The development of effective protecting group chemistry is an important driving force behind the progress in the synthesis of complex oligosaccharides. Automated solid-phase synthesis is an attractive technique for the rapid assembly of oligosaccharides, built up of repetitive elements. The fact that (harsh) reagents are used in excess in multiple reaction cycles makes this technique extra demanding on the protecting groups used. Here, the synthesis of a set of oligorhamnan fragments is reported using the cyanopivaloyl (PivCN) ester to ensure effective neighboring group participation during the glycosylation events. The PivCN group combines the favorable characteristics of the parent pivaloyl (Piv) ester, stability, minimal migratory aptitude, minimal orthoester formation, while it can be cleaved under mild conditions. We show that the remote CN group in the PivCN renders the PivCN carbonyl more electropositive and thus susceptible to nucleophilic cleavage. This feature is built upon in the automated solid-phase assembly of the oligorhamnan fragments. Where the use of a Piv-protected building block failed because of incomplete cleavage, PivCN-protected synthons performed well and allowed the generation of oligorhamnans, up to 16 monosaccharides in length.
The development of effective protecting group chemistry is an important driving force behind the progress in the synthesis of complex oligosaccharides. Automated solid-phase synthesis is an attractive technique for the rapid assembly of oligosaccharides, built up of repetitive elements. The fact that (harsh) reagents are used in excess in multiple reaction cycles makes this technique extra demanding on the protecting groups used. Here, the synthesis of a set of oligorhamnan fragments is reported using the cyanopivaloyl (PivCN) ester to ensure effective neighboring group participation during the glycosylation events. The PivCN group combines the favorable characteristics of the parent pivaloyl (Piv) ester, stability, minimal migratory aptitude, minimal orthoester formation, while it can be cleaved under mild conditions. We show that the remote CN group in the PivCN renders the PivCN carbonyl more electropositive and thus susceptible to nucleophilic cleavage. This feature is built upon in the automated solid-phase assembly of the oligorhamnan fragments. Where the use of a Piv-protected building block failed because of incomplete cleavage, PivCN-protected synthons performed well and allowed the generation of oligorhamnans, up to 16 monosaccharides in length.
The advent of automated solid-phase synthesis
approaches for the
assembly of nucleic acids and peptides has transformed the way chemists
generate (fragments of) these biopolymers, and the rapid access to
these molecules has revolutionized the life sciences. The automated
solid-phase synthesis of oligosaccharides is significantly more complex
than the assembly of the other two biopolymers, and as a result, its
development has been significantly slower. Nonetheless, there has
been significant progress in the field of automated solid-phase oligosaccharide
synthesis over the past decade.[1,2] A commercial synthesizer
is now available, and there are continuous efforts to build improved
machines.[3,4] Ever more complex molecules are being assembled
in an automated manner, and recent highlights include the assembly
of libraries of plant-derived branched arabino-xylan and xyloglucan
structures,[5] hyaluronic acid fragments
up to 15 monosaccharides in length,[6] a
50-mer polymannoside,[7] a set of dermatan[8] and keratan sulfates,[9] a set of α-glucans,[10] and a collection
of mannuronic acid alginates, built up to 12 β-mannuronic acid
residues linkages.[11] These synthetic successes
have shown that linear and branches structures can be assembled in
an automated means and that both 1,2-trans and 1,2-cis linkages can be reliably installed using solid-phase
chemistry. The method is especially attractive for the generation
of libraries of oligosaccharides and oligosaccharides featuring repetitive
elements.The key to any successful oligosaccharide synthesis
campaign is
the protection group strategy used. Permanent protecting groups should
be able to withstand all conditions used throughout the assembly route,
while temporary protecting groups have to be removed selectively without
touching any other functionalities in the molecule. The requirements
for protecting groups in automated solid-phase oligosaccharide synthesis
are even more strenuous as they have to withstand glycosylation and
deprotection steps repeatedly, under conditions harsher than those
used in traditional solution-phase experiments, because often an excess
of reagents is used to drive reactions to completion. The introduction
of new protecting groups and protecting group chemistry will be crucial
for the further development of automated solid-phase oligosaccharide
synthesis.We introduced the cyanopivaloyl (PivCN) group as
an attractive
participating group that allows for the reliable construction of 1,2-trans-glycosidic linkages.[12] It
features the favorable characteristics of the pivaloyl ester—stability,
effective neighboring group participation, minimal othoester formation,
and migratory aptitude—while it circumvents the drawbacks of
the parent pivaloyl group—its problematic removal at the end
of the synthesis—as it can be removed by reduction of the cyano
group to the corresponding amine, which can engage in an effective
intramolecular ring closure to cleave the ester function. Thus, removal
of the cyanopivaloyl group can be effected in tandem with the removal
of benzyl ethers, commonly used as permanent protecting groups.These favorable characteristics should make the cyanopivaloyl group
an attractive protecting group to be used in automated synthesis.
To probe its effectiveness in an automated solid-phase setting, we
explored its use in the assembly of a set of oligorhamnosides, up
to 16 monosaccharides in length (see Figure ). These target structures represent fragments
of the backbone of the cell wall polysaccharide of group A Streptococcus (GAS), a Gram-positive bacterium, which
is the cause of various infections (pharyngitidis, necrotizing fasciitis)
and which is found responsible for rheumatic fever, causing hundreds
of thousands of deaths every year in developing countries.[13,14] The GAS polyrhamnose backbone is decorated with N-acetyl glucosamine appendages at the rhamnosyl C-3 hydroxyl.[15] The potential use of this naturally occurring
polysaccharide in conjugate vaccines may be thwarted by the potentially
autoimmunogenic GlcNAc epitopes, and it has been suggested that the
nonmammalian “bare” polyrhamnose backbone, devoid of
GlcNAc groups, may be an attractive structure for a GAS vaccine. Well-defined
fragments of the polyrhamnose backbone will be valuable in the generation
of semisynthetic vaccines and therefore represent attractive synthetic
targets.[16−22] The repetitive nature of these molecules makes them very well suited
for an automated synthesis approach.
Figure 1
Synthetic approach described in this work.
Synthetic approach described in this work.
Results and Discussion
The synthetic
strategy and test case for the cyanopivaloyl group
for the assembly of the oligorhamnosides are depicted in Scheme . In this study,
a commerical Glyconeer 2.1 synthesizer was used for the automated
assembly. The oligosaccharides are built on a polystyrene resin equipped
with a linker system[23] that provides the
target structures with an aminopentanol spacer after global deprotection.
The amine in the linker system is protected with a benzyl and a modified
Cbz protecting group. The Cbz part is connected to the solid support
via a base-labile ester linkage. Disaccharide building blocks were
used in this study bearing an imidate as anomeric leaving group and
a levulinoyl group as orthogonal temporary group, as these functionalities
have proven very effective in various previous automated solid-phase
assembly procedures.[6,11] Dimer donors were to be used
because acyl groups at the axial C-2 hydroxyl of rhamnosides are prone
to migrate to the equatorial C-3 hydroxyl group when this functionality
is unmasked during the synthesis. Partial migration of protecting
groups will lead to complex and inseparable mixtures after several
coupling rounds. Two different dimer building blocks were explored:
the first (dimer 1) carrying a permanent pivaloyl ester
at the C-2 hydroxyl and the second (building block 2)
with a cyanopivaloyl at this position.
Scheme 1
Generation of the
Linker-Equipped Resin
Reagents and conditions:
(a)
TBDMS-Cl, imidazole, DMF, 0 °C (30%); (b) para-nitrophenylchloroformate, pyridine, 0 °C; (c) N-benzyl-5-aminopentanol, DIPEA, DMF, 0 °C (90%); (d) (i) DMTr-Cl, pyridine, 0 °C; (ii) TBAF,
THF, 0 °C (100%); (e) TMSCHN2, MeOH, THF; (f) 11, DIC, DMAP, DCM, then MeOH; (g) TCA, DCM.
Generation of the
Linker-Equipped Resin
Reagents and conditions:
(a)
TBDMS-Cl, imidazole, DMF, 0 °C (30%); (b) para-nitrophenylchloroformate, pyridine, 0 °C; (c) N-benzyl-5-aminopentanol, DIPEA, DMF, 0 °C (90%); (d) (i) DMTr-Cl, pyridine, 0 °C; (ii) TBAF,
THF, 0 °C (100%); (e) TMSCHN2, MeOH, THF; (f) 11, DIC, DMAP, DCM, then MeOH; (g) TCA, DCM.The linker-functionalized resin 3 is obtained
in seven
steps from 1,4-benzenedimethanol, following an improved route of synthesis,
originally developed by Czechura et al., as depicted in Scheme .[23] After silylation of one hydroxyl group (30% yield), the remaining
hydroxyl is transformed into an active carbonate by reaction of compound 9 with para-nitrophenylchloroformate and
reacted with N-benzyl-5-aminopentanol to yield compound 10. Installation of the dimethoxytrityl group proceeded uneventfully,
but because purification of the fully protected linked system from
excess reagent proved troublesome, the TBS group was directly removed.
Compound 11 was obtained pure in quantitative yield over
two steps on 16 mmol scale.Next, the linker was conjugated
to the carboxylic-acid-functionalized
polystyrene resin. Because the loading of the commercially available
resin was too high (2.19 mmol/g), the amount of carboxylic acid groups
was first reduced by treatment of the resin with TMS-diazomethane.[24,25] Afterward, the resulting resin was coupled with the DMT-protected
linker. Removal of the DMTr group was achieved by a TCA/DCM treatment,
after which the loading was determined to be 0.44–0.47 mmol/g.The synthesis of the required dirhamnosyl building blocks is depicted
in Scheme and started
by coupling imidate donor 14(12) and acceptor 15(26)/16[12] using a catalytic amount of
TfOH. This led to disaccharides 17 and 18, which could both be purified by crystallization from hot ethanol.
The thioglycosides 17/18 were transformed
into the corresponding imidate donors by treatment with N-bromosuccinimide in acetone/water[21] and
subsequent installation of the N-phenyl trifluoroacetimidoyl
functionality.[27]
Scheme 2
Synthesis of Donors 1 and 2
Reagents and conditions:
(a) 14, TfOH, DCM, 0 °C (17, 69%, 18, 88%); (b) NBS, acetone/H2O (19, 65%, 20, 89%), then ClC(=NPh)CF3, Cs2CO3, acetone, 0 °C (1, 88%, 2, 79%); (c) NIS, TFA, DCM, 0 °C (20a, 73%), then
ClC(=NPh)CF3, Cs2CO3, acetone,
0 °C (2, 79%).
Synthesis of Donors 1 and 2
Reagents and conditions:
(a) 14, TfOH, DCM, 0 °C (17, 69%, 18, 88%); (b) NBS, acetone/H2O (19, 65%, 20, 89%), then ClC(=NPh)CF3, Cs2CO3, acetone, 0 °C (1, 88%, 2, 79%); (c) NIS, TFA, DCM, 0 °C (20a, 73%), then
ClC(=NPh)CF3, Cs2CO3, acetone,
0 °C (2, 79%).With the
required building blocks in hand, the assembly of the
oligosaccharides was started. As a first research objective, the assembly
of a decasaccharide was targeted, employing the pivaloyl-protected
building block 1. Previously developed glycosylation
and deprotection conditions[6,11] were applied to couple
donor 1 to resin 3 (3 × 3 equiv of
donor, 0.2 equiv of TfOH with respect to the donor, 30 min at 0 °C, Scheme ), followed by removal
of the Lev group (3 × 5 equiv of H2NNH2·AcOH, 10 min at 40 °C). After five coupling/deprotection
cycles, the resin was subjected to cleavage conditions (a catalytic
amount of NaOMe in a mixture of THF/MeOH).
Scheme 3
Automated Synthesis
of Decamers 21 and 22 and Hexadecamer 23
Reagents and conditions: (a)
3 equiv of 1 or 2, 0.3 equiv of TfOH, DCM,
0 °C, 3 cycles; (b) 8 equiv of H2NNH2·AcOH,
pyr/AcOH, 40 °C, 3 cycles; (c) NaOMe, MeOH/THF; (d) NaOMe, MeOH/THF
(25, 9%, 26, 26%, 27, 6%, 28, 9%, 29, 9% starting from resin 3); (e) NaOH (aq), MeOH/dioxane, 40 °C; (f) H2, Pd(OH2)/C, AcOH, H2O/THF/tBuOH (4, 69%, 5, 57%, 6, 27%, 7, 92%, 8, 50%).
Automated Synthesis
of Decamers 21 and 22 and Hexadecamer 23
Reagents and conditions: (a)
3 equiv of 1 or 2, 0.3 equiv of TfOH, DCM,
0 °C, 3 cycles; (b) 8 equiv of H2NNH2·AcOH,
pyr/AcOH, 40 °C, 3 cycles; (c) NaOMe, MeOH/THF; (d) NaOMe, MeOH/THF
(25, 9%, 26, 26%, 27, 6%, 28, 9%, 29, 9% starting from resin 3); (e) NaOH (aq), MeOH/dioxane, 40 °C; (f) H2, Pd(OH2)/C, AcOH, H2O/THF/tBuOH (4, 69%, 5, 57%, 6, 27%, 7, 92%, 8, 50%).The crude decasaccharide 21 was analyzed by LC-MS,
and the obtained LC-spectrum is shown in Figure . A complex mixture was obtained, which was
the result of incomplete glycosylation reactions and removal of some
of the pivaloyl esters. Unfortunately, it proved to be impossible
to remove all pivaloyl esters, even under harsh basic conditions (NaOH
in MeOH/dioxane at elevated temperature (conditions e, Scheme ),[28] and the desired decasaccharide could not be obtained from the complex
reaction mixture (Figure B). The use of pivaloyl-funtionalized donor 1 was therefore not further explored, and attention was switched to
the use of its PivCN counterpart 2.
Figure 2
LC chromatogram of the
crude products cleaved from the resin before
and after prolonged base treatment: (A) 21; (B) 24; (C) 22; (D) 26; (E) 23; (F) 29. Reagents and conditions: (A) diphenyl column,
50 → 90% B; (B) diphenyl column, 50 → 90% B; (C) C4
column, 50 → 90% B; (D) C4 column, 50 → 90% B; (E) diphenyl
column, 50 → 98% B; (F) diphenyl column, 50 → 98% B.
LC chromatogram of the
crude products cleaved from the resin before
and after prolonged base treatment: (A) 21; (B) 24; (C) 22; (D) 26; (E) 23; (F) 29. Reagents and conditions: (A) diphenyl column,
50 → 90% B; (B) diphenyl column, 50 → 90% B; (C) C4
column, 50 → 90% B; (D) C4 column, 50 → 90% B; (E) diphenyl
column, 50 → 98% B; (F) diphenyl column, 50 → 98% B.When donor 2 was
used for the assembly of decasaccharide 22, again a complex
product mixture arose after cleavage of
the products from the resin (Figure C).[29] It was noted, however,
that a significantly larger portion of the PivCN groups had been removed
from the target structures in comparison to the pivaloyl decasaccharide
mixture. This indicates that the cyano group in the PivCN ester renders
the ester carbonyl more electrophilic, as a result of its electron-withdrawing
character, even though it is separated from the carbonyl by two carbon
atoms.[30] This also suggested that the PivCN
groups could potentially be removed by an additional and/or elongated
base treatment. To explore this possibility, the crude mixture was
resubjected to basic conditions, and progress of the reaction was
monitored by LC-MS. The LC chromatogram of the mixture that was finally
obtained is shown in Figure D, and it shows the presence of only two products. The major
product in the mixture proved to be the desired decasaccharide 26, whereas the other minor peak corresponds to the octasaccharide
(25). Purification of the target compound was readily
achieved from this mixture, and the target decasaccharide was obtained
in 26% overall yield after 12 steps (89% per step).Driven by
this success, a hexadecasaccharide was synthesized by
running eight coupling/deprotection cycles using donor 2. After cleavage of the products from the resin, a complex mixture
was obtained (Figure E). Subjection of this mixture to an additional base treatment led
to complete cleavage of all PivCN groups, and Figure F depicts the LC chromatogram of the resulting
mixture. From this mixture, the target hexadecarhamnoside 29 was obtained in 9% yield (18 steps, 87% per step) alongside the
dodeca- and tetradecasaccharide deletion sequences, 27 and 28, respectively.To complete the syntheses
of the oligorhamnosides, all obtained
partially protected oligorhamnosides (25–29) were subjected to hydrogenolysis over Pd(OH)2/C in H2O/THF/tBuOH to remove all benzyl
groups and liberate the alcohols and the amine functionality on the
spacer. Gel filtration (HW40, eluted with NH4OAc) yielded
the fully deprotected octa-, deca-, dodeca-, tetradeca-, and hexadecasaccharides
(4–8) in multimilligram quantities.
Conclusion
We have introduced the cyanopivaloyl (PivCN) ester as an effective
protecting group for solid-phase oligosaccharide synthesis. This novel
protecting group was probed in the assembly of a series of oligorhamnosides,
alongside its pivaloyl counterpart. It was found that cleavage of
the protected oligosaccharides from the resin was accompanied by partial
cleavage of the pivaloyl groups. Complete removal of all pivaloyl
groups, however, proved to be difficult, underscoring the problems
often encountered with this bulky ester. The cyanopivaloyl ester on
the other hand could be effectively cleaved under basic conditions,
as a result of the remote electron-withdrawing cyano group, which
renders the ester carbonyl group more electrophilic. The favorable
cleavage characteristics of the PivCN group in combination with the
favorable properties of the pivaloyl-type esters (minimal orthoester
formation during glycosylations, minimal migration, stability) make
the PivCN group an attractive asset in the toolbox of the synthetic
chemist. Here, it has proven its merits in the automated solid-phase
assembly of GAS-related oligorhamnosides of considerable length.
Experimental Section
General Experimental Procedures
All solvents used under
anhydrous conditions were stored over 4 Å molecular sieves except
for methanol, which was stored over 3 Å molecular sieves. 1H and 13C NMR spectra were recorded on a 400/100,
500/125, 600/150, or a 850/214 MHz spectrometer. Chemical shifts (δ)
are given in parts per million relative to tetramethylsilane as internal
standard. Coupling constants are given in hertz. All individual signals
were assigned using 2D NMR spectroscopy, HH–COSY, HSQC, and
HMBC. IR spectra are reported in cm–1 and recorded
on a Shimadzu FTIR-8300 or a PerkinElmer universal attenuated total
reflectance (UATR; single reflection diamond) Spectrum Two instrument.
Solvents used for workup and column chromatography were of technical
grade from Sigma-Aldrich, Boom, Biosolve, or Honeywell and used directly.
Unless stated otherwise, solvents were removed by rotary evaporation
under reduced pressure at 40 °C. All chemicals were used as received
unless stated otherwise. Reactions were monitored by TLC analysis
using Merck 25 DC plastikfolien 60 F254 with detection by spraying
with 20% H2SO4 in EtOH, (NH4)6Mo7O24·4H2O (25 g/L),
and (NH4)4Ce(SO4)4·2H2O (10 g/L) in 10% sulfuric acid, by spraying with a solution
of ninhydrin (3 g/L) in EtOH/AcOH (20/1 v/v), or by dipping in anisaldehyde
(10 mL in 180 mL EtOH/10 mL H2SO4) followed
by charring at approximately 150 °C. Column chromatography was
performed on Fluka silica gel (0.04–0.063 mm). For LC-MS analysis,
an Agilent Technologies 1260 Infinity LC system (detection simultaneously
at 214 and 254 nm) coupled to a Agilent Technologies 6120 Quadrupole
LC/MS, using an analytical Vydac C4 column (Alltech, 50 × 4.60
mm, 5 μm) or a Vydac Diphenyl (Alltech, 150 × 4.60 mm,
5 μm) in combination eluents A (H2O), (B) MeCN, and
(C) 1% aqueous TFA. For HPLC, a Gilson HPLC system in combination
with eluents A (H2O, 0.1% TFA) and B (MeCN as the solvent
system using a Vydac C4 HPLC column; Grace, 250 × 10 mm, 5 μm).
High-resolution mass spectra were recorded by direct injection (2
μL of a 2 μM solution in water/acetonitrile; 50/50; v/v
and 0.1% formic acid) on a mass spectrometer (Thermo Finnigan LTQ
Orbitrap) equipped with an electrospray ion source in positive mode
(source voltage 3.5 kV, sheath gas flow 10, capillary temperature
250 °C) with resolution R = 60000 at m/z 400 (mass range m/z = 150–2000) and dioctyl phthalate (m/z = 391.2842) as a “lock mass”. The
high-resolution mass spectrometer was calibrated prior to measurements
with a calibration mixture (Thermo Finnigan). MALDI spectra were recorded
on an Ultraflextreme MALDI-TOF (Bruker Daltonics), equipped with Smartbeam-II
laser, to measure the samples in reflectron positive ion mode. The
MALDI-TOF was calibrated using a peptide calibration standard prior
to measurement. One microliter of 2,5-dihydroxybenzoic acid (Bruker
Daltonics) matrix (20 mg/mL in ACN/water; 50:50 (v/v)) was applied
on a 384-MTP target plate (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) and
air-dried. Subsequently, 1 μL of compound water solution was
spotted on the plate, and the spots were left to dry prior to MALDI-TOF
analysis.
1,4-Benzenedimethanol (8.29 g, 60 mmol,
1.0 equiv) was dissolved in 25 mL of DMF and cooled to 0 °C followed
by the addition of imidazole (10.2 g, 150 mmol, 2.5 equiv). A solution
of tert-butyldimethylsilyl chloride (9.13 g, 60.6
mmol, 1.01 equiv) in 40 mL of DMF was added dropwise, and the reaction
was allowed to stir overnight. After TLC analysis showed complete
consumption of the starting material, the mixture was diluted with
Et2O and washed subsequently with H2O (2×)
and saturated aqueous NaCl (1×). The organic phase was dried
over MgSO4 and concentrated in vacuo. Purification using
flash column chromatography (PE/EtOAc, 9:1 → 6:1) yielded the
title compound as a colorless oil (4.73 g, 18.7 mmol, 30%): R 0.39 (PE/EtOAc, 6/1, v/v); 1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.33 (s, 4H), 4.74
(s, 2H), 4.68 (d, 2H, J = 3.1 Hz), 1.67–1.50
(m, 2H), 0.94 (s, 9H), 0.10 (s, 6H). Analytical data are identical
to literature values.[31]
N-Benzyl-5-aminopentanol
Benzaldehyde
(10.67 mL, 104.6 mmol, 1.01 equiv) was added to a solution of 5-aminopentalnol
(11.3 mL, 104.0 mmol, 1.0 equiv) in 150 mL of EtOH. The solution was
heated to 50 °C under reduced pressure until all solvent was
removed. The crude mixture was coevaporated twice with anhydrous toluene,
dissolved in MeOH (200 mL), and cooled to 0 °C. NaBH4 (4.82 g, 124.7 mmol, 1.2 equiv) was added in portions, and the solution
was allowed to stir at 0 °C for 70 min. After being stirred for
another 2 h, the solution was cooled to 0 °C followed by addition
of 4.5 mL of AcOH. A 1.2 M K2CO3 (aq) solution
(135 mL) was added, and the mixture was diluted with Et2O. The organic layer was dried over MgSO4 and concentrated
in vacuo. Purification using flash column chromatography yielded the
linker in 62% yield (12.4 g, 64 mmol): 1H NMR (400 MHz,
CDCl3) δ 7.41–7.15 (m, 5H), 3.78 (s, 2H),
3.62 (t, 2H, J = 6.4, 6.4 Hz), 2.64 (t, 2H, J = 7.0, 7.0 Hz), 1.92 (s, 2H), 1.72–1.47 (m, 4H),
1.47–1.25 (m, 2H); 13C NMR (101 MHz, CDCl3) δ 140.2, 128.5, 128.3, 127.1, 62.7, 54.1, 49.3, 42.0, 32.6,
29.7, 29.1, 23.5. Analytical data are identical to literature values.[32]
Silylether 9 (4.73 g, 18.7
mmol, 1.0 equiv) was dissolved in dry DCM (125 mL) and cooled to 0
°C. Pyridine (3.0 mL, 37.5 mmol, 2.0 equiv) was added followed
by addition of para-nitrophenylchloroformate
(4.53 g, 22.5 mmol, 1.2 equiv), after which the solution was allowed
to warm to RT and stirred overnight. The reaction was concentrated
in vacuo and coevaporated with toluene. The crude compound was dissolved
in DMF (75 mL) and cooled to 0 °C. To this mixture was added N-benzyl-5-aminopentanol (4.78 g, 23.0 mmol, 1.23 equiv)
in DMF (20 mL) followed by addition of DIPEA (4.23 mL, 24.4 mmol,
1.3 equiv) The reaction mixture was stirred overnight, diluted with
Et2O, and washed with H2O. The aqueous layer
was back extracted with Et2O, and the combined organic
layers were washed multiple times with saturated aqueous NaHCO3. The solution was dried over MgSO4, filtered,
and concentrated in vacuo. Column purification (PE/EtOAc, 8:1 →
3:1) yielded the title compound (8.02 g, 17.0 mmol, 90%): IR (neat)
1083, 1249, 1417, 1454, 1681, 1695, 2856, 2929, 2949, 3062, 3387,
3437 cm–1; 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.21–7.10 (m, 9H, CHarom), 5.06
(s, 2H, CH2 Cbz), 4.63 (s, 2H, CH2 Bn), 4.39
(s, 2H, CH2 Cbz), 3.46 (s, 2H, CH2), 3.15 (s,
2H, CH2), 1.41–1.20 (s, 6H, 3 × CH2), 0.85 (s, 9H, 3 × CH3 TBDMS), 0.00 (s, 6H, 2 ×
CH3 TBDMS); 13C NMR (126 MHz, CDCl3) δ 141.5, 138.3, 135.7 (Cq), 128.7, 128.1, 127.5, 126.4 (CHarom), 67.3 (CH2), 65.0 (CH2), 62.9 (CH2), 50.7 (CH2), 32.6 (CH2), 26.1 (3 ×
CH3 TDBDMS), 23.2 (CH2), −5.1 (2 ×
CH3 TBDMS); HRMS [M + H]+ calcd for C27H42NO4Si 472.2878, found 472.2877.
Silylether 10 (7.50
g, 15.9 mmol, 1.0 equiv) was coevaporated twice with pyridine under
an argon atmosphere, before being dissolved in pyridine (160 mL) and
cooled to 0 °C. To the mixture was added DMTr-Cl (5.92 g, 17.5
mmol, 1.1 equiv), and it was allowed to stir overnight. After being
stirred overnight, TLC analysis (hexanes/EtOAc, 4:1) showed conversion
of the starting material to a high running spot. The mixture was concentrated,
dissolved in EtOAc and washed twice with H2O, dried over
MgSO4, and concentrated in vacuo. The intermediate was
coevaporated with toluene, dissolved in THF (160 mL), and cooled to
0 °C. TBAF (1.0 M in THF, 25 mL, 1.6 equiv) was added, and the
green colored reaction was stirred for 5 h, after which it was concentrated.
The compound was dissolved in EtOAc, washed subsequently with H2O, saturated aqueous NaHCO3, and saturated aqueous
NaCl. The organic layer was dried over MgSO4 and concentrated
in vacuo. Purification by column chromatography (Tol/EtOAc + Et3N, 9:1 → 4:1) yielded DMTr-protected linker (10.2 g,
15.9 mmol, 100%): IR (neat) 1031, 1246, 1300, 1417, 1506, 1606, 1693,
2835, 2864, 2931, 3030, 3059, 3415, 3441 cm–1; 1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3, T = 328
K) δ 7.41 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 2H, CHarom), 7.35–7.07 (m, 16H, CHarom), 6.80 (d, J = 8.5 Hz, 4H, CHarom), 5.13 (s, 2H, CH2 Cbz), 4.63 (s, 2H, CH2 Bn), 4.46 (s, 2H, CH2 Cbz), 3.76 (s, 6H, 2 × CH3 OMe), 3.21 (s,
2H, CH2), 3.02 (s, 2H, CH2), 1.69–1.24
(m, 6H, 3 × CH2); 13C NMR (101 MHz, CDCl3) δ 158.6, 145.6, 140.9, 136.9 (Cq), 130.2, 128.6, 128.4,
128.2, 127.8, 127.4, 127.1, 126.7, 113.2 (CHarom), 67.1
(CH2), 65.1 (CH2), 63.4 (CH2), 55.3
(OMe), 29.9 (CH2), 23.8 (CH2); HRMS [M + Na]+ calcd for C42H45NO6Na 682.3139,
found 682.3139.
Synthesis of Aminopentanol-Functionalized
Polystyrene (12)
Carboxy polystyrene (Rapp polymer, 5 g, 2.19 mmol/g, 11 mmol) was
added to a fritted syringe and swollen in 32 mL of DCM. The resin
was purged with argon, after which it was washed with DCM (3×),
alternating DCM and hexane (3×), and DCM (2×). The resin
was dried in vacuo at 45 °C overnight. The dried resin was suspended
in 60 mL of THF, and MeOH (1.03 mL, 25.4 mmol, 3 equiv with respect
to Me3SiCHN2) was added. The suspension was
shaken for 10 min followed by addition of Me3SiCHN2 (4.24 mL of 2.0 M solution in hexanes, 8.47 mmol, 0.77 equiv
with respect to the resin), whereupon the solution turned yellow.
The reaction was allowed to shake overnight, after which it became
colorless. The solution was filtered, and resin 12 was
washed with DCM (4×), hexanes (4×), and THF (4×) and
dried in vacuo at 45 °C.Carboxy polystyrene 12 (Rapp polymer, 5 g, ∼0.51 mmol/g, 2.54 mmol) was swollen
in DCM (60 mL), and the suspension was shaken for 1 h. The solution
was filtered, and DCM (40 mL) was added to the resin. Compound 11 (5.04 g, 7.64 mmol, 3 equiv) was coevaporated twice with
toluene under argon, dissolved in DCM (8.5 mL), with addition of DIC
(1.20 mL, 7.64 mmol, 3 equiv) and DMAP (0.03 g, 0.25 mmol, 0.1 equiv).
An additional rinse with 5 mL of DCM was performed before the resin
was allowed to shake overnight. Then, MeOH (0.6 mL) was added, and
the suspension was shaken again. The mixture was filtered, and resin 13 was washed with alternating DCM and hexanes (4×),
followed by DCM (3×). The resin was dried in vacuo at 45 °C.
Solid Support (3)
DMT-functionalized resin 13 (5 g) was loaded into a fritted funnel and washed with
3% TCA (w/v in DCM, 60 mL) and shaken for 5 min. The orange solution
was filtered, and the procedure was repeated 4×. After the TCA
washes, the orange resin was washed 3× with DCM (60 mL), 3×
with toluene (60 mL), 3× with DCM/MeOH (60 mL), 1× with
MeOH (60 mL), and 4× DCM (60 mL). The resin was dried in vacuo
to a constant weight of 4.22 g.
DMTr Assay (Performed in
Duplicate)
DMT-functionalized
resin 13 (4.1 mg) was added to a 10 mL volumetric flask
and treated with 10 mL of 3% TCA/DCM (w/v). A 1 mL aliquot was taken
and diluted 100× with the 3% TCA/DCM solution. Absorbance read
at λ = 503 nm.A loading of 0.44–0.47 mmol/g
was determined.
Imidate donor 14 (4.00 g,
6.51 mmol, 1.1 equiv) and acceptor 16 (2.70 g, 5.92 mmol,
1.0 equiv) were coevaporated two times with
anhydrous toluene under an argon atmosphere before being dissolved
in distilled DCM (59 mL), and the mixture was stirred at room temperature
for 30 min over activated molecular sieves (3 Å). The reaction
was cooled to 0 °C, and TfOH (0.05 mL, 0.59 mmol, 0.1 equiv)
was added. After 50 min, the reaction was quenched by addition of
1.0 mL of Et3N. The reaction mixture was diluted with Et2O and washed with saturated aqueous NaHCO3, H2O, and saturated aqueous NaCl. The organic layer was dried
over MgSO4 and concentrated in vacuo. A quick column purification
(PE/EtOAc, 6:1 → 1:1) followed by crystallization from hot
EtOH yielded the target disaccharide as a white powder (4.57 g, 5.19
mmol, 88%):[12] mp 106 °C.
To a solution of
mixture hemiacetal 20 and 20a (4.15 g, 5.27
mmol, 1 equiv) in acetone (26 mL) at 0 °C were added N-phenyltrifluoroacetimidoyl chloride (0.98 mL, 6.32 mmol,
1.2 equiv) followed by Cs2CO3 (2.57 g, 7.9 mmol,
1.5 equiv). The solution was allowed to stir overnight, after which
it was diluted with EtOAc and washed subsequently with H2O and saturated aqueous NaCl. The organic layer was dried over MgSO4 and concentrated in vacuo. Purification by column chromatography
(PE/EtOAc, 6:1 → 1:1) yielded the title compound as a clear
yellow oil (3.98 g, 4.15 mmol, 79%): R 0.69 (PE/EtOAc, 2/1, v/v); IR (neat) 751, 1044,
1137, 1119, 1137, 1364, 1453, 1597, 1720, 1741, 2935 cm–1. Spectroscopic data are reported for the major (α) isomer: 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.39–7.18
(m, 17H, CHarom), 7.12–7.04 (m, 1H, CHarom), 6.83–6.77 (m, 2H, CHarom), 6.00 (s, 1H, H-1),
5.38 (dd, J = 3.3, 1.9 Hz, 1H, H-2′), 5.24
(dd, J = 3.3, 2.0 Hz, 1H, H-2), 5.06 (d, J = 2.0 Hz, 1H, H-1), 4.90 (d, J = 11.3
Hz, 1H, CHH Bn), 4.79 (d, J = 10.9
Hz, 1H, CHH Bn), 4.66–4.54 (m, 3H, CHH, CH2 Bn), 4.48 (dd, J = 11.8,
3.2 Hz, 1H, CHH Bn), 4.18 (dd, J = 9.5, 3.2 Hz, 1H, H-3), 3.92–3.81 (m, 1H, H-5), 3.79 (dd, J = 9.1, 3.4 Hz, 1H, H-3′), 3.67–3.57 (m,
1H, H-5′), 3.53 (t, J = 9.5 Hz, 1H, H-4),
3.41 (t, J = 9.3 Hz, 1H, H-4′), 2.72–2.55
(m, 4H, CH2 Lev), 2.54–2.40 (m, 2H, CH2 PivCN), 2.14 (s, 3H, CH3 Lev), 1.39–1.21 (m, 12H,
2 × CH3 PivCN, 2 × CH3-6); 13C NMR (126 MHz, CDCl3) δ 205.8 (C=O Lev),
173.9, 171.8 (C=O Lev, PivCN), 143.4, 138.8, 138.2, 137.7 (Cq),
128.9, 128.7, 128.6, 128.5, 128.5, 128.4, 128.4, 128.2, 128.1, 128.0,
127.9, 127.8, 127.8, 127.7, 127.7, 124.7, 124.6, 119.5, 119.4, 117.1
(CHarom), 100.0 (C-1′), 93.7 (C-1), 79.9 (C-4),
79.8 (C-4′), 77.3 (C-3′), 76.9 (C-3), 75.8 (CH2 Bn), 75.1 (CH2 Bn), 71.8 (C-2), 71.6 (CH2 Bn),
70.9 (C-5), 69.4 (C-2′), 68.9 (C-5′), 41.1 (Cq), 38.2
(CH2 Lev), 29.8 (CH3 Lev), 28.4 (CH2 Lev), 28.0 (CH2 PivCN), 25.0, 24.9 (2 × CH3 PivCN), 18.2 (C-6), 18.0 (C-6′); HRMS [M + NH4]+ calcd C52H61F3N3O12 976.4202, found 976.4205.
Methods for
Automated Synthesis
The washing solvents
were predried 24 h before use on 4 Å molecular sieves and were
of HPLC grade. Activator and deblock solutions were freshly prepared
using the predried solvents. Activator: 0.09 M trifluoromethanesulfonic
acid in DCE. Deblock: 0.12 M hydrazine acetate in pyridine/AcOH (4/1,
v/v).
Method A
Agitation of the resin during washing
After addition
of the appropriate solvent, an argon flow was applied from the bottom
of the RV, suspending the resin in solution. The argon flow was applied
for 15 s, after which the RV was emptied to the waste.
Method
B
Agitation of the resin during coupling/deblock
After
addition of the solvent, an argon-flow was applied from the bottom
of the RV for 10 s, suspending the resin in the solution. After 10
s, the argon flow was interrupted, and the resin was allowed to settle
for 20 s.
Method C
Swelling of the resin
Dry resin was applied to the
RV and washed with DCM (3×), alternating THF/hexane (3×),
THF (1×), and DCM (3×).
Method D
Coupling cycle
The resin was suspended in DCM. The
RV was emptied, followed by addition of the building block solution
(1 mL) while being agitated. The delivery line was flushed with an
additional 0.5 mL of DCM to the RV. The temperature was set to 0 °C
while employing method B. A 10 min pause was started, after which
the activator solution (300 μL) was added, keeping the temperature
below 0 °C. The delivery line was flushed with an additional
0.5 mL of DCM to the RV. Method B was applied for 1 h, after which
the RV was emptied and the mixture was collected in the fraction collector.
The resin was washed with DCM (3 × 2 mL), and the washes were
drained to the fraction collector.
Method E
Deblock cycle
The resin was washed with DMF (4 ×
3 mL), running method A. The deblock solution was added (3 mL), and
the temperature was set to 40 °C, followed by a 5 min incubation
applying method B. The temperature was kept at 40 °C, after which
the solid support was incubated 10 min applying protocol B. Then the
RV was emptied to the waste. The resin was washed with DMF (3 ×
3 mL), running method A.
Method F
Washing of
the resin after coupling
The temperature
was set to 20 °C. The resin was washed with MeOH (3 × 2
mL), alternating THF/hexane (6 × 2 mL), THF (2 × 2 mL),
and DCM (5 × 3 mL), all applying method A.
Method G
Washing
of the resin after deblock
The temperature
was set to 20 °C. The resin was washed with DMF (4 × 3 mL),
DCM (4 × 3 mL), alternating THF/hexane (6 × 3 mL), 0.01
M AcOH in THF (6 × 3 mL), THF (4 × 3 mL), and DCM (8 ×
5 mL).
Automated Synthesis of
Rhamnose Fragments
The reaction
vessel was charged with carboxy polystyrene 3 (100 mg,
45 μmol), and method C was applied to prepare the resin for
synthesis. Then methods D and E for coupling and deprotection were
repeated 5 times for decasaccharide 22 and 8 times to
obtain hexadecasaccharide 23. Method H was used to isolate
the resin from the reaction vessel. The resin was dried overnight.
After cleavage from the solid support, the rhamnose fragments were
analyzed by LC/MS.
Decarhamnoside (22)
The dry resin was
charged in a syringe with a screw cap and suspended in THF/MeOH (2
mL, 1:1) followed by addition of NaOMe (0.08 mL, 0.54 M NaOMe/MeOH,
1 equiv). The resin was shaken overnight. The solution was filtered,
and the remaining resin was washed with MeOH (5 × 4 mL). The
combined filtrate and washes were neutralized with 2–3 drops
of AcOH and concentrated in vacuo. The cleavage procedure was repeated
once to obtain the mixture containing 22 as an amorphous
solid (0.161 g).
Hexadecarhamnoside (23)
The dry resin
was charged in a syringe with a screw cap and suspended in THF/MeOH
(2 mL, 1:1) followed by addition of NaOMe (0.08 mL, 0.54 M NaOMe/MeOH,
1 equiv). The resin was shaken overnight. The solution was filtered,
and the remaining resin was washed with MeOH (5 × 4 mL). The
combined filtrate and washes were neutralized with 2–3 drops
of AcOH and concentrated in vacuo. The cleavage procedure was repeated
once to obtain the mixture containing 23 as an amorphous
solid (0.198 g).
General Procedure for Complete Removal of
PivCN Groups
The crude rhamnoside mixture was dissolved in
THF/MeOH (0.6–2
mL, 1:1) and treated with a 0.54 M NaOMe/MeOH (0.7–2 equiv)
solution. The reaction was monitored by LC/MS and allowed to stir
overnight. An additional 0.54 M NaOMe/MeOH was added when LC/MS analysis
indicated incomplete removal of the PivCN groups. If the deprotection
proceeded slowly, the mixture was neutralized, concentrated in vacuo,
and treated with the conditions mentioned vide supra. Purification
by size exclusion chromatography (LH20, eluted with DCM/MeOH, 1/1,
v/v) or HPLC yielded the target rhamnoside fragments.
Semiprotected
Decarhamnoside (26)
The
crude rhamnoside mixture (0.162 g) was dissolved in THF/MeOH (4 mL,
1:1) and treated with 0.16 mL of NaOMe (0.54 M NaOMe/MeOH). After
overnight stirring, LC/MS analysis indicated incomplete removal of
the PivCN groups, after which the mixture was neutralized with AcOH
and concentrated in vacuo. The mixture was redissolved in THF/MeOH
(2 mL, 1:1), treated with 0.1 mL of NaOMe (0.54 M NaOMe/MeOH), and
stirred overnight. After overnight stirring, 0.08 mL of NaOMe (0.54
M NaOMe/MeOH) was added, followed by 0.16 mL of NaOMe (0.54 M NaOMe/MeOH)
after 6.5 h, whereafter LC/MS analysis indicated complete removal
of the PivCN groups. The mixture was neutralized with AcOH and concentrated
in vacuo and coevaporated once with toluene. The target decarhamnoside
was isolated using RP-HPLC purification (C4 column, gradient 70 →
90, 20 min per run) as a white solid (37.4 mg, 11.8 μmol, 26%
based on 45 μmol resin): IR (neat) 736, 1028, 1041, 1070, 1126,
1207, 1361, 1454, 1496, 1681, 2927, 3030, 3377 cm–1; 1H NMR (500 MHz, MeCN-d3, T = 328 K) δ 7.42–7.18 (m, 84H, CHarom), 5.11–5.06 (m, 4H, CH2 linker-CBz,
2 × H-1), 5.04 (s, 1H, H-1), 4.98 (s, 1H, H-1), 4.87–4.49
(m, 33H), 4.45 (s, 2H, CH2 linker), 4.05–3.95 (m,
8H), 3.95–3.77 (m, 14H), 3.72 (m, 4H), 3.66–3.51 (m,
2H), 3.52–3.34 (m, 9H), 3.32 (s, 1H), 3.21 (t, J = 7.3 Hz, 2H, CH2 linker), 3.06 (s, 5H), 1.53–1.46
(m, 4H, CH2 linker), 1.35–1.24 (m, 7H, CH2 linker, CH3-6), 1.24–1.11 (m, 17H, CH3-6), 1.10–1.00 (m, 10H, CH3-6); 13C
NMR (126 MHz, MeCN-d3, T = 328 K) δ 140.1 (Cq), 129.6, 129.5, 129.5, 129.4, 129.4,
129.3, 129.2, 129.2, 129.1, 129.0, 129.0, 128.8, 128.8, 128.7, 128.7,
128.3, 128.0 (CHarom), 103.2, 103.0, 103.0, 103.0, 102.4,
101.2, 101.0 (10x C-1), 81.5, 81.4, 81.3, 81.2, 81.0, 80.9, 80.8,
80.8, 80.0 (10 × C-3, 10 × C-4), 77.4, 77.3, 77.2 (C-2),
76.1, 76.0, 75.9 (CH2), 72.9, 72.3, 72.2 (CH2), 72.1 (10 × C-2), 69.6, 69.6, 69.3, 69.0, 68.3, 67.8 (10 ×
C-5), 64.8 (CH2), 51.5 (CH2), 30.1 (CH2), 24.4 (CH2), 18.8, 18.7, 18.7, 18.6 (10 × CH3-6); HRMS [M + NH4]+ calcd for C186H221N2O44 3188.5173, found
3188.5121.
Semiprotected Hexadecarhamnoside (29)
The crude rhamnoside mixture (0.199 g) was dissolved in
THF/MeOH
(2 mL, 1:1) and treated with 0.10 mL of NaOMe (0.54 M NaOMe/MeOH).
After 2 h, an additional 0.24 mL of NaOMe (0.54 M NaOMe/MeOH) was
added, followed by another 0.10 mL after 4 h. After overnight stirring,
LC/MS analysis indicated complete removal of all PivCN groups, after
which the mixture was neutralized by addition of 2–3 drops
AcOH. The mixture was concentrated in vacuo and coevapotrated with
toluene once. The target hexadecarhamnoside was isolated using RP-HPLC
purification (C4 column, gradient 70 → 90, 20 min per run)
as a white solid (20.3 mg, 4.2 μmol, 9.3% based on 45 μmol
resin): IR (neat) 750, 1051, 1129, 1454, 1671, 2917 cm–1; 1H NMR (600 MHz, MeCN-d3, T = 328 K) δ 7.39 (d, J = 7.4 Hz, 2H), 7.36–7.17 (m, 129H), 5.12–5.04 (m,
8H), 5.03 (d, J = 1.9 Hz, 1H), 4.97 (d, J = 1.7 Hz, 1H), 4.87–4.47 (m, 60H), 4.44 (s, 2H), 4.08–3.93
(m, 16H), 3.94–3.80 (m, 24H), 3.80–3.63 (m, 8H), 3.63–3.51
(m, 4H), 3.51–3.34 (m, 16H), 3.33–3.24 (m, 2H), 3.20
(t, J = 7.3 Hz, 2H), 3.17–2.79 (m, 9H), 1.55–1.43
(m, 4H), 1.36–1.22 (m, 8H), 1.21–1.10 (m, 29H), 1.09–0.95
(m, 21H); 13C NMR (151 MHz, MeCN-d3, T = 328 K) δ 140.1, 140.0, 140.0,
140.0, 129.6, 129.5, 129.4, 129.4, 129.4, 129.3, 129.3, 129.2, 129.1,
129.1, 129.0, 128.9, 128.9, 128.8, 128.7, 128.7, 128.7, 128.6, 128.6,
128.2, 127.9, 118.3, 103.1, 103.0, 102.9, 102.9, 102.9, 102.3, 102.3,
100.9, 81.4, 81.3, 81.3, 81.2, 81.2, 81.1, 81.0, 80.8, 80.7, 79.9,
77.3, 77.3, 77.2, 77.0, 76.0, 75.9, 75.9, 72.8, 72.8, 72.2, 72.1,
72.0, 69.5, 69.5, 69.2, 68.9, 64.7, 51.4, 30.0, 24.3, 18.8, 18.7,
18.6, 18.6, 18.6, 18.5, 1.8, 1.6, 1.5, 1.4, 1.3, 1.2, 1.1, 0.9; MALDI-TOF m/z [M + Na]+ calcd for C285H331NO68Na 4878.2, found 4884.9.
General Procedure for the Hydrogenation
The oligosaccharide
was dissolved in H2O/THF/tBuOH (3:1.3:1.3)
followed by addition of several drops of AcOH. The solution was purged
with N2 for 5 min, after which Pd(OH)2/C (10–20
mg) was added followed by another purge with N2 for 5 min.
The solution was purged for 5 min with H2 and kept under
a H2 atmosphere overnight. The mixture was filtered over
a Whatmann filter and rinsed with the H2O/THF/tBuOH mixture and H2O.
Decarhamnoside (5)
Compound 26 (19.1 mg, 6 μmol) was dissolved
in H2O/THF/tBuOH (1.6 mL, 3:1.3:1.3),
and 4–5 drops of AcOH
were added. The solution was purged with N2 for 5 min,
after which Pd(OH)2/C (20 mg) was added, followed by another
purge with N2 for 5 min. The solution was purged for 5
min with H2 and kept under a H2 atmosphere overnight.
After overnight stirring, the mixture was filtered through a Whatmann
filter and concentrated in vacuo. Purification by size exclusion chromatography
(LH20, eluted with MeOH/H2O, 9/1,v/v) and analysis by 1H NMR indicated the presence of aromatic signals. The hydrogenation
procedure was repeated once. Purification using gel filtration (HW-40,
eluted with NH4OAc) and subsequent lyophilization yielded
the target decarhamnoside as a white powder (5.3 mg, 3.4 μmol,
57%): 1H NMR (500 MHz, D2O) δ 5.11–5.06
(m, 4H), 4.93 (d, J = 1.8 Hz, 1H), 4.87–4.81
(m, 4H), 4.05 (m, 4H), 3.99–3.93 (m, 5H), 3.91–3.87
(m, 1H), 3.86–3.80 (m, 4H), 3.78–3.70 (m, 9H), 3.70–3.56
(m, 8H), 3.49–3.31 (m, 11H), 2.89 (t, J =
7.6 Hz, 2H), 1.64–1.52 (m, 4H), 1.42–1.29 (m, 2H), 1.24–1.09
(m, 30H); 13C NMR (126 MHz, D2O) δ 102.5,
102.2, 102.2, 101.0, 101.0, 100.9, 99.7, 78.3, 78.2, 78.1, 77.7, 77.6,
77.6, 72.3, 72.1, 71.9, 71.8, 71.5, 70.3, 70.3, 70.1, 70.1, 70.1,
70.0, 69.5, 69.5, 69.4, 69.3, 68.8, 67.6, 39.5, 28.2, 26.7, 22.8,
22.6, 16.9, 16.8, 16.8, 16.7, 16.6; HRMS [M + H]+ calcd
for C65H114NO41 1564.6861, found
1564.6873.
Hexadecarhamnoside (8)
Compound 29 (7.2 mg, 1.5 μmol) was dissolved in
H2O/THF/tBuOH (1.0 mL, 3:1.3:1.3), and
4–5
drops of AcOH were added. The solution was purged with N2 for 5 min, after which Pd(OH)2/C (8 mg) was added, followed
by another purge with N2 for 5 min. The solution was purged
for 5 min with H2 and kept under a H2 atmosphere
overnight. After overnight stirring, the mixture was filtered through
a Whatmann filter and concentrated in vacuo. Purification using gel
filtration (HW-40, eluted with NH4OAc) and subsequent lyophilization
yielded the target hexadecarhamnoside as a white powder (1.8 mg, 0.75
μmol, 50%): 1H NMR (500 MHz, D2O) δ
5.26–5.12 (m, 7H), 5.04 (d, 2H, J = 1.5 Hz),
4.95 (s, 9H), 4.16 (s, 7H), 4.07 (s, 8H), 3.99 (s, 1H), 3.95 (m, 7H),
3.88–3.68 (m, 25H), 3.59–3.43 (m, 17H), 2.99 (t, 2H, J = 7.5 Hz), 1.74–1.59 (m, 4H), 1.52–1.39
(m, 2H), 1.35–1.20 (m, 48H); 13C NMR (126 MHz, D2O) δ 102.4, 102.1, 102.1, 100.9, 100.9, 99.6, 78.2,
78.1, 78.0, 77.6, 77.4, 72.2, 72.0, 71.7, 71.4, 70.2, 70.1, 70.0,
70.0, 69.9, 69.4, 69.4, 69.3, 69.2, 68.7, 67.5, 39.4, 28.1, 26.6,
23.3, 22.5, 16.8, 16.7, 16.7, 16.6, 16.5; HRMS [M + H]+ calcd for C101H174NO65 2442.0369,
found 2442.0361.
Authors: Anna Kabanova; Immaculada Margarit; Francesco Berti; Maria R Romano; Guido Grandi; Giuliano Bensi; Emiliano Chiarot; Daniela Proietti; Erwin Swennen; Emilia Cappelletti; Paola Fontani; Daniele Casini; Roberto Adamo; Vittoria Pinto; David Skibinski; Sabrina Capo; Giada Buffi; Marilena Gallotta; William J Christ; A Stewart Campbell; John Pena; Peter H Seeberger; Rino Rappuoli; Paolo Costantino Journal: Vaccine Date: 2010-09-24 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Marthe T C Walvoort; Hans van den Elst; Obadiah J Plante; Lenz Kröck; Peter H Seeberger; Herman S Overkleeft; Gijsbert A van der Marel; Jeroen D C Codée Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Marthe T C Walvoort; Anne Geert Volbeda; Niels R M Reintjens; Hans van den Elst; Obadiah J Plante; Herman S Overkleeft; Gijsbert A van der Marel; Jeroen D C Codée Journal: Org Lett Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 6.005
Authors: Regis C Saliba; Zachary J Wooke; Gabriel A Nieves; An-Hsiang Adam Chu; Clay S Bennett; Nicola L B Pohl Journal: Org Lett Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 6.005
Authors: Luuk Mestrom; Marta Przypis; Daria Kowalczykiewicz; André Pollender; Antje Kumpf; Stefan R Marsden; Isabel Bento; Andrzej B Jarzębski; Katarzyna Szymańska; Arkadiusz Chruściel; Dirk Tischler; Rob Schoevaart; Ulf Hanefeld; Peter-Leon Hagedoorn Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 5.923