Kyle R Strom1, Jack W Szostak1, Noam Prywes1. 1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Molecular Biology, and Center for Computational and Integrative Biology , Massachusetts General Hospital , Boston , Massachusetts 02114 , United States.
Abstract
The ability of the biopolymers RNA and DNA to store and transfer information is essential to life. Herein, we demonstrate template-directed replication in a set of dimer duplexes that use reversible covalent bonds to form base-pairing interactions. Binary sequence information was encoded as a sequence of aniline and benzaldehyde subunits linked together by a diethynyl benzene backbone. These dimers formed sequence-specific, imine-linked duplexes, which could be separated and used as templates for the synthesis of daughter duplexes with identical sequences.
The ability of the biopolymers RNA and DNA to store and transfer information is essential to life. Herein, we demonstrate template-directed replication in a set of dimer duplexes that use reversible covalent bonds to form base-pairing interactions. Binary sequence information was encoded as a sequence of aniline and benzaldehyde subunits linked together by a diethynyl benzene backbone. These dimers formed sequence-specific, imine-linked duplexes, which could be separated and used as templates for the synthesis of daughter duplexes with identical sequences.
Genetic polymers store
and copy information. All known life on
Earth is based on functional information stored in the genetic polymers
DNA and RNA. In cells, the replication of these polymers is aided
by a multitude of enzymes. However, this machinery is not thought
to be strictly necessary for replication; RNA and some RNA-like polymers
can undergo nonenzymatic templated copying.[1−4] Evidently, the molecular structure
alone can allow for both information storage and copying. Modifications
to the backbone and nucleobases of the natural biopolymers have been
explored extensively, and a range of alternative genetic polymers
have been produced.[5,6] These molecules are, to varying
degrees, bioinspired. They are structural analogues of natural biopolymers
and employ base-pairing interactions like the purine-pyrimidine base
pairing found in DNA and RNA.[7−14]The chemical space of genetic polymers beyond nucleotides
has only
just begun to be explored in depth. The structural constraints necessary
for information storage and replication in a molecule or polymer are
undefined. However, three general features are necessary: a sequence-defined
template, sequence-specific base pairing of monomers to the template,
and a way to link the template bound monomers.Sequence-definition
allows for arbitrary information storage in
any polymer with at least two different subunits.[15] Many synthetic, sequence-defined polymers which bear little
resemblance to biopolymers have been constructed,[16] suggesting that the diversity of accessible informational
polymers is likely to be vast. Notably, these polymers are typically
constructed by the stepwise addition of monomer subunits, with no
obvious mechanism for replication. In biopolymers, replication is
enabled by the formation of duplexes. Potentially, any two monomers
that recognize each other and interact reversibly can function as
a base-pair in a genetic polymer. While many synthetic duplexes have
been described with non-nucleic acid base-pairing interactions,[17−21] only a few have been demonstrated to facilitate template-directed
polymerization. Luh and co-workers have shown that double-stranded
polynorbornenes held together by hydrolyzable ferrocene diesters function
as templates for the synthesis of daughter polynorbornenes via ring-opening
metathesis polymerization (ROMP).[22] Kamonsutthipaijit
and Anderson have reported the template-directed synthesis of linear
alkyne-terminated porphyrin oligomers using the coordination of pyridine
to Zn-porphyrins as a base pair and Glasser–Hay coupling to
link monomers.[23] While these examples show
exceptional control of sequence length and polydispersity, they do
not show the transfer of sequence information as both the starting
template and synthesized polymer are homopolymers without sequence
definition.There are only a few examples of sequence-defined
duplexes which
do not rely on nucleic acid base-pairing. Lehn and co-workers have
shown that sequence-specific mixed bipyridine and terpyridine trimers
form complementary duplexes by coordination to specific metal ions.[17] Gong and co-workers have shown that sequence-defined
polyamide duplexes associate more strongly with complementary H-bonding
donor–acceptor pairs.[18] Hunter and
co-workers have shown trimer duplexes held together by hydrogen-bonding
interactions between phenol and N-oxo pyridine subunits
form preferentially between complementary sequences.[20] While these examples demonstrate that sequence recognition
and the formation of sequence-specific duplexes is not limited to
nucleic acids, none have been shown to undergo templated copying.
To the best of our knowledge, molecules unrelated to biomolecules,
that both store sequence information and undergo template-directed
transfer of that sequence information, have not been demonstrated.Templated reactions utilizing dimer templates have been exploited
very successfully in autocatalytic self-replicators like those pioneered
by Rebek[6,7] and expanded by others.[24,25] In these systems, monomers and templates are in dynamic equilibrium
such that the products of a templated reaction can function as a new
template in subsequent reactions in the same pot. While these minimal
self-replicators impressively recapitulate the behavior of much more
complicated replicases, they do not contain or replicate sequence
information like their biological self-replicating counterparts.Work by Moore and co-workers has shown polyaniline and polyaldehyde
homopolymers reversibly form polyimine duplexes.[26−28] While these
homopolymers do not encode sequence information and were not shown
to facilitate templated copying, they demonstrate the feasibility
of imine bonds as a base pair. We expected that heteropolymeric materials
with sequence-defined aniline and benzaldehyde subunits would from
duplexes between complementary sequences, and that these duplexes
could function as templates for the copying of sequence information
from parent duplexes to daughter duplexes.The simplest model
system with which to demonstrate both information
storage and replication in these polymers is a set of dimers (Figure ). Binary information
storage in these dimers can be readily visualized as a two-letter
alphabet with benzaldehyde subunits as “B” (blue) and
aniline subunits as “A” (red). There are three possible
dimeric sequences, dianiline A·A, dibenzaldehyde B·B, and and aniline–aldehyde A·B. Because the backbone of A·B is symmetric, there
is no difference between A·B and B·A. Using this notation, A·A–B·B is the
duplex formed from the condensation of the complementary sequences A·A and B·B, and B·A–A·B is the duplex formed from the condensation of the self-complementary
sequence A·B (Figure , step a).
Figure 1
Formation and replication of dimeric dimine
duplexes. (a) Complementary
sequences B·B and A·A, or A·B, form sequence-specific duplexes B·B–AA or B·A–A·B. (b) Addition of monomers B and A separates the duplex and forms two dimers
templated with monomers strands. (c) Coupling of the templated monomers
gives two daughter duplexes with the same B·B–A·A or B·A–A·B, sequence as the parent.
Formation and replication of dimeric dimine
duplexes. (a) Complementary
sequences B·B and A·A, or A·B, form sequence-specific duplexes B·B–AA or B·A–A·B. (b) Addition of monomers B and A separates the duplex and forms two dimers
templated with monomers strands. (c) Coupling of the templated monomers
gives two daughter duplexes with the same B·B–A·A or B·A–A·B, sequence as the parent.Two steps are required for the
replication of these duplexes. First,
addition of excess monomers A and B separates
the duplexes to form two strands with monomers templated in a sequence
specific fashion (Figure , step b). Second, linking of these monomers produces two
daughter complexes with the same A·A–B·B, or B·A–A·B, sequences as the corresponding
parent sequences (Figure , step c).Herein, we report the synthesis of information-containing
synthetic
duplexes A·A–B·B and B·A–A·B and demonstrate their template-directed replication. These duplexes
feature reversible covalent imine bonds as base pairs, a fully conjugated
ethynylbenzene backbone, with a short PEG group for solubility, and
undergo replication in organic solvent via imine formation followed
by Pd(0)/Cu(I) catalyzed Sonogashira cross coupling.[29]
Results and Discussion
Homodimers B·B and A·A were
synthesized in a single step via a double Sonogashira reaction of
3-ethynylbenzaldehyde B or 3-ethynylaniline A with 0.2 equiv of diglymyl 3,5 diiodobenzaote 1 (Figure ). Adding a solution
of dialdehyde B·B in benzene to a solution of its
dianiline complement A·A in benzene and allowing
the mixture to sit undisturbed at 0 °C for 3 days afforded pure
crystals of the double-condensation product B·B–A·A in quantitative yield. The structure of B·B–A·A was confirmed by X-ray crystallography (Supplementary Figure 4) in addition to NMR and MALDI-MS (Figure b,c top spectra).
Figure 2
Synthesis of
duplexes A·A–B·B and B·A–A·B: (a) 0.2 equiv of1,
cat. Pd(PPh3)4 and CuI; (b) 5 equiv of 1, cat. Pd(PPh3)4, and CuI; (c) 1.1
equiv of B, cat. Pd(PPh3)4, and
CuI; (d) 0.1 M A·A and B·B in
C6H6 with 0.5% TFA; (e) pure mixture of residue
was precipitated from hot 4:1, C6H6/CHCl3.
Figure 3
Replication of B·B–A·A and B·A–A·B: (a) 30 equiv of 3-ethynylaniline A, CDCl3 0.02% TFA; (b) 60 equiv of 3-ethynylbenzaldehyde B and 4 Å molecular sieves; (c) sublimation, 0.02 mbar,
120 °C, neat; (d) 5 equiv of methyl 3,5 diiodobenzoate 2, 1 equiv of Pd(PPh3)4, 0.5 equiv of
CuI, 6 M template complex in degassed DMF, 60 °C.
(a) Scheme showing the four-step replication sequence
of B·B–A·A. (b) NMR expansion
of downfield aromatic and imine protons for replication of B·B–A·A, steps a–d, from left to right, imine protons, meta ester protons, meta imine (carbon side) singlet.
(c) MALDI-TOF spectra for replication of B·B–A·A, steps a–d. (d) Scheme showing the four-step
replication sequence of B·A–A·B. (e) NMR expansion of downfield aromatic and imine protons for
replication of B·A–A·B, steps a–d,
from left to right, imine protons, meta ester protons, meta imine (carbon side) singlet. (f) MALDI-TOF
spectra for replication of B·A–A·B,
steps a–d.
Synthesis of
duplexes A·A–B·B and B·A–A·B: (a) 0.2 equiv of1,
cat. Pd(PPh3)4 and CuI; (b) 5 equiv of 1, cat. Pd(PPh3)4, and CuI; (c) 1.1
equiv of B, cat. Pd(PPh3)4, and
CuI; (d) 0.1 M A·A and B·B in
C6H6 with 0.5% TFA; (e) pure mixture of residue
was precipitated from hot 4:1, C6H6/CHCl3.Replication of B·B–A·A and B·A–A·B: (a) 30 equiv of 3-ethynylaniline A, CDCl3 0.02% TFA; (b) 60 equiv of 3-ethynylbenzaldehyde B and 4 Å molecular sieves; (c) sublimation, 0.02 mbar,
120 °C, neat; (d) 5 equiv of methyl 3,5 diiodobenzoate 2, 1 equiv of Pd(PPh3)4, 0.5 equiv of
CuI, 6 M template complex in degassed DMF, 60 °C.
(a) Scheme showing the four-step replication sequence
of B·B–A·A. (b) NMR expansion
of downfield aromatic and imine protons for replication of B·B–A·A, steps a–d, from left to right, imine protons, meta ester protons, meta imine (carbon side) singlet.
(c) MALDI-TOF spectra for replication of B·B–A·A, steps a–d. (d) Scheme showing the four-step
replication sequence of B·A–A·B. (e) NMR expansion of downfield aromatic and imine protons for
replication of B·A–A·B, steps a–d,
from left to right, imine protons, meta ester protons, meta imine (carbon side) singlet. (f) MALDI-TOF
spectra for replication of B·A–A·B,
steps a–d.The synthesis of heterodimer A·B was carried
out via two sequential Sonogashira reactions (Figure ). First, 3-ethynylaniline A and a 5-fold excess of diglymyl 3,5-diiodobenzoate 1 were coupled to produce aryl iodide 2 (58%). A second
Sonogashira cross coupling of 2 with 3-ethynylbenzaldehyde B produced a mixture of amino aldehyde dimer A·B and duplex B·A–A·B. Given the self-complementary
nature of A·B, the spontaneous formation of the B·A–A·B duplex is not surprising. Mild heating
followed by gentle removal of the solvent under vacuum afforded the
desired duplex B·A–A·B, which was obtained
as a pure white solid after precipitation from a mixture of chloroform
and benzene. The structure of B·A–A·B was confirmed by NMR and MALDI-MS (Figure e,f top spectra).In the absence of
water, the starting duplexes A·A–B·B and B·A–A·B were stable in CDCl3 for months at 4 °C; however, they could be completely
hydrolyzed back to the single-stranded dimers by the addition of D2O and trace TFA. Using pyrrolidine as a catalyst,[30] TEA as a base, and 4 Å molecular sieves
to remove water, the duplexes were reformed nearly quantitatively
(Supplementary Figure 3). Additionally,
a CDCl3 solution containing both duplexes, B·B–A·A and B·A–A·B, gave all the three dimers, A·A, B·B, and A·B, on hydrolysis with D2O and trace acid. This mixture
of dimers was then reannealed in the same NMR tube by the addition
of TEA, 4 Å molecular sieves, and pyrrolidine, reforming the
duplexes corresponding to the sequence complementary pairs (Scheme ).
Scheme 1
Hydrolysis and Annealing
of B·B, A·A, and A·B Dimers
Replication of both
duplexes B·B–A·A and B·A–A·B was carried out under
identical conditions in four steps, a–d (Figure ). All steps were conducted sequentially
without chromatography. To monitor the progress of the reactions,
the first two steps were conducted in an NMR tube in CDCl3.In step a, the duplexes were separated by treatment with
an excess
of 3-ethynylaniline A and catalytic TFA. This prompted
the transimination of the duplex imines with the large excess driving
the separation of the duplex to completion and quantitatively condensing
3-ethynylaniline A to the template strands. For the B·B–A·A duplex, this produced a solution
with the B·B half of the starting duplex templating
two unlinked A monomers (B·B–AA), while the A·A half of the starting duplex was
left free in solution (Figure a, step a). The NMR spectrum of this solution showed A·A and a new upfield-shifted resonance consistent with
the two imines of B·B–AA (Figure b, step a). The MALDI-TOF spectrum
showed two peaks, m/z 478.282 and
679.454, consistent with m + H/1 for A·A and B·B–AA, respectively (Figure c, step a). For the complex B·A–A·B, monomer A was attached to the B subunit
of each half of the duplex giving 2 equiv of iminoaniline B·A–A (Figure d, step
a). The NMR spectrum of this solution showed an imine proton and set
of aromatic resonances consistent with B·A–A (Figure e, step
a). The MALDI-TOF spectrum showed a single peak, m/z 567.270, consistent with m +
H/1 for B·A–A (Figure f, step a).In step b, an excess of
3-ethynylbenzaldehyde B was
added along with 4 Å molecular sieves. Just as in step a, the
excess of monomer drove the equilibrium of imine formation to fully
associate the free A subunits of the template strands
with the B monomer. For B·B–A·A, the A·A half of the starting duplex was templated
with two B monomers (A·A–BB),
and B·B–AA produced in step a was left unchanged
(Figure a, step b).
The NMR spectrum of this solution showed unchanged B·B–AA, the disappearance of A·A, and the appearance
of a new imine resonance and set of aromatic resonances consistent
with A·A–BB (Figure b, step b). The MALDI-TOF spectrum showed
a single peak, m/z 679.361, consistent
with m+H/1 for both A·A–BB and B·B–AA, as they have the same mass (Figure c, step b). For B·A–A·B, the untemplated A subunit of B·A–A was templated to give B·A–AB (Figure d, step b). The NMR
spectrum of this solution showed two imine protons and a set of aromatic
resonances consistent with B·A–AB (Figure e, step b). The MALDI-TOF
spectrum showed a single peak, m/z 679.269, consistent with m + H/1 for B·A–AB (Figure f, step
b).The larger excess of B required in step b compared
to step a (60 equiv compared to 30 equiv) was necessary to fully condense
the residual untemplated aniline monomer A from the 30-fold
excess used in step a, and the 4 Å molecular sieves were necessary
to remove the water generated by this condensation (Scheme ).
Scheme 2
Condensation of A and B Monomers
The order of monomer addition, A followed
by B, was also essential for successful replication.
Without
complete conversion of the nucleophilic anilines to imines, transimination
reactions would persist during the subsequent steps. With no obvious
pathway for hydrolysis mediated imine exchange, transimination, or
imine metathesis,[31] the equilibrium established
by the large excess of A and B was essentially
“fixed” by the removal of water and aniline.At
this stage in replication, the parent duplexes had been separated
and the desired monomer–template strands were present in solution.
However, an excess of monomer B, and the condensation
product A–B, was also present. Removal of these
undesired monomers was necessary to prevent them from reacting during
the final replication step. Given the susceptibility to hydrolysis
of the template bound monomers, standard purification techniques such
as column chromatography were not successful. Surprisingly, given
that A–B contains 17 carbon atoms, vacuum sublimation
overnight at 120 °C removed the superfluous monomers completely
(step c). The sublimate consisted of B and A–B and the residue consisted exclusively of the
template strands with the associated monomers bound. In the absence
of water or anilines, the solutions of template-bound monomers were
stable, and no imine exchange was observed in chloroform over several
weeks.Finally, the monomers bound to the parent template were
linked
via Sonogashira coupling with 3,5-diiodobenzoate ester 3 using Pd(PPh3)4 and CuI catalysts in dilute
DMF (step d). To distinguish the starting parent duplexes B·B–A·A and B·A–A·B from the daughter duplexes,
methyl 3,5-diiodobenzoate 3 was used instead of the diglymyl
3,5-diiodobenzoate 1 used to link the parent dimers.
This provided a convenient mass difference between the parent and
daughter duplexes, as the starting duplexes were linked by two diglymyl
benzoates (denoted by a dot) and the daughters were expected to have
one methyl benzoate (donated with an asterisk) and one diglymyl benzoate.
The use of methyl benzoate 3 as a linker also provided
a means to distinguish off-template from on-template coupling of monomers.
The only aryl-iodide available in step d was methyl benzoate 3, so off-template coupling and annealing would give products
with methyl benzoates on both sides of the duplex (e.g., B*B–A*A).Replication that began with duplex B·B–A·A gave exclusively the expected daughter duplexes B*B–A·A and B·B–A*A (Figure a, step d). The NMR spectrum showed two overlapping
sets of imine protons with a similar downfield shift (δ 8.60)
to the starting duplex and a set of aromatic resonances consistent
with B*B–A·A and B·B–A*A in a 1:1 ratio (Figure b, step d). The MALDI-TOF spectrum showed a single peak, m/z 811.438, consistent with the mass of
the expected daughters containing one methyl benzoate backbone and
one diglymyl benzoate backbone (Figure c, step d).Replication that began with duplex B·A–A·B also gave the expected daughter duplex B·A–A*B (Figure d, step
d). Multiple rounds of precipitation from CHCl3 with C6H6 failed to remove the PPh3 impurity.
The NMR spectrum showed two overlapping imine protons with a similar
downfield shift (δ 8.61) to the starting duplex and a set of
aromatic resonances consistent with B·A–A*B (Figure e, step
d). The MALDI-TOF spectrum showed a single peak, m/z 811.395, consistent with the mass of the expected
daughter containing one methyl benzoate backbone and one diglymyl
benzoate backbone (Figure f, step d).Successful replication of parent–template
complexes B·B–AA, BB–A·A, and B·A–AB required intermolecular coupling
to diiodide 3, followed by intramolecular macrocyclization
(Figure ). Two alternative
Sonogashira
coupling pathways were anticipated to divert replication: polymerization,
to products such as 5, caused by intermolecular reactions
between template strands and capping, to products such as 6, caused by the intermolecular reaction with a second diiodide. Polymerization
reactions were prevented by using a 5-fold excess of the diiodobenzoate 3. Capping reactions were prevented by running the reaction
under dilute conditions (6 M template). Reactions
at concentrations
greater than 50 μM gave complex mixtures presumed to be mixtures
of polymers and capped products. Given the high dilution, a full equivalent
of Pd(PPh3)4 and 0.5 equiv of CuI were used.
Likely because of the large amount of the CuI catalyst, the coupling
was very sensitive to dissolved O2, and rigorous degassing
was required to prevent unwanted Glaser coupling products.
Figure 4
Stepwise replication
of B·B–AA and potential
side products.
Stepwise replication
of B·B–AA and potential
side products.
Conclusions
Two
duplexes encoding two different sequences were synthesized
and replicated under the same set of conditions. Parent duplexes B·B–A·A and B·A–A·B functioned as templates for the synthesis of two daughter duplexes,
and the sequence information contained in the parent was transferred
to the daughters. Although these dimers only encoded a single bit
of information, this demonstrates that molecules and chemistry unrelated
to biopolymers can be used to form base-pairing interactions and facilitate
the template-directed transfer of sequence information.The
differences between this system and RNA and DNA are notable.
These dimers replicated in the absence of water as a solvent, with
all the steps of replication occurring in aprotic organic solvent.
Instead of hydrogen bonds, the base-pairing interactions were covalent
bonds. While the phosphate backbone of DNA and RNA confers water solubility,
the backbone of these dimers used a diglymyl moiety to confer organic
solubility. Replication in DNA and RNA, both nonenzymatic and enzymatic,
occurs by a substitution reaction; the hydroxyl of a sugar on the
end of the polymers attacks a phosphate of the monomer to be added.
The chemistry employed here was a double palladium-/copper-catalyzed
Sonogashira reaction, and two new bonds were formed as the backbone
was inserted between adjacent monomers.While these dimers are
small and do not yet approximate the abilities
of DNA and RNA to transfer information, they hint that replicating
polymers with a great diversity of structures and chemistries may
be possible. In the absence of enzymes, the transfer of sequence information
is a challenging problem even for nucleotide based oligomers and has
only been demonstrated to work well for sequences up to 10 bases long.[32,33] Previous work by Moore and colleagues has shown that polyimine polymers,
similar in structure to the dimers constructed here, form duplexes
reversibly to at least tetramers.[28] Those
achievements lead us to believe that our methods can be extended to
construct longer information containing oligomeric materials capable
of information transfer, work which is currently underway.Many
of the extraordinary functions of DNA and RNA, such as the
ability to evolve function, stem from their being information-containing
polymers that can self-replicate. Access to synthetic polymers that
can mimic these lifelike feats may have other lifelike properties
and help to elucidate the transition from chemistry and biology.
Experimental Section
General Methods
The 1H NMR and 13C NMR spectra were recorded
at 117.42 kG (1H 500 MHz, 13C 125 MHz) or 93.94
kG (1H 400 MHz, 13C 100 MHz), as noted, at ambient
temperature. Hydrogen chemical shifts
are expressed in parts per million (ppm) relative to the residual
protio-solvent resonance: CDCl3 δ 7.26. For 13C spectra, the centerline of the solvent signal was used
as internal reference: CDCl3 δ 77.00. Unless otherwise
noted, each carbon resonance represents a single carbon (relative
intensity). All exchangeable −OH and −NH hydrogen resonances
were confirmed by D2O exchange. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization
(MALDI) time-of-flight (TOF) mass spectrometry experiments were carried
out as follows: Five 0.5 μL portions of a solution of CHCl3 saturated with 2,5-dihydroxybenzoic acid matrix (Sigma) were
deposited on a MTP 384 polished steel BC target plate (Bruker), allowing
the solvent to evaporate between each addition. A single 0.5 μL
aliquot of analyte in CDCl3 was then added on top of the
2,5-dihydroxybenzoic acid film and the sample analyzed with an autoflex
speed LRF MALDI-TOF mass spectrometer (Bruker). High-resolution mass
spectrometric data were obtained on a ToF (time-of-flight) Agilent
Technologies system by electrospray (ESI) in the positive-ion mode.
Mobile phases were water and acetonitrile (1:8) with 0.1% formic acid.
W with a flow rate of 0.25 mL/min. The MS settings were as follows:
capillary voltage 3.5 kV and desolvation temperature 325 °C.
General Sonogashira Cross Coupling
The aryl alkyne
and aryl iodide, at the given ratio of equivalents, were dissolved
in tetrahydrofuran (0.1 M alkyne) in a screw-capped vial containing
a magnetic stir bar. Five equivalents of TEA, with respect to the
aryl iodide, was added followed by 10 mol % of Pd(PPh3)4 and 5 mol % of CuI. The vial was sealed with a screw cap
and allowed to stir between 1 and 24 h at room temperature. The reaction
was monitored by silica TLC (10% EtOAc in hexanes) until it reached
full conversion, whereupon it was diluted in ethyl acetate and mixed
with silica. The solvent was removed in vacuo, and the crude mixture
was purified by silica gel flash chromatography using a CombiFlash
(Teledyne Isco Lincoln, NB).
Transimination of Duplexes B·B–A·A and B·A–A·B with 3-Ethynylaniline A (Step a)
B·B–A·A or B·A–A·B (4 mg, 0.004 mmol) was added to an
NMR tube, dissolved in CDCl3 and TFA (0.5 mL CDCl3, 0.02% TFA), and placed over 4 Å molecular sieves. To the NMR
tube was added 3-ethynylaniline (15 uL, 0.12 mmol), and transimination
was monitored by 1H NMR (500 MHz) until the reactants reached
equilibrium and the amount of the duplex was reduced to <3% (approximately
2 h). For duplex B·B–A·A, this procedure
resulted in a solution containing diimine B·B–AA, dianiline A·A, and and 3-ethynlaniline A in a 1:1:28 ratio, as measured by NMR, respectively. For
duplex B·A–A·B, this procedure resulted
in a solution containing imine–aniline B·A–A and 3-ethynlaniline A in a 2:28 ratio, respectively.
Imine Formation with 3-Ethynylbenzaldehyde B (Step
b)
Following step a, additional 4 Å molecular sieves
(20 mg) and 3-ethynylbenzaldehyde B (31 mg, 0.24 mmol)
were added to the NMR tube. Imine formation was monitored by 1H NMR until the amines of both the templates (B·B–A·A or B·A–A·B) and the 3-ethynylaniline A were condensed to imines (2–16 h). For the procedure
beginning with duplex B·B–A·A, this
step resulted in a solution containing diimine B·B–AA, diimine BB–A·A, imine A–B, and 3-ethynlbenzaldehyde B in a 1:1:28:30 ratio, as
measured by NMR, respectively. For duplex B·A–A·B, this step resulted in a solution containing diimine B·A–AB, imine A–B, and 3-ethynlenzaldehyde B in a 2:28:30 ratio, respectively.
Removal of Monoimine A–B and 3-Ethynlbenzaldehyde B (Step c)
Following step b, the molecular sieves
were pelleted via centrifugation, and the CDCl3 supernatant
was decanted into a 5 mL glass vial. The solvent was removed under
a stream of dry N2 and the resulting white solid sublimated
under reduced pressure (0.02 mbar) at 120 °C for 16 h using a
BÜCHI GKR-50 glass tube oven (BÜCHI Labortechnik Flawil,
Switzerland). Following hydrolysis, the sublimate was found to contain
a 30:28 mixture of 3-ethynylbenzaldehyde B and 3-ethynylaniline A with >99% mass recovery. The unsublimated residue was
found
to contain nearly pure diimines B·B–AA and BB–A·A in a 1:1 ratio for the replication reaction
mixture starting with duplex B·B–A·A and diimine B·A–BA for replication reaction
mixture which started with duplex B·A–A·B.
Linking of Template-Bound Monomers of B·B–AA and BB–A·A or B·A–BA (Step d)
The residue obtained in step c was dissolved in
CDCl3 (500 uL) and placed over 4 Å molecular sieves
(20 mg). Methyl 3,5-diiodobenzoate (8 mg, 0.02 mmol) and DABCO (4.5
mg, 0.04 mmol) were added to the NMR tube, and the relative stoichiometry
was verified by 1H NMR. A 1/6 portion (approximately 0.6
μmol of B·B–AA + BB–A·A, or B·A–BA) of this solution was aliquoted
for the reaction and added to an oven-dried Schlenk flask equipped
with a stir bar. The solution was diluted with amine-free, anhydrous
DMF (100 mL), placed over 4 Å molecular sieves (50 mg), and then
degassed by sparging with N2 through a sintered glass frit
for 2 h. Removal of dissolved O2 was imperative to the
success of this reaction as Glaser coupling products were otherwise
obtained in significant quantities. While still under a positive N2 pressure, Pd(PPh3)4 (1 mg) and CuI
(0.1 mg) were added. The head space of the Schlenk flask was evacuated,
backfilled with N2 three times, and then sealed. After
the mixture was stirred at 60 °C in an oil bath for 16 h, the
DMF was removed in vacuo. The resulting residue was taken up in CHCl3 (10 mL), the 4 Å molecular sieves were pelleted via
centrifugation, and the CHCl3 was decanted and then removed
in vacuo. The resulting light brown oil was precipitated from a 3:1
mixture of benzene:CHCl3 (50 μL). For replication
beginning with duplex B·B–A·A, a mixture
of B·B–A*A and B*B–A·A was obtained exclusively. For replication beginning with duplex B·A–A·B, a mixture of B·A–A*B and PPh3 was obtained.
2-(2-Methoxyethoxy)ethyl
3,5-Diiodobenzoate (1)
Dry K2CO3 (10 eq, 128 mmol, 17.7 g) and freshly
activated 4 Å molecular sieves (17.7 g) were added to a flame-dried
round-bottom flask equipped with a stir bar. Then 2-(2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethoxy)ethan-1-ol
(30 eq, 45 mL) was added, and the solution was stirred for 30 min.
Next, methyl 3,5-diiodobenzoate (5 g, 12.8 mmol) was added. After
being stirred at rt for 1.5 h, the solution was filtered through a
glass frit, and the solids were washed with EtOAc (200 mL). The EtOAc
was removed in vacuo, leaving a solution of 2-(2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethoxy)ethan-1-ol
and the desired product 1. Reversed-phase C18 flash chromatography
using a CombiFlash (Teledyne Isco Lincoln, NB) gave pure 1 (rt 5–6 min with 100% ACN, 5.05 g, 83%) as a white solid: 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 8.33 (d, J = 1.6 Hz, 2H), 8.23 (t, J = 1.6 Hz, 1H),
4.52–4.44 (m, 2H), 3.85–3.79 (m, 2H), 3.71–3.66
(m, 2H), 3.60–3.54 (m, 2H), 3.40 (s, 3H); 13C{1H} NMR (125 MHz, CDCl3) δ 162.9, 148.6, 137.2
(2C), 132.7, 94.2 (2C), 71.4, 70.0, 68.4, 64.2, 58.6; HRMS (ESI-TOF) m/z [M + Na]+ calcd for C12H14I2O4Na 498.8874, found
498.8890.
Authors: Jacqui M A Carnall; Christopher A Waudby; Ana M Belenguer; Marc C A Stuart; Jérôme J-P Peyralans; Sijbren Otto Journal: Science Date: 2010-03-19 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Diego Núñez-Villanueva; Maria Ciaccia; Giulia Iadevaia; Elena Sanna; Christopher A Hunter Journal: Chem Sci Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 9.825