappeared rapidly, indicating the consumption of p-TolSCl. After the donor was completely consumed, as verified by
TLC analysis (about 5 min at −78 °C), a solution of acceptor
(54 μmol) in CH2Cl2 (1 mL) along with
1 equiv of TTBP was slowly added dropwise along the walls of the flask.
This was done to allow the acceptor solution to cool before mixing
with the activated donor. The reaction mixture was warmed to 0 °C
under stirring in around 2 h. The mixture was diluted with CH2Cl2 and filtered through Celite. After washing
the Celite with CH2Cl2 until all organic compounds
were removed, as verified by TLC, the CH2Cl2 fractions were combined and washed twice with a saturated aqueous
solution of NaHCO3 (20 mL), and twice with water (10 mL).
The organic layer was collected and dried over Na2SO4. After removal of the solvent, the product was purified by
silica gel flash chromatography unless noted.
General Procedure for TBS
Removal
The TBS-containing
n class="Chemical">oligosaccharide (0.54 mmol) was transferred to a 50 mL plastic centrifuge
tube by three portions of 3.33 mL of pyridine. While stirring, the
pyridine solution was cooled to 0 °C. Then, 5 mL of HF·pyridine
was added dropwise to the stirring solution. The reaction was then
allowed to warm to room temperature and kept overnight. After verifying
that the reaction was complete by TLC, the reaction was diluted with
CH2Cl2 and washed sequentially with sat. CuSO4, sat. NaHCO3, and 10% HCl. The organic layer was
dried over Na2SO4, concentrated, and purified
by silica gel flash chromatography.
General Procedure for Benzylation
The oligosaccharide
to be protected (15 μmol) was dissolved in 5 mL of n class="Chemical">CH2Cl2. To this solution were added TBAI (1 equiv), benzyl
bromide (40 equiv), and freshly prepared Ag2O (20 equiv).
The reaction was stirred at room temperature until TLC indicated that
the reaction was no longer progressing (30 min). The reaction was
quenched by diluting with CH2Cl2 and filtering
through Celite to remove Ag2O. The reaction was concentrated
and purified by silica gel chromatography.
General Procedure for Levulinoyl
Ester Formation
A
mixture of the oligosaccharide (1 mmol), 1-ethyl-3-(3-(dimethylamino)propyl)carbodiimide
hydrochloride (n class="Chemical">EDC.HCl 3.3 equiv per OH), and N,N-dimethylaminopyridine (DMAP, 0.1 equiv per OH) was dissolved
in dichloromethane (DCM, 30 mL). To this solution was added levulinic
acid (3 equiv per OH), and the reaction was stirred at room temperature
overnight. The mixture was then diluted with DCM, washed with sat.
NaHCO3, dried over Na2SO4, concentrated,
and purified by flash silica gel chromatography.
General Procedure
for Removal of Levulinoyl Esters
A solution of the oligosaccharide
containing n class="Chemical">Lev esters (56 μmol)
in 2.4 mL of pyridine and 1.6 mL of glacial acetic acid was cooled
to 0 °C. To this was added 27 μL of hydrazine hydrate (560
μmol or 5 equiv per Lev ester). The reaction was stirred at
0 °C for 3 h or until TLC shows that the reaction is complete.
To quench the reaction, 1 mL of acetone was added and the reaction
was stirred at room temperature for 30 min. The reaction mixture was
then diluted with ethyl acetate and washed with 25 mL each of the
following solutions: sat. NaHCO3, 10% HCl, H2O, and brine. The resulting organic layer was then dried over Na2SO4, concentrated, and purified by silica gel flash
chromatography.
General Procedure for Oxidation of 6-OH
The desired
compound to be oxidized (45 μmol) was dissolved in a solution
of 2 mL of DCM, 2 mL of n class="Chemical">tBuOH, and 0.5 mL of H2O. To this solution was added TEMPO (26.5 μmol or 0.3
equiv per 6-OH), followed by BAIB (221 μmol or 2.5 equiv per
6-OH). The reaction was then stirred at room temperature overnight.
After ensuring that the reaction was complete by TLC (1% acetic acid
in ethyl acetate), the reaction was quenched by addition of 2 mL of
Na2S2O3 solution and allowed to stir
at room temperature for 15 min. The mixture was then diluted with
10 mL of DCM and 3 mL of H2O and separated. The aqueous
layer was acidified with 1 M HCl solution and extracted three times
with DCM. The organic layers were combined, dried over Na2SO4, and concentrated. The crude product could then be
protected as a benzyl or methyl ester.
General Procedure for Benzyl
Ester Formation after Oxidation
The crude product from oxidation
was dissolved in 5 mL of DCM.
To this was added n class="Chemical">phenyl diazomethane until a deep red color persisted.[66] The reaction was allowed to stir overnight.
After TLC indicated that the reaction was complete, the mixture was
concentrated and purified by column chromatography.
General Procedure
for Methyl Ester Formation after Oxidation
The crude product
from oxidation was dissolved in DMF (2 mL for
15 μmol). To this solution was added n class="Chemical">K2CO3 (5 equiv per COOH), followed by CH3I (2.5 equiv per COOH),
and the reaction was allowed to stir overnight at room temperature.
After verifying that the reaction was complete by TLC, the reaction
was diluted with ethyl acetate and water. The mixture was then washed
with 0.1 M HCl, followed by sat. NaHCO3, dried over Na2SO4, concentrated, and purified by flash silica
gel chromatography.
General Procedure for Saponification
The mixture of
compound (for 100 mg of compound, 1 equiv), THF (2.5 mL), and 1 M
n class="Chemical">LiOH (13 equiv per COOBn) was cooled to 0 °C, followed by addition
of H2O2 (150 equiv per COOBn, 30%). The mixture
was stirred at room temperature for 16 h, and then methanol (6 mL)
and 3 M potassium hydroxide (80 equiv per COOBn) were added to the
solution. The mixture was stirred for another 24 h, then acidified
with 10% HCl, and concentrated to dryness. The resulting residue was
purified by quickly passing through a short silica gel column (4:1,
DCM:MeOH).
General Procedure for Transesterification
The methyl
ester containing n class="Chemical">oligosaccharide (10 μmol) was dissolved in
2 mL of dry DCM and 2 mL of anhydrous methanol. The two solvents were
dried over 4 Å molecular sieves for 24 h. A sodium methoxide
solution was made by adding sodium to a portion of anhydrous methanol.
This fresh sodium methoxide solution was added to the oligosaccharide
solution until the pH reached 12. The reaction was maintained at pH
= 12 and stirred at room temperature for 2 h. After the reaction was
confirmed complete by TLC, it was quenched to pH = 7 by a 1 M acetic
acid solution in dry methanol. The quenched reaction was concentrated
and purified by silica gel chromatography.
General Procedure for Staudinger
Reduction
1 M PMe3 solution inn class="Chemical">THF (5 equiv per
N3), 0.1 M aqueous
solution of NaOH (3 equiv per N3), and H2O (2
mL) were added consecutively to a solution of azide-containing compound
(for 50 mg of compound, 1 equiv) in THF (7 mL). The mixture was stirred
at room temperature overnight and neutralized with 0.1 M HCl until
pH = 7. The mixture was concentrated to dryness, and the resulting
residue was purified with Sephadex LH-20 (50/50 DCM/MeOH).
General
Procedure for 1,3-Dithiopropane Mediated Azide Reduction
The starting oligosaccharide was dissolved in anhydrous n class="Chemical">MeOH (dried
over 4 Å molecular sieves) and protected from light. To this
solution were added triethylamine (6.7 equiv per N3) and
1,3-dithiopropane (6.7 equiv per N3), and the reaction
was stirred at room temperature for 24 h. After
1 day, additional portions of triethylamine and 1,3-dithiopropane (6.7
equiv per N3 of each) were added, and the reaction was
stirred for another 72 h. The reaction was diluted with a 1:1 mixture
of DCM:MeOH and was layered onto a Sephadex LH-20 column and eluted
with 1:1 DCM:MeOH.
General Procedure for O-Sulfation
The mixture of OH-containing compound (for 5 mg of compound, 1
equiv),
DMF (1 mL dried over 4 Å molecular sieves), and SO3·n class="Gene">NEt3 (5 equiv per OH) was stirred at 55 °C
for 24 h. The mixture was quenched by adding NEt3 (0.2
mL) and then diluted with DCM/MeOH (1 mL: 1 mL). The resulting solution
was layered on the top of a Sephadex LH-20 chromatography column that
was eluted with DCM/MeOH (1:1).
General Procedure for N-Sulfation
A mixture of NH2-containing
compound (for 5 mg of compound,
1 equiv), n class="Chemical">pyridine (1 mL dried over 4 Å molecular sieves), Et3N (0.2 mL), and SO3·pyridine (5 equiv per
NH2) was stirred at room temperature for 3 h. The mixture
was diluted with DCM/MeOH (1 mL/1 mL), and the resulting solution
was layered on the top of a Sephadex LH-20 chromatography column that
was eluted with DCM/MeOH (1/1).
General Procedure for Global
Debenzylation
A mixture
of the Bn-containing compound (for 6 mg of compound, 1 equiv), n class="Chemical">MeOH/H2O (4 mL/2 mL), and Pd(OH)2 on carbon (100 mg) was
stirred under H2 at room temperature overnight and then
filtered. The filtrate was concentrated to dryness under vacuum and
then diluted with H2O (15 mL). The aqueous phase was further
washed with CH2Cl2 (3 × 5 mL) and EtOAc
(3 × 5 mL), and then the aqueous phase was dried under vacuum.
The crude product was further purified by size exclusion chromatography
(G-15) and, for final compounds, then eluted from a column of Dowex
50WX4-Na+ to convert the compound into the sodium salt
form.
General Procedure for Selective O-Sulfation
A compound (8 mg or 4 μmol) containing both free OH and NH2 groups was dissolved in 1 mL of dry n class="Chemical">pyridine (dried over
4 Å molecular sieves). To this mixture was added 20 mg of SO3·pyridine (120 mM). The sulfating agent had been previously
washed with H2O, MeOH, and DCM and dried under vacuum.
The reaction was protected from light and stirred for 24 h at 55 °C.
The reaction was diluted with 1:1 DCM:MeOH and eluted from a Sephadex
LH-20 column, ensuring that all pyridine was removed. The fractions
containing sugar were concentrated and further purified by prep TLC
(3:1:1 EtOAC:MeOH:H2O 1% AcOH).
General Procedure for Simultaneous O,N-Sulfation
A compound (8 mg
or 4 μmol) containing
both free OH and NH2 groups was dissolved in 1 mL of dry
n class="Chemical">pyridine (dried over 4 Å molecular sieves). To this mixture was
added 100 mg of SO3·pyridine (600 mM). The sulfating
agent had been previously washed with H2O, MeOH, and DCM
and dried under vacuum. The reaction was protected from light and
stirred for 24 h at 55 °C. The reaction was diluted with 1:1
DCM:MeOH and eluted from a Sephadex LH-20 column, ensuring that all
pyridine was removed. The fractions containing sugar were concentrated
and further purified by prep TLC (3:1:1 EtOAC:MeOH:H2O
1% AcOH).
General Procedure for Methyl Ester Saponification
The
compound to be saponified was dissolved in H2O (1 mL for
5 mg), and 1 M n class="Chemical">LiOH (15 equiv per ester) was added. The mixture was
cooled to 0 °C. This was followed by addition of H2O2 (150 equiv per ester, 30%), and the reaction was allowed
to warm to room temperature and stir overnight. The reaction was neutralized
with 1 M AcOH and eluted from a Sephadex G-15 column with H2O. To simplify mass spectrometry analysis, the product was then eluted
from a column of Dowex 50WX4-Na+ to convert the compound
into the sodium salt form.
General Procedure for Enzymatic Sulfation
The oligosaccharide
to be n class="Chemical">sulfated (500 μg or 0.4 μmol) was mixed with 1 mg
of the needed enzyme(s) in 12.5 mL of solution. This solution had
a concentration of 20 mM 2-(N-morpholino)ethanesulfonic
acid (MES) and 0.05 mg/mL of PAPS. This reaction was stirred at 37
°C overnight. Another 1 mg of the needed enzyme(s) was added,
and the reaction was diluted to 25 mL, keeping the concentration of
MES at 20 mM and PAPS at 0.05 mg/mL, respectively. After another 24
h at 37 °C, the reaction was stopped. It was concentrated by
utilizing a Q-Sepharose Fast Flow column. The mixture was passed through
the column, which was then washed with 20 mL of 25 mM NaOAc. The product
was then eluted from the column with a solution of 1 M NaCl and 25
mM NaOAc. The product eluted within the first 2 mL, and the column
was further washed with 10 mL of the elution solution and 25 mL of
the 25 mM NaOAc solution. The fractions containing sugar were lyophilized
and loaded onto a P-2 column (2m × 0.75 cm diameter) with 1 mL
of 0.1 M NH4HCO3. Additional NH4HCO3 was added until the loading solution was neutralized. An
indicator, Phenol red (5 μL), was added to monitor the column,
and the product was eluted with 0.1 M NH4HCO3. Tubes containing product were lyophilized at least 3 times to remove
any residual NH4HCO3 to allow for mass spectrometry
analysis.
General Procedure for Microarray Preparation
All solutions
were prepared with nanopure water. Recombinant n class="Species">human basic Fibroblast
Growth Factor (FGF-2) and rabbit antihumanFGF-2 were purchased from
PeproTech (Rocky Hill, NJ), and Cy5 conjugated goat ant-rabbit IgG
(H+L) was purchased from Life Technologies (Grand Island, NY). NHS
coated slides (SL HCX) were purchased from Xantec Bioanalytics GmbH
(Germany). Microarrays were produced using a PixSys 5500 robotic printer
(Cartesian Technologies Inc., California). Oligosaccharides were dissolved
in 50 mM sodium phosphate buffer (pH = 9) and mechanically printed
onto the NHS coated slides at 50% relative humidity and room temperature.
After printing, slides were incubated at 75% humidity and room temperature
overnight. Oligosaccharides were printed in four concentrations (400,
80, 16, and 3.2 nM), and each spot was replicated four times. Two
natural sources were printed alongside the synthesized oligosaccharides.
Heparin (HP, sodium salt, average molecular weight 18 kDa, 177 USP
unit/mg) and Chondroitin sulfate A (sodium salt from bovine trachea
average molecular weight 50 kDa) were both purchased from Sigma-Aldrich
and printed in the same concentration as synthesized oligosaccharides
using their average molecular weights. Slides were washed three times
with water. To quench unreacted NHS groups, the slides were then incubated
in a preheated 50 °C solution of 100 nM ethanolamine in sodium
phosphate buffer (50 mM, pH = 9) for 1 h. After quenching, the slides
were washed three times with water, dried by centrifugation (2000
rpm for 2 min), and stored in a desiccator at −5 °C until
use. For all protein incubations, Lifterslips from Thermo Scientific
were used in concert with 20 μL of solution. Analysis of slides
was done on an Agilent G2565AA Array Scanner.
General Procedure for Microarray
Binding Assay
Slides
to be used were warmed to room temperature before removing from the
desiccator. Protein solutions were prepared by diluting stock solutions
to concentrations of 8 μg/mL with PBS buffer (10 mM pH = 7.5)
containing 1% BSA. An assay was run as follows. Slides were incubated
with 20 μL of n class="Gene">FGF-2 solution (placed between Lifterslip and
slide) and incubated in a microarray cassette at room temperature
protected from light for 1 h. After 1 h, the slide was washed once
with a solution of PBS (10 mM pH = 7.5) with 1% Tween-20 and 0.1%
BSA and twice with water. The slide was dried by centrifugation, then
incubated with 20 μL of rabbit anti-HumanFGF-2 for 1 h as done
previously. The slide was then washed in the same way and finally
incubated with 20 μL of the secondary antibody Cy5 goat antirabbit
IgG for 1 h and washed. After drying by centrifugation, the slide
was imaged on an Agilent G2565AA Array Scanner. The intensities of
the bands were quantified using ImageJ software.
Procedure
for One-Pot Synthesis of Hexasaccharide 10
A
solution of donor 1 (60 μmol) and
freshly activated 4 Å molecular sieves (200 mg) inn class="Chemical">CH2Cl2 (1.5 mL) was stirred at room temperature for 10 min,
and cooled to −78 °C, which was followed by addition of
AgOTf (47 mg, 180 μmol) dissolved in MeCN (47 μL) without
touching the wall of the flask. After 20 min, orange-colored p-TolSCl (9.5 μL, 60 μmol) was added to the
solution through a microsyringe. Since the reaction temperature was
lower than the freezing point of p-TolSCl, p-TolSCl was added directly into the reaction mixture to
prevent it from freezing on the flask wall. The characteristic yellow
color of p-TolSCl in the reaction solution dissipated
within a few seconds, indicating depletion of p-TolSCl.
After the donor was completely consumed, according to TLC analysis
(about 5 min at −78 °C), a solution of acceptor 2 (42 μmol) in CH2Cl2 (1 mL) was
slowly added along the wall by using a syringe. The reaction mixture
was warmed to −30 °C under stirring in 2 h and then room
temperature. The second acceptor 3 (30 μmol) in
CH2Cl2 (1 mL) was added, and the mixture was
stirred for 5 min at room temperature. The mixture was then cooled
to −78 °C, followed by addition of AgOTf (37 mg, 144 μmol)
in MeCN (37 μL). The mixture was stirred for 20 min, and then p-TolSCl (6.7 μL, 42 μmol) was added to the
solution. The reaction mixture was warmed to −30 °C under
stirring in 2 h. Then, the mixture was diluted with CH2Cl2 (20 mL) and filtered over Celite. The Celite was further
washed with CH2Cl2 until no organic compounds
were observed in the filtrate by TLC analysis. All solutions in CH2Cl2 were combined and washed twice with a saturated
aqueous solution of NaHCO3 (20 mL) and twice with water
(10 mL). The organic layer was collected and dried over Na2SO4. After removal of the solvent, the desired oligosaccharide 10 was purified from the reaction mixture in a yield of 67%
by silica gel flash chromatography.
Compound 19 was prepared by
treating compound 18 (12 mg, 4.8 μmol) with the
procedures for transesterification and n class="Chemical">1,3-dithiopropane reduction.
This furnished 7 mg of compound 19, a 76% yield over
two steps. The compound was purified via silica gel chromatography
(DCM:MeOH = 8:1 with 5% triethylamine) after1,3-dithiopropane reduction. 1HNMR δH (500 MHz, CDCl3) 7.38–7.17
(44 H, m), 7.13–7.10 (1 H, m), 5.29 (2 H, dd, J 8, 3.5), 5.15 (2 H, s), 4.99 (1 H, d, J 12), 4.97–4.92
(5 H, m), 4.91–4.87 (3 H, m), 4.86 (1 H, d, J 3), 4.81 (2 H, d, J 11.5), 4.72 (2H, dd, J 11.5, 3.5), 4.66 (4 H, s), 4.64 (2 H, d, J 11), 4.58 (2 H, d, J 11.5), 4.54–4.43 (4
H, m), 4.41 (2 H, d, J 11.5), 4.22–4.15 (3
H, m), 4.02–3.96 (2 H, m), 3.94 (2 H, s), 3.91–3.82
(4 H, m), 3.82–3.75 (5 H, m), 3.74 (3 H, s), 3.73–3.70
(2 H, m), 3.68–3.65 (2 H, m), 3.55 (3 H, s), 3.53 (3 H, s),
3.51–3.34 (10 H, m), 3.32–3.24 (2 H, m), 2.90–2.83
(2 H, m), 1.88–1.78 (2 H, m). 13CNMR (125 MHz,
CDCl3) δ 170.2, 170.14, 170.11, 156.7, 156.2, 141.1,
138.49, 138.43, 138.2, 138.0, 137.8, 137.7, 137.6, 137.40, 137.38,
136.8, 136.6, 128.6, 128.54, 128.51, 128.50, 128.48, 128.46, 128.41,
128.30, 128.28, 128.03, 127.99, 127.95, 127.90, 127.83, 127.81, 127.78,
127.70, 127.64, 127.58, 127.47, 127.3, 127.1, 126.96, 126.95, 126.93,
101.9, 101.4, 101.3, 97.0, 96.8, 82.8, 81.3, 78.0, 75.8, 75.3, 75.00,
74.96, 74.5, 72.7, 72.6, 72.21, 72.16, 71.7, 70.9, 69.8, 69.7, 69.2,
67.5, 67.2, 66.6, 66.1, 65.0, 61.3, 60.8, 55.3, 55.1, 52.4, 52.0,
51.9, 50.8, 50.5, 44.6, 43.8, 27.9. HRMS [M + H]+ C106H127N4O33+ calcd.
1984.8411, obsd. 1984.8417.
3-Aminopropyl 2-Deoxy-2-amino-6-O-sulfonate-α-d-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-2-O-sulfonate-α-l-idopyranosyluronate-(1→4)-2-deoxy-2-amino-6-O-sulfonate-α-d-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-2-O-sulfonate-α-l-idopyranosyluronate-(1→4)-2-deoxy-2-amino-6-O-sulfonate-α-d-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-2-O-sulfonate-α-l-idopyranosyluronate
Salt (20)
Compound 20 was prepared
from compound 19 (6 mg, 2.4 μmol) in 3 steps. Treatment
with the general procedures for selective O-sulfation,
global debenzylation, and methyl ester saponification provided 3 mg
of 20 in 72% yield from compound 19. n class="Chemical">NMR
analysis showed that the anomeric carbons of the three glucosamine
units of 25 gave chemical shifts of 93.0 ppm (3 carbons),
which suggests that the glucosamines were not sulfated. These values
were consistent with literature reports,[67,68] where anomeric carbons of unsulfated glucosamines in heparin resonate
around 94 ppm, while those of N-sulfated glucosamines
typically appear above 100 ppm. 1HNMR δH (500 MHz, D2O) 5.37–5.29 (3 H, m, H-1B, H-1D,
H-1F), 5.15 (1 H, s, H-1A), 5.13 (1H, s, H-1C)5.05 (1 H, s, H-1E),
4.84 (2 H, dd, J 7.4, 1.3), 4.46 (1 H, d, J 1.5), 4.31–4.25 (5 H, m, H-2A, H2C, H-3E), 4.21
(4 H, s), 4.18–4.12 (2 H, m, H-2E), 4.11–4.07 (3 H,
m, H-3A, H-3C), 3.97–3.91 (2 H, m), 3.90–3.85 (3 H,
m, H-3B, H-3D), 3.84–3.75 (3 H, m, H-3F), 3.74–3.68
(2 H, m), 3.66–3.61 (1 H, m), 3.48 (1 H, t, J 9.7), 3.35–3.25 (3 H, m, H-2B, H-2D, H-2F), 3.12–3.03
(2 H, m), 1.96–1.87 (2 H, m). δC (values obtained
from F1 dimension of HMQC spectrum) δ 100.7 (C-1C), 100.5 (C-1A),
99.8 (C-1E), 93.0 (C-1B, C-1D, C-1F), 77.7, 77.3, 77.2, 74.6, 72.2,
72.1, 71.4, 71.2, 70.6, 70.5, 70.4, 70.1, 69.0, 68.6, 68.1, 68.0,
64.5, 56.2, 55.9, 55.0, 40.2, 27.9; HRMS [M]3– C39H63N4O49S63– calcd. 521.0301, obsd. 521.0304.
Compound 21 was prepared from 19 in four steps. 19 was first selectively sulfated
using the procedure for selective O-sulfation, which
was followed by acetylation. n class="Chemical">Next, 5 mg of the sulfated product (2
μmol) was dissolved in 2 mL of methanol. To this was added 30
μL of triethylamine and 30 equiv of acetic anhydride (10 equiv
per NH2 and 6 μL total). This was stirred at room
temperature for 5 h and was diluted with 1:1 DCM:MeOH and eluted from
a Sephadex LH-20 column. The product of acetylation was further treated
with global debenzylation and methyl ester saponification conditions
to produce 2 mg of 21 in 54% yield over 4 steps from 19. NMR analysis showed that the anomeric carbons of the three
glucosamine units of 21 gave chemical shifts of 95.6
ppm (3 carbons), which suggests that the glucosamines were not sulfated.
These values were consistent with literature reports,[67,68] where anomeric carbons of unsulfated glucosamines in heparin resonate
around 94 ppm, while those of N-sulfated glucosamines
typically appear above 100 ppm. 1HNMR δH (500 MHz, D2O) 5.09 (2 H, s, H-1A, H-1C), 5.05 (3 H,
t, J = 4.1, H-1B, H-1D, H-1F), 5.00 (1 H, s, H-1E),
4.83 (2 H, s), 4.43 (1 H, s), 4.28–4.18 (10 H, m), 4.14 (2
H, d, J 10.9), 4.00–3.90 (8 H, m), 3.89 (1
H, d, J 3.5), 3.88–3.80 (1 H, m), 3.71–3.58
(6 H, m), 3.50–3.46 (1 H, m), 3.14–3.05 (2 H, m), 1.98–1.95
(11 H, m, 3 Ac, CH2-linker). δC (values
obtained from F1 dimension of HMQC spectrum) δ 101.2 (C-1A,
C-1C), 100.4 (C-1E), 95.6 (C-1B, C-1D, C-1F), 78.4, 75.8, 73.0, 71.8,
71.3, 68.5, 66.2, 62.7, 59.2, 55.3, 27.2, 26.9 (CH3); HRMS
[M]3– C45H66N4Na3O52S63– calcd. 585.0226,
obsd. 585.0218.
Compound 24 was prepared from
compound 18 (43 mg, 15.7 μmol). Treatment of 18 with the general procedure for saponification, followed
by Staudinger reduction, provided 28 mg of a hexasaccharide intermediate
in a 95% yield over the two steps. HRMS [M – H]−1 n class="Chemical">C103H119N4O33–1 calcd. 1940.7796 obsd. 1940.7793. The hexasaccharide intermediate
(4.3 mg, 2.3 μmol) was then dissolved in 0.5 mL of MeOH and
cooled to 0 °C. The pH of the solution was brought to 9.5 by
addition of 1 M aqueous solution of NaOH. Next, 6.3 mg of sulfur trioxide
triethylamine complex (5 equiv per amine) was added, and pH was maintained
at 9.5 by addition of more 1 M NaOH as needed. The reaction was allowed
to warm to room temperature and stirred overnight. By TLC (3:1:1 EtOAc:MeOH:H2O 1%AcOH), the reaction was incomplete. An additional 2.5
mg of sulfur trioxide triethylamine was added, and the reaction was
stirred for an additional 12 h. The reaction was diluted with 1:1
DCM:MeOH and eluted from a Sephadex LH-20 column with the same mixture.
The product of selective N-sulfation was fully deprotected
by global debenzylation, providing 2 mg of 24 in 70%
yield over the two steps. 1HNMR δH (900
MHz, D2O) 5.26 (1 H, d, J 3.5, H-1F),
5.25 (1 H, d, J 3.5, H-1D), 5.20 (1 H, d, J 3.6, H-1B), 4.87 (4 H, d, J 7.9, H-1C,
H-1E, H-5C, H-5E), 4.80 (1 H, s, H-1A), 4.44 (1 H, s, H-5A), 4.07
(1 H, t, J 2.9, H-3A), 4.05–4.01 (2 H, m,
H-3C, H-3E), 3.98–3.94 (2 H, m, H-4C, H-4E), 3.93 (1 H, s,
H-4A), 3.78 (1 H, ddd, J 10.0, 7.9, 4.7, H-linker),
3.72–3.55 (16 H, m, H-2A, H-4B, H-5B, H-6B, H-2C, H-4D, H-5D,
H-6D, H-2E, H-5F, H-6F, H-linker), 3.55–3.52 (1 H, m, H-3D),
3.49 (1 H, t, J 9.8, H-3F), 3.38 (1 H, t, J 9.6, H-4F), 3.14–3.10 (2 H, m, H-2B, H-2D), 3.09
(1 H, dd, J 10.4, 3.5, H-2F), 3.06–3.02 (2
H, m, CH2-linker), 1.92–1.84 (2 H, m, CH2-linker). 13CNMR (225 MHz, D2O) δ 176.3,
175.7, 103.0 (C-1C), 102.9 (C-1E), 101.9 (C-1A), 97.4 (C-1D, C-1F),
97.3 (C-1B), 78.5, 78.4, 76.2, 76.0, 75.9, 73.4, 72.7, 72.66, 72.5,
71.2, 71.1, 71.0, 70.3, 70.2, 69.9, 69.5, 69.3, 69.0, 68.4, 68.0,
61.6, 61.2, 61.1, 59.5, 59.46, 59.3, 57.0, 39.8, 27.7. HRMS [M]3– C39H63N4O40S33– calcd. 441.0732, obsd. 441.0717.
Compound 28 was prepared from 3. 3 (47 mg, 46 μmol) was treated with the conditions for benzylation, followed
by the general procedure to remove levulinoyl esters. The product
was then oxidized and protected as a n class="Chemical">benzyl ester according to the
procedures for oxidation and benzyl ester formation. Treatment of
the oxidized product sequentially with the general procedures for
saponification, Staudinger reduction, O-sulfation, N-sulfation, and finally global debenzylation provided 9
mg of 28 in 34% yield from 3. 1HNMR δH (600 MHz, D2O) 5.29 (1 H, d, J 3.6, H-1B), 4.99 (1 H, d, J 3.1, H-1A),
4.37 (1 H, d, J 2.8, H-5A), 4.24–4.20 (1 H,
m, H-6B), 4.16–4.11 (1 H, m, H-2A), 4.11–4.05 (2 H,
m, H-6B, H-3A), 4.00–3.95 (1 H, m, H-4A), 3.88–3.76
(2 H, m, linker-H, H-5B), 3.62–3.55 (1 H, m, linker-H), 3.52
(1 H, dd, J 10.1, 9.3, H-3B), 3.44 (1 H, dd, J 10.1, 9.3, H-4B), 3.13 (1 H, dd, J 10.3,
3.5, H-2B), 3.06–3.02 (2 H, m, linker-CH2), 1.91–1.85
(2 H, m, linker-CH2); δC (values obtained
from F1 dimension of HMQC spectrum) 100.5 (C-1A), 98.4 (C-1B), 78.1 (C-2A), 77.6 (C-4A), 72.7 (C-3B), 71.8 (C-5B), 70.9 (C-4B), 70.6 (C-5A), 70.5 (C-3A), 68.3 (C-linker), 68.2 (C-6B), 59.7 (C-2B), 40.2 (C-linker), 27.8 (C-linker). HRMS [M]+ C15H25N2O20Na4S3+ calcd. 740.9748 obsd. 740.9734.
Authors: E A Yates; F Santini; B De Cristofano; N Payre; C Cosentino; M Guerrini; A Naggi; G Torri; M Hricovini Journal: Carbohydr Res Date: 2000-10-20 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: J Schlessinger; A N Plotnikov; O A Ibrahimi; A V Eliseenkova; B K Yeh; A Yayon; R J Linhardt; M Mohammadi Journal: Mol Cell Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 17.970
Authors: Leendert J van den Bos; Jeroen D C Codée; John C van der Toorn; Thomas J Boltje; Jacques H van Boom; Herman S Overkleeft; Gijsbert A van der Marel Journal: Org Lett Date: 2004-06-24 Impact factor: 6.005
Authors: Balagurunathan Kuberan; Miroslaw Z Lech; David L Beeler; Zhengliang L Wu; Robert D Rosenberg Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2003-10-05 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Fan Yi; Xinying Hong; Arun Babu Kumar; Chengli Zong; Geert-Jan Boons; C Ronald Scott; Frantisek Turecek; Bruce H Robinson; Michael H Gelb Journal: Mol Genet Metab Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 4.797
Authors: Maurice Horton; Guowei Su; Lin Yi; Zhangjie Wang; Yongmei Xu; Vijayakanth Pagadala; Fuming Zhang; David A Zaharoff; Ken Pearce; Robert J Linhardt; Jian Liu Journal: Glycobiology Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.313