Mikołaj Chrominski1, Kamil Ziemkiewicz1, Joanna Kowalska2, Jacek Jemielity1. 1. Centre of New Technologies University of Warsaw, Banacha 2c, 02-097 Warsaw, Poland. 2. Division of Biophysics, Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Pasteura 5, 02-093 Warsaw, Poland.
Abstract
The reaction between ribonucleosides and ex situ generated sulfonyl fluoride has been developed. The reaction takes place at the -NH2 groups of nucleobases, and the resulting nucleosides are equipped with a sulfamoyl fluoride moiety, dubbed SuFNucs. These species undergo a selective sulfur fluoride exchange (SuFEx) reaction with various amines, leading to sulfamide-functionalized derivatives of adenosine, guanosine, and cytidine (SulfamNucs). The scope and examples of further SuFNucs fuctionalization leading to nucleotides, oligonucleotides, and peptide-nucleoside conjugates are presented.
The reaction between ribonucleosides and ex situ generated sulfonyl fluoride has been developed. The reaction takes place at the -NH2 groups of nucleobases, and the resulting nucleosides are equipped with a sulfamoyl fluoride moiety, dubbed SuFNucs. These species undergo a selective sulfur fluoride exchange (SuFEx) reaction with various amines, leading to sulfamide-functionalized derivatives of adenosine, guanosine, and cytidine (SulfamNucs). The scope and examples of further SuFNucs fuctionalization leading to nucleotides, oligonucleotides, and peptide-nucleoside conjugates are presented.
Unlike other sulfur(VI) electrophiles,
the −SO2F group is an extraordinarily stable unit,
even under harsh conditions. Nevertheless, it is possible to controllably
activate the SVI–F bond, transforming fluoride into
a good leaving group and enabling reactions with various nucleophiles.
Different conditions have been explored to achieve this purpose (appropriate
acid/base environment, presence of R3Si+ as
a mediator, properly selected catalyst, and constrained environment)
and used in versatile applications. SVI–F-containing
compounds and their chemical behavior have been known and utilized
for nearly a century, but their huge potential was recognized and
systematized in 2014 by Sharpless and co-workers under the term sulfur(VI)
fluoride exchange reaction (SuFEx, Figure A).[1] SuFEx reactions
were immediately included in the click chemistry paradigm,[2] as the SVI–F unit in organic
compounds can be used as a molecular connector in a predictable manner
under mild conditions. Since this breakthrough, the expansion of SuFEx-type
reactions covered general organic chemistry,[3,4] material/polymer
science,[5] chemical biology,[6] bioconjugate chemistry,[7] and
medicinal chemistry including drug discovery.[8,9] The
SuFEx approach requires installation of a −SO2F
group in the molecule of interest. The emerging demand for diverse
molecules containing the SVI–F motif can be satisfied
thanks to so-called SuFEx hubs–reagents that can introduce
the SO2F group into the target molecule (Figure B). The simplest SuFEx hub
is sulfonyl fluoride (SO2F2, bp = −55
°C),[3] which, in spite of its high
reactivity toward phenols and secondary amines, has limited application
toward the functionalization of primary amines. Moreover, SO2F2 cannot be used in laboratories lacking proper equipment
to handle harmful gases, and its availability is limited by regulations.
These drawbacks have been solved by the development of a solid SO2F+ donor fluorosulfuryl imidazolium triflate salt
(SuFExIT, Figure B)[10] and [4-(acetylamino)phenyl]imidodisulfuryl difluoride
(AISF, Figure B)[11] which are stable, are easy to handle, ensure
precise control over the reagent ratio, and show expanded reactivity
(compared to the parent gas). Alternatively, SO2F2 can be generated ex situ from the solid precursors[10,12,13] [for example sulfonyl diimidazole
(SDI) and KF, Figure C] and delivered into the reaction mixture using specially designed,
commercially available laboratory glassware (COware, Figure D). This set of reagents and
fine-tuned conditions for their reaction with various organic structures
allows quick access to the vast spectrum of SuFExable compounds for
further investigations including drugs[9] and other biologically active molecules.[14]
Figure 1
(A)
General scheme of the sulfur(VI) fluoride exchange (SuFEx)
reaction, (B) examples of SO2F+ donors (SuFEx
hubs), (C) generation of SO2F2 from solid and
liquid precursors, and (D) COware reactor used in this study for ex
situ SO2F2 generation.
(A)
General scheme of the sulfur(VI) fluoride exchange (SuFEx)
reaction, (B) examples of SO2F+ donors (SuFEx
hubs), (C) generation of SO2F2 from solid and
liquid precursors, and (D) COware reactor used in this study for ex
situ SO2F2 generation.Although SuFEx reactions already established their usefulness in
bioconjugate chemistry and medicinal chemistry, there is only a limited
number of nucleosides and nucleotide derivatives functionalized with
SuFexable units or involved in SuFEx-type chemistry.[15] This gap in the area of SuFEx chemistry inspired us to
investigate the possibility of introducing the −SO2F motif into nucleosides and investigate the potential of such derivatives
as novel, ready-to-functionalize building blocks.We aimed to
add SuFEx-able groups to natural ribonucleosides bearing
an −NH2 group at the nucleobase unit, namely, adenosine
(A), guanosine (G), and cytidine (C). We expected that their successful
reaction with an electrophilic SO2F+ donor will
result in sulfamoyl-fluoride-functionalized nucleosides, which can
be excellent starting materials for the synthesis of yet unexplored
sulfamide-bearing nucleosides. To the best of our knowledge, the only
example of nucleobases possessing a sulfamide group was synthesized
using pentachlorophenyl sulfamate and was limited to simple −SO2–NH2 functionality.[16] In preliminary experiments, we have tested SuFExIT[10] as a SO2F group donor. This reagent has been
shown as a superior SuFEx hub for primary amine derivatization, and
before its introduction synthetic access to the sulfamoyl fluorides
was limited.[17] Unfortunately, by treating
A, G, C, Ac3A, Ac3G, and Ac3C with
this reagent in various solvents, we obtained complex reaction mixtures
that were difficult to separate into individual components. Neither
cooling the reaction mixture nor portionwise addition of the reagents
changed this outcome. After this initial failure, we turned our attention
into ex situ generation of SO2F2.[12] This approach uses a two chamber H-shaped reactor
designed by the Skrydstrup group (Figure D)[18] for safe
generation of precise amounts of gaseous reagents including CO, HCl,
HCN, H2, and SO2[19] from solid and liquid substrates. Using this technique, SO2F2 can be generated in a one-reactor chamber by treating
a mixture of SDI and KF with TFA upon vigorous mixing (Figure C).[12] The generated SO2F2 diffuses under pressure
into the second reactor chamber containing the solution of the substrate
via a connecting tube and enters the SuFEx reaction. It was found
to be very efficient in the preparation of a wide variety of fluorosulfates
from phenols (when triethylamine/DCM was used), while amine groups
remained unreacted.[12] Keeping that in mind,
we decided to manipulate the reported conditions to check if the proper
selection of the base/solvent system and control over SO2F2 administration would allow us to perform amine to sulfamoyl
fluoride transformation. For practical reasons (solubility and TLC-based
monitoring of the reaction progress), we started to test this strategy
using Ac3A as a model substrate and DCM as a solvent using
3 equiv of SO2F2 precursors (Scheme ).
Scheme 1
Synthesis of Sulfamoyl-Functionalized
Nucleosides (SuFNucs) 1–3 via ex
situ generated SO2F2
When no base was present in the reaction mixture or weak base was
used, the starting material was fully recovered, but in the presence
of DBU (4 equiv) the overnight reaction resulted in full conversion
of the starting material and highly selective formation of the expected
product. The reaction proceeded equally well in any solvent tested
(see Table S1), and the product 1 was isolated in nearly quantitative yields and excellent purity
only by extraction techniques (to remove DBU and its salts). In the
case of Ac3G and Ac3C, the same reaction conditions
and purification method worked alike, giving 2 and 3 in 95% and 75% yield, respectively (Scheme , see SI for details).The structures of the products were confirmed by a set of NMR analyses,
which indicated the presence of a fluorine nucleus with chemical shifts
in the range characteristic for sulfamoyl fluorides: δF = 53.93 ppm for 1 (recorded in CDCl3), δF = 50.89 ppm for 2 (recorded in DMSO-d6), and δF = 52.49 ppm for 3 (recorded in CDCl3). The 13C NMR analysis
of 2 revealed a spin–spin coupling between C2
carbon and fluorine (3JC–F = 3 Hz), confirming that the reaction took place at the N2 position.The reaction scale up did not generate any losses in selectivity
and maintained high yields and purity, allowing for the preparation
of larger quantities (up to 3 mmol/>1 g in one batch when 100 mL
of
reactor was applied, see Figure S1) of
SuFNucs 1–3 without compromising
the reaction performance.After establishing a practical method
for the preparation of SuFNucs 1–3, we investigated their reactivity
toward amines. Heating 1 with selected amines (benzyl
amine, morpholine, and toluidine) in the presence of TEA in various
solvents[10] did not lead to the formation
of the desired product, while slight degradation of the staring material
was observed. Hence, we focused on the approach toward reacting “SuFExable”
units with amines developed by am Ende and Ball.[20,21] In this concept, the activation of the −SO2F group
is achieved by the addition of a stoichiometric amount of Lewis acid
in combination with a proper amine mediator. Application of Ca(NTf2)2 and DABCO has allowed us to transform sulfamoyl
fluorides, fluorosulfates, and sulfonyl fluorides into respective
sulfamides, sulfamates, and sulfonamides by applying a single set
of optimized conditions.[21] To our delight,
the model reaction between 1 and benzyl amine in the
presence of the Ca(NTf2)2/DABCO system resulted
in the formation of the expected sulfamide along with some unidentified
polar byproducts, which could be easily removed during workup (see Table S2 and Figure S2 for details).The yield and selectivity were affected by the
nature of the solvent
used (Table S2 and Figure S2), with DCM and MeCN performing the best. This finding
opened an entry to a wide range of different sulfamide-modified nucleosides
(SulfamNucs, Figure ). The reaction worked well for ammonia (4a, 30%) and
simple primary amines like methyl amine (4b, 41%), t-Bu amine (4c, 55%), cyclopropyl amine (4d, 44%), benzyl amine (4f, 50%), and adamantine
(4e, 45%). The utility of aniline derivatives was demonstrated
by 4-ethynylaniline (4g, 76%). Amines possessing an additional
functional group, which can be used for further transformations, gave
high yields of valuable compounds 4h (69%) and 4i (70%) functionalized with terminal alkyne and azide, respectively.
The yields were not affected upon scaleup to 2 mmol of the starting
material. A conjugate with an amino acid derivative, methyl ester
of glycine, was also obtained in good yield (4j, 46%).
Secondary amines reacted equally well, giving pyrrolidine (4k), morpholine (4l), and proline methyl ester (4m) SulfamNucs derivatives in 70%, 64%, and 43% yield, respectively.
It is worth mentioning that some of the amines (volatile ones and
amino acids) were used as hydrochlorides, which did not affect the
yields if a proper excess of DABCO was applied. The functionalization
of guanosine derivative 2 also gave satisfying results,
after a slight amendment of the reaction conditions was applied to
overcome solubility issues (use of the DCM/THF mixture as a solvent
and lowering the concentration). Yields of the respective SulfamNucs
were slightly lower compared to adenosine derivatives; nevertheless,
the simplicity of workup and purification allowed us to obtain a collection
of SulfamNucs 5a–g (Figure ) with simple and more complex
substituents (for additional information, see Figure S3). In the case of cytidine, the reactivity under
the established conditions was similar to adenosine. Compound 3 reacted smoothly with different primary and secondary amines
(Scheme ) in moderate
to good yields, keeping the workup/isolation of SulfamNucs 6a–e simple and not particularly laborious.
Figure 2
Scope of Ca(NTf2)2/DABCO-mediated SuFEx reaction
between SuFNucs and amines.
Scheme 2
SulfamNucs 7–9 Obtained upon Deprotection
of Acetylated SulfamNucs 4–6
Scope of Ca(NTf2)2/DABCO-mediated SuFEx reaction
between SuFNucs and amines.The deprotection of SulfamNucs was tested with
a range of standard
reagents (ammonia, MeNH2 in MeOH, and MeNH2 in
EtOH). Methylamine in absolute ethanol (33%) was the most effective,
leading to unprotected nucleosides in high yields and only minimal
workup necessary (Scheme ; see SI for details).To
demonstrate the reactivity of SuFNucs toward more complex molecules,
we reacted 1 with a short peptide-containing lysine (Scheme ). Due to the solubility
issues, the reaction was performed in DMSO, under high dilution and
with an excess of 1 relative to the peptide. After 4
h of incubation, the whole peptide was consumed, and the desired conjugate
was easily isolated using RP-HPLC. Deprotection of OH groups was performed
as described above and lead selectively to the peptide–nucleotide
conjugate 10 connected via sulfamide linkage in 24% overall
yield (the conditions and workup/isolation procedure were not optimized).
Scheme 3
Conjugation of SuFNuc 1 with Peptide
To investigate further transformation possibilities, adenosine
SulfamNuc 7d was transformed into the corresponding 5′-phosphate
under standard Yoshikawa phosphorylation conditions (Scheme ).[22] Treatment of 7d with POCl3 in (MeO)3PO under cooling resulted in monophosphate 11 in good yield and purity.
Scheme 4
Phosphorylation of SulfamNuc 7d
Finally, we introduced sulfamide-functionalized
adenosine into
short RNA oligonucleotide using standard phosphoramidite-based solid
phase synthesis (SPS). The synthesis of the proper phosphoramidite
building block required for SPS started from 2′-O-Me adenosine (2′-O-MeA; Scheme ). This excluded the necessity
of selective 2′-OH protection and simplified the synthesis.
The synthesis of proper SulfamNuc 14 was accomplished
in 3 steps with 72% yield. Introduction of DMT at the 5′ position
and phosphoramidite at the 3′ position was achieved using standard
nucleoside chemistry and led to 16 in 36% yield (26%
overall yield for 5 steps). 16 was used in manual SPS
(see SI for details) of trinucleotide 17 composed of uridine, SulfamNuc 2′-O-Me adenosine 14, and guanosine. Upon deprotection and
cleavage from the support, the trinucleotide 17 was purified
using standard chromatographic techniques in 57% yield.
Scheme 5
Synthesis
of Trinucleotide 17 Containing Sulfamide-Functionalized
2′-O-Me Adenosine as an Internal Nucleotide
In summary, by applying ex situ generation of
SO2F2, we were able to prepare adenosine, guanosine,
and cytidine
derivatives bearing −NHSO2F motif as “SuFEx-able”
nucleosides (SuFNuc) in high yields. Such a reaction between primary
amine and SO2F2 is very rare and is in contrast
to previous observations.[1,12] The −NHSO2F functional group was then used to functionalize these nucleosides
with diverse amines leading to previously unknown sulfamide-functionalized
nucleosides (SulfamNuc) in good yields. All these transformations
are operationally simple, are high yielding, and can be easily upscaled
to the gram scale, and obtained compounds are stable upon storage.
Further prospects of SulfamNuc chemistry were demonstrated by conjugation
with peptide and incorporation into nucleotides including oligonucleotides.
These findings potentially open several new avenues in nucleoside
and nucleotide chemistry, including more robust preparation of highly
functionalized structures, bioconjugates, and nucleotide/nucleoside
libraries. Further exploration of SuFNuc- and SulfamNuc-type compounds
is under investigation in our group and will be presented in due course.
Authors: Christopher J Smedley; Marie-Claire Giel; Andrew Molino; Andrew S Barrow; David J D Wilson; John E Moses Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Philippe Hermange; Anders T Lindhardt; Rolf H Taaning; Klaus Bjerglund; Daniel Lupp; Troels Skrydstrup Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Qinheng Zheng; Jordan L Woehl; Seiya Kitamura; Diogo Santos-Martins; Christopher J Smedley; Gencheng Li; Stefano Forli; John E Moses; Dennis W Wolan; K Barry Sharpless Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Hua Zhou; Paramita Mukherjee; Rongqiang Liu; Edelweiss Evrard; Dianpeng Wang; John M Humphrey; Todd W Butler; Lise R Hoth; Jeffrey B Sperry; Sylvie K Sakata; Christopher J Helal; Christopher W Am Ende Journal: Org Lett Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 6.005
Authors: Subham Mahapatra; Cristian P Woroch; Todd W Butler; Sabrina N Carneiro; Sabrina C Kwan; Samuel R Khasnavis; Junha Gu; Jason K Dutra; Beth C Vetelino; Justin Bellenger; Christopher W Am Ende; Nicholas D Ball Journal: Org Lett Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 6.005