An aminooxy click chemistry (AOCC) strategy was used to synthesize nucleoside building blocks for incorporation during solid-support synthesis of oligonucleotides to enable bis-homo and bis-hetero conjugation of various biologically relevant ligands. The bis-homo aminooxy conjugation leads to bivalent ligand presentation, whereas the bis-hetero conjugation allows the placement of different ligands with either the same or different chemical linkages. This facile synthetic methodology allows introduction of two different ligands with different biological functions simultaneously.
An aminooxy click chemistry (AOCC) strategy was used to synthesize nucleoside building blocks for incorporation during solid-support synthesis of oligonucleotides to enable bis-homo and bis-hetero conjugation of various biologically relevant ligands. The bis-homo aminooxy conjugation leads to bivalent ligand presentation, whereas the bis-hetero conjugation allows the placement of different ligands with either the same or different chemical linkages. This facile synthetic methodology allows introduction of two different ligands with different biological functions simultaneously.
Aminooxy or O-amino groups (-O-NH2) act as stronger
nucleophiles than amines, due to the second lone-pair-bearing oxygen
adjacent to the nucleophilic nitrogen. Moreover, their low basicity
allows them to form more stable imines than Schiff bases.[1] This phenomenon was first observed by Jencks
and Carriuolo in 1960,[2] and Edwards and
Pearson called it the “alpha effect” in 1962.[3] Aminooxy-functionalized sugars, nucleosides,
and peptides have attracted interest as they can be easily synthesized
and used for oxime ligation[4−8] and N-oxyamide functionalization.[9−11] A bis-functionalized aminooxy group was used for sugar modification
in oligonucleotide chemistry,[12] and nucleosides
with a 5′-aminooxy group have been used in the synthesis of
oligonucleotides with modified backbones;[13] both syntheses involved very reactive formaldehyde.Conjugation
chemistry has invigorated oligonucleotide therapeutics
by enabling incorporation of moieties that modulate pharmacokinetics
and that result in delivery into particular cell types, as demonstrated
by the clinical success of small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) conjugated
to triantennary N-acetylgalactosamine (tri-GalNAc),
the ligand for the hepatocyte-specific receptor asialoglycoprotein.[14] In other examples, conjugation to lipophilic
molecules like cholesterol[15] and fatty
acids[16] results in broad tissue distribution
and cellular uptake in the liver and central nervous system;[17,18] folic acid conjugation results in cancer cell targeting; and conjugation
to cyclic RGD peptides results in uptake into cells that express integrins.[19]The biocleavable oxime linkage has been
used in oligonucleotide
conjugation.[1,5,6,8,20] Here, to facilitate
bis-homo and bis-hetero conjugation, we developed a “click-type”
aminooxy-based chemistry that we call aminooxy click chemistry (AOCC).
The reported reaction meets the Sharpless definition of click chemistry:[21] The reaction is modular and wide in scope and
gives very high yields, and product isolation is simple. Two different
strategies were envisioned: AOCC conjugate monomers could be synthesized
as amidites and incorporated during solid-phase oligonucleotide synthesis,
or precursors of aminooxy groups could be introduced into the oligonucleotide
strands and functionalized postsynthetically. In the first approach,
demonstrated in this report, a combination of two different aldehydes
and a combination of an aldehyde with an acid were used for the bis-hetero
ligation (Figure ).
Ligands with different biological functions were introduced, demonstrating
the broad scope of the strategy.
Figure 1
(A) Schematic of 5′-end modification
of oligonucleotides
with AOCC-mediated bis-homo and bis-hetero conjugation. (B) Representative
targeting and pharmacokinetic-modifier ligands.
(A) Schematic of 5′-end modification
of oligonucleotides
with AOCC-mediated bis-homo and bis-hetero conjugation. (B) Representative
targeting and pharmacokinetic-modifier ligands.For construction of building blocks to enable bis-homo and bis-hetero
ligand conjugation, we synthesized nucleosides containing N-hydroxyphthalimido (OPhth), the precursors of O-amino. To generate 5′-OPhth-modified nucleosides,
2′-O-methyl (2′-OMe) and locked nucleic
acid (LNA) nucleosides with protected 3′-OH were used. Mitsunobu
reaction of compounds 1(22) and 8 afforded the OPhth-containing scaffolds 2 and 9, respectively.From these precursors, we first synthesized
bis-homo ligand-containing
modified nucleosides by generating an aminooxy linkage. Various aldehydes
and ketones were used for facile oxime bond formation through a 5′-aminooxy
functionality. For the oximes derived from aldehydes, an identical
aldehyde was then attached to the aminooxy nitrogen atom through reductive
amination. To illustrate this, 2 was deprotected in the
presence of N-methylhydrazine to afford 3, which contains the aminooxy group. Reaction of 3 with
carbonyl compounds [e.g., citral, decanal, hexadecanal, dilinoleyl
aldehyde, cyclopropyl-dilinoleyl ketone, and protected tri-GalNAc
aldehyde 3S (Scheme S1 and Table S1 in the Supporting Information)] resulted in oximes 4a–f either under basic or acidic conditions.
The E- and Z-isomers of these oximes
eluted together during column purification. The oxime was reduced
with sodium cyanoborohydride under acidic conditions to afford the
substituted aminooxy amine, which was reacted again with the same
aldehyde. Thus, oximes 4a, 4b, and 4c were reacted with citral, decanal, and hexadecanal, respectively,
under reductive amination conditions to produce compounds 5a, 5b, and 5c. The 3′-OTBS groups
of 5a–c were removed by treatment
with tetrabutylammonium fluoride (TBAF) to obtain 6a–c with free 3′-OH groups. Compounds 6a–c were then phosphitylated to afford bis-homo-AOCC-modified
pyrimidine nucleoside phosphoramidite building blocks 7a–c (Scheme ). Analogous purine compounds were synthesized using
the same route.
Scheme 1
Synthesis of Bis-homo-aminooxy-modified 2′-OMe-uridine
Building
Blocks
For 4a–7a, R1 is citralyl; for 4b–7b, R1 is decyl; for 4c–7c, R1 is hexadecyl; for 4d, R1 is dilinoleyl; for 4e, R1 is cyclopropyl-dilinoleyl;
and for 4f, R1 is protected tri-GalNAc (structure
shown in Scheme ).
Synthesis of Bis-homo-aminooxy-modified 2′-OMe-uridine
Building
Blocks
For 4a–7a, R1 is citralyl; for 4b–7b, R1 is decyl; for 4c–7c, R1 is hexadecyl; for 4d, R1 is dilinoleyl; for 4e, R1 is cyclopropyl-dilinoleyl;
and for 4f, R1 is protected tri-GalNAc (structure
shown in Scheme ).
Scheme 3
Synthesis of Bis-hetero-aminooxy-modified
2′-OMe-uridine Building
Blocks
For 16a–18a, R1 is hexadecyl, and R2 is CH3; for 16b–18b, R1 is dilinoleyl, and R2 is CH3; for 16c–18c, R1 is cyclopropyl-dilinoleyl,
and R2 is CH3; for 16d–18d, R1 is hexadecyl, and R2 is methyl-16-oxohexadecanoate;
for 16e–18e, R1 is protected
tri-GalNAc, and R2 is hexadecyl.
The adenosine LNA analogue 9 was
prepared using an
approach similar to that used for the synthesis of compound 2 from 3′-O-silyl-protected LNA-adenosine 8. The 5′-OPhth of compound 9 was deprotected
to afford 10 in the presence of N-methylhydrazine.
Compound 10 was reacted with hexadecanal to obtain oxime 11, which was subsequently converted to the bis-homoligated
compound 12 using hexadecanal under reductive amination
conditions. An additional step resulted in protection of the exocyclic N6-amine of adenosine with an amidine group to
yield 13, and 3′-O-silyl deprotection
of 13 produced 14. Phosphitylation of 14 produced the phosphoramidite 15 (Scheme ).
Scheme 2
Synthesis of Bis-homo-Conjugated
LNA-adenosine Building Blocks
For 12–15, R1 is hexadecyl.
Synthesis of Bis-homo-Conjugated
LNA-adenosine Building Blocks
For 12–15, R1 is hexadecyl.To synthesize
the bis-hetero building blocks that allow introduction
of two different ligands, we initially reacted three lipophilic oximes, 4c, 4d, and 4e, with formaldehyde
to afford simple bis-hetero-AOCC analogues 16a, 16b, and 16c, respectively. Additionally, lipophilic
oxime 4c and tri-GalNAc-conjugated oxime 4f were reacted with methyl-16-oxohexadecanoate and hexadecanal to
afford 16d and 16e, respectively, under
reductive amination conditions. These bis-hetero AOCC products were
subsequently desilylated to obtain 17a–e, which were converted to the respective phosphoramidites 18a–e (Scheme ). For the synthesis of bis-hetero
building blocks, bulky ligands like tri-GalNAc or with keto-group-like
dilinoleyl and cyclopropyl-dilinoleyl ketones were installed first
for facile conversion and better yields.
Synthesis of Bis-hetero-aminooxy-modified
2′-OMe-uridine Building
Blocks
For 16a–18a, R1 is hexadecyl, and R2 is CH3; for 16b–18b, R1 is dilinoleyl, and R2 is CH3; for 16c–18c, R1 is cyclopropyl-dilinoleyl,
and R2 is CH3; for 16d–18d, R1 is hexadecyl, and R2 is methyl-16-oxohexadecanoate;
for 16e–18e, R1 is protected
tri-GalNAc, and R2 is hexadecyl.We also evaluated bis-heteroaminooxy-modified building blocks where
the second ligand (R2) was an acid. Previously, this chemistry
was used for conjugation to a neutral hydroxamate-modified DNA backbone.[23] For this, 4c was reduced to afford
the lipophilic aminooxy amine 19 and coupled with the
protected folic acid 7S (Scheme S2 in Supporting Information) or lipoic acid to obtain the bis-hetero
conjugates 20 and 21, respectively. The
folate conjugation was achieved through the γ-carboxyl group.[24] The amide coupling reaction was done using standard
amide coupling conditions.[25,26] The 3′-OTBS
groups of 20 and 21 were deprotected to
produce 22 and 23, respectively, which were
converted to the phosphoramidites 24 and 25 in moderate to good yields (Scheme ).
Scheme 4
Synthesis of Bis-hetero-aminooxy-modified 2′-OMe-uridine
Building
Blocks
For 19, R1 is hexadecyl; for 20, 22, and 24, R1 is hexadecyl, and R2 is protected
folate; and for 21, 23, and 25, R1 is hexadecyl, and R2 is lipoate.
Synthesis of Bis-hetero-aminooxy-modified 2′-OMe-uridine
Building
Blocks
For 19, R1 is hexadecyl; for 20, 22, and 24, R1 is hexadecyl, and R2 is protected
folate; and for 21, 23, and 25, R1 is hexadecyl, and R2 is lipoate.Finally, we tested the “click”-like
behavior of the
AOCC through a sequential one-pot reductive amination of 10 in the presence of two different carbonyl compounds. The LNA-A intermediate 10 with a 5′-aminooxy group was reacted first with
hexanal. Then, without isolation of the oxime, the reductive amination
step was performed with methyl-16-oxohexadecanoate to afford the bis-hetero
product 26 in moderate yield. We did not observe the
formation of the bis-homo-AOCC product upon incorporation of two units
of hexanal/methyl-16-oxohexadecanoate. Similarly, a sequential one-pot
reaction with tetrahydro-4H-pyran-4-one and hexadecanal
produced the bis-hetero product 27 in moderate yield.
Here also, the order of addition for the carbonyl compounds was important.
For 27, addition of the ketone, tetrahydro-4H-pyran-4-one, followed by the aldehyde hexadecanal was more efficient
than the reverse order. Amidine protection of 26 and 27 with DMF-DMA afforded 28 and 29, which were then desilylated with TBAF to yield 30 and 31, respectively. The phosphitylation reaction of 30 and 31 furnished the bis-heteroaminooxy-modified LNA-adenosine
building blocks 32 and 33 in good yields
(Scheme ).
Scheme 5
Sequential
One-Pot AOCC Reaction for the Synthesis of Bis-hetero-aminooxy-modified
LNA-adenosine Building Blocks
For 26, 28, 30, and 32, R1 is
hexyl, and R2 is methyl-16-oxohexadecanoyl. For 27, 29, 31, and 33, R1 is tetrahydrofuranyl, and R2 is hexadecyl.
Sequential
One-Pot AOCC Reaction for the Synthesis of Bis-hetero-aminooxy-modified
LNA-adenosine Building Blocks
For 26, 28, 30, and 32, R1 is
hexyl, and R2 is methyl-16-oxohexadecanoyl. For 27, 29, 31, and 33, R1 is tetrahydrofuranyl, and R2 is hexadecyl.To demonstrate the representative first-generation oxime
conjugates,
we synthesized a lipophilic oxime building block. Intermediate 4c was desilylated with TBAF to afford compound 34 in good yield. Compound 34 was phosphitylated to obtain
the starting monomer for oxime conjugation, the 5′-oxime-hexadecyl
conjugate 35 (Scheme ).
Scheme 6
Synthesis of the Oxime C16 Lipid Building Block (35)
The AOCC–conjugate building
blocks were incorporated at
the 5′ ends of oligonucleotides using standard oligonucleotide
synthesis conditions. The oligonucleotides used were the sense strands
of siRNAs targeting the SOD1, β-cat, and Apo-B mRNAs (Table ). In these oligonucleotides, the modified
monomers replaced the U nucleotide during solid-phase synthesis under
standard conditions; the oligonucleotide conjugates were obtained
with good coupling efficiencies and yields even with large ligands
like folate and tri-GalNAc in combination with C16 (Figure ). After deprotection and cleavage
from the support under standard conditions, the conjugates were purified
and characterized. As this was, to our knowledge, the first lipoic
acid conjugation to oligonucleotides, we confirmed that there was
no oxidation or degradation of disulfide-containing rings (Figure , ON3).
Table 1
Sequences, mRNA Targets, Chemistry,
and Ligand Features of siRNA Sense Strand Oligonucleotides (ON) with
AOCC Building Blocks at the 5′ Enda
Uppercase
italicized and lowercase
letters represent 2′-F and 2′-OMe nucleosides, respectively.
Phosphorothioate (PS) linkages are indicated by the “•”
symbol. AOCC-derived conjugates in the context of 2′-OMe-uridine
are I to VI for ON1–ON6, respectively, and are shown in Figure .
Figure 2
HPLC elution
profiles (details in SI) of AOCC-modified
oligonucleotides ON1–ON6 with calculated
(blue) and observed (green) masses. The multiplicity of peaks is due
to diastereomeric chiral phosphorothioates and/or oxime rotamers.
Uppercase
italicized and lowercase
letters represent 2′-F and 2′-OMe nucleosides, respectively.
Phosphorothioate (PS) linkages are indicated by the “•”
symbol. AOCC-derived conjugates in the context of 2′-OMe-uridine
are I to VI for ON1–ON6, respectively, and are shown in Figure .HPLC elution
profiles (details in SI) of AOCC-modified
oligonucleotides ON1–ON6 with calculated
(blue) and observed (green) masses. The multiplicity of peaks is due
to diastereomeric chiral phosphorothioates and/or oxime rotamers.In summary, we have synthesized several nucleoside
monomer building
blocks equipped with the highly reactive nucleophilic aminooxy functionalities.
These groups were converted into bis-homo and bis-hetero building
blocks that were functionalized with two of the same or two different
moieties, respectively. Both bis-homo- and bis-heterotype nucleoside
conjugates were successfully incorporated at the 5′-ends of
oligonucleotides. The ability to incorporate two different functionalities
should prove especially useful in improving the therapeutic potential
of all classes of therapeutic oligonucleotides. For example, siRNAs
with single targeting agents like GalNAc, folate, and lipids enable
tissue-type targeting. Use of these moieties as bis-hetero conjugates
with the appropriate choice of a second ligand could improve tissue-specific
delivery, cellular uptake, endosomal release, and pharmacodynamics.[27,28] To date, conjugation of ligands has been performed mostly at the
3′ end[14,15] of the sense strand of the siRNA.
The strategy reported here will make 5′-end conjugation easier
from the oligonucleotide synthesis and purification perspective. Conjugation
at the 5′-position of the siRNA sense strand may improve antisense
strand selection by the RNA interference machinery, thus eliminating
sense-strand-mediated off-target effects,[29] and should also enhance resistance to 5′-exonucleases.[30] Work to test these possibilities is in progress.
Authors: Jürgen Soutschek; Akin Akinc; Birgit Bramlage; Klaus Charisse; Rainer Constien; Mary Donoghue; Sayda Elbashir; Anke Geick; Philipp Hadwiger; Jens Harborth; Matthias John; Venkitasamy Kesavan; Gary Lavine; Rajendra K Pandey; Timothy Racie; Kallanthottathil G Rajeev; Ingo Röhl; Ivanka Toudjarska; Gang Wang; Silvio Wuschko; David Bumcrot; Victor Koteliansky; Stefan Limmer; Muthiah Manoharan; Hans-Peter Vornlocher Journal: Nature Date: 2004-11-11 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Christopher R Brown; Swati Gupta; June Qin; Timothy Racie; Guo He; Scott Lentini; Ryan Malone; Mikyung Yu; Shigeo Matsuda; Svetlana Shulga-Morskaya; Anil V Nair; Christopher S Theile; Karyn Schmidt; Azar Shahraz; Varun Goel; Rubina G Parmar; Ivan Zlatev; Mark K Schlegel; Jayaprakash K Nair; Muthusamy Jayaraman; Muthiah Manoharan; Dennis Brown; Martin A Maier; Vasant Jadhav Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 16.971