Asymmetric synthesis and biological properties of uncialamycin and 26-epi-uncialamycin

Article abstract of DOI:10.1002/anie.200704577

(Chemical Equation Presented) The highly potent DNA-cleaving molecule uncialamycin (1) was prepared in an asymmetric total synthesis featuring an enantioselective Noyori reduction. Compound 1 and its C26 epimer exhibit impressive broad-spectrum antibacterial properties and highly potent antitumor activities against a variety of cell lines.

Full text of DOI:10.1002/anie.200704577

Angewandte
Chemie
DOI: 10.1002/anie.200704577
Natural Product Synthesis
Asymmetric Synthesis and Biological Properties of Uncialamycin and
26-epi-Uncialamycin**
K. C. Nicolaou,* Jason S. Chen, Hongjun Zhang, and Ana Montero
Dedicated to Professor Ryoji Noyori on the occasion of his 70th birthday
Among the most potent antitumor antibiotics are the
enediynes,[1] one of which, calicheamicin g1 (Mylotarg,
I
Gemtuzumabozogamicin), is currently in use as an anticancer
agent.[2] Uncialamycin (1, Figure 1) is a newly discovered
enediyne[3] isolated from an unspecified strain of Streptomy-
cete related to Streptomyces cyanogenus. In preliminary
investigations, uncialamycin revealed striking activity against
Escherichia coli [minimum inhibitory concentration
Figure 1. Structures of uncialamycin (1) and 26-epi-uncialamycin (2).
(MIC) = 0.002 mgmLÀ1], Staphylococcus aureus (MIC =
0.0000064 mgmLÀ1), and Burkholderia cepacia (MIC =
0.001 mgmLÀ1), the latter being responsible for lung infections
in cystic fibrosis patients.[4] These phenomenal results elevate
uncialamycin to a promising lead for drug discovery in the
areas of cancer and infectious diseases. However, the extreme
scarcity of this substance (only 300 mg was isolated) hampered
further biological studies. Herein we describe the asymmetric
synthesis of uncialamycin and its bioactive isomer, 26-epi-
uncialamycin (2 ), and detailed studies into their in vitro
DNA-cleaving, antibacterial, and cytotoxic properties. We
found that 1 and 2 promote single- and double- strand cuts in
plasmid DNA and exhibit powerful antibacterial properties
against several strains, including methicillin-resistant Staph-
ylococcus aureus (MRSA; MIC = 0.0002 mgmLÀ1 for 1) and
vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis (VRE; MIC =
0.002 mgmLÀ1 for 1) as well as potent activities against a
broad panel of cancer cells, including Taxol-resistant ovarian
cells (1A9/PTX10; IC50 = 6 ” 10À11m for 1) and epothilone B
resistant cells (1A9/A8; IC50 = 9 ” 10À12 m for 1). Our results
demonstrate the viability of chemical synthesis as a source of
these valuable compounds and render them readily available
for biological studies. Furthermore, our investigations dem-
onstrate the potential of these compounds as drug candidates
for the treatment of cancer and infectious diseases and
confirm their DNA-cleaving mechanism of action. Given
these findings, we suggest that antibody conjugates[5] of these
toxins may lead to targeting agents of clinical importance.
Owing to the low natural abundance of uncialamycin (1),
the original investigation of its structure[3] stopped short of
assigning its stereochemistry at C26 and offered only a
speculation as to the moleculeꢀs absolute configuration. While
our recent synthesis of racemic uncialamycin (1) and 26-epi-
uncialamycin (2) provided an answer to the question of the
relative stereochemistry at C26, it neither solved the issue of
supply of the naturally occurring enantiomer of the natural
product nor determined its absolute configuration.[6] To
resolve these issues and facilitate further biological inves-
tigations, we resorted to a catalytic asymmetric synthesis of
uncialamycin (1), highlights of which are shown in Scheme 1.
Thus, the readily available prochiral quinoline carboxylic acid
3[6] was converted to its methyl ester 4 through the initial
action of thionyl chloride followed by treatment of the
resulting acid chloride with methanol in the presence of Et3N
and DMAP in 65% overall yield. Noyori reduction[7] of the
methyl ketone moiety within 4 (ruthenium catalyst 5,
HCO2H, Et3N) resulted in the formation of g-lactone 7,
presumably via intermediate hydroxy ester 6, in 95% yield
and 93% ee. While this outcome was satisfactory, difficulties
in maintaining the configurational integrity of the generated
asymmetric center in 7 during its obligatory conversion to
intermediate 8 under acidic conditions led us to explore an
alternative approach to reach compound 8 from starting
material 3.
[*] Prof. Dr. K. C. Nicolaou, J. S. Chen, Dr. H. Zhang, Dr. A. Montero
Department of Chemistry and
The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology
The Scripps Research Institute
10550 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037 (USA)
Fax: (+1)858-784-2469
E-mail: kcn@scripps.edu
and
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093 (USA)
[**] We thank the National Cancer Institute (NCI) screening program
(http://dtp.nci.nih.gov/) for testing our compounds in the 60-cell-
line panel and Dr. R. N. Misra for his assistance. We thank Dr. P.
Giannakakou for providing the 1A9, 1A9/PTX10, 1A9/PTX22, and
1A9/A8 cell lines. We also acknowledge Drs. D. H. Huang, G.
Siuzdak, R. K. Chadha, R. Ghadiri, and I. Hwang for assistance with
NMR spectroscopy, mass spectrometry, X-ray crystallography,
bacterial assays, and cytotoxicity assays, respectively. This work was
supported by The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, a National
Defense Science and Engineering Graduate fellowship (to J.S.C.),
and a MEC/Fulbright fellowship (to A.M.).
Supporting information for this article is available on the WWW
under http://www.angewandte.org or from the author.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 185 –189
ꢀ 2008 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
185

Communications
Scheme 2. Preparation of iodide derivative 11 and ORTEP drawing of
11 (with thermal ellipsoids drawn at 30% probability). Reagents and
conditions: a) I2 (3.0 equiv), AgO2CCF3 (4.5 equiv), CHCl3, 08C, 1 h,
80%.
profiles with regard to DNA-cleavage, antibacterial, and
cytotoxic properties. Figure 2 shows the results of DNA-
cleavage experiments using form I (supercoiled) FX174
plasmid DNA as revealed by gel electrophoresis. Thus,
uncialamycin (1) exhibited potent DNA cleavage, causing
both single- and double- strand cuts (to yield form II (relaxed
circular) and form III (linear) plasmid, respectively) at
concentrations as low as 100 nm at 378C and pH 8.0 with
virtually complete cleavage of the plasmid at 1000 nm after
24 h of incubation in the absence of a thiol (Figure 2a). In the
presence of glutathione (1 mm) or dithiothreitol (1 mm), the
cleavage capabilities of 1 were enhanced approximately by a
factor of 10, leading to complete cleavage of the plasmid with
100 nm of 1 (10 equivalents with regards to the plasmid) under
the above-mentioned conditions. Furthermore, comparing the
extent of DNA cleavage at multiple time points revealed a
marked rate acceleration for the cleavage in the presence of
glutathione (Figure 2b). Thus, whereas in the absence of a
thiol activator, the DNA-cleavage activity of 1 continued
steadily for at least 24 h, in the presence of glutathione, the
DNA cleavage was complete within 6 h. The DNA-cleaving
capabilities of 1 were not restricted to pH 8.0, but were also
evident at pH 6.0, 7.0, and 7.4. In the absence of glutathione,
the DNA-cleaving rate in this pH range was insensitive to
changes in pH, whereas in the presence of glutathione, a
higher rate was observed under more basic conditions. 26-epi-
Uncialamycin (2) exhibited a similar DNA-cleavage profile to
1 (see the Supporting Information).
The mechanism by which uncialamycins 1 and 2 cleave
DNA is presumed to be similar to that of dynemicin A[9] and
is supported by our observation of a Bergman-type cyclo-
aromatization[10] of racemic uncialamycin to afford a stable
aromatic system upon activation with HCl in methylene
chloride.[6] Proceeding through a cascade sequence, the thiol-
promoted DNA cleavage by uncialamycin (1) is likely
initiated by reduction of its anthraquinone domain to a
dihydroquinone moiety, leading to 12 (Scheme 3). The latter
intermediate is apparently labile by virtue of the electron flow
toward the epoxide site, leading to species 13, whose
tautomerization to quinone 14 is likely to be facile and
rapid. The opening of the epoxide triggers cycloaromatization
to afford benzenoid diradical 15, which delivers the damaging
blow to the genetic material by abstracting hydrogen atoms,
Scheme 1. Catalytic asymmetric synthesis of uncialamycin (1) and 26-
epi-uncialamycin (2). Reagents and conditions: a) SOCl2, 808C,
30 min; then MeOH (2.0 equiv), Et3N (5.0 equiv), DMAP (0.1 equiv),
258C, 1 h, 65%; b) 5 (0.05 equiv), HCO2H (4.3 equiv), Et3N
(2.5 equiv), CH2Cl2, 08C, 36 h, 95% yield, 93% ee; c) 48% aq HBr,
nBu4NBr (0.1 equiv), 1108C, 40 h; d) DMBBr (3.0 equiv), K2CO3
(8.0 equiv), nBu4NI (0.15 equiv), DMF, 258C, 3 h, 55% over 2 steps;
e) 5 (0.05 equiv), HCO2H (4.3 equiv), Et3N (2.5 equiv), CH2Cl2, 08C,
36 h, 95% yield, 98% ee; recrystallization from EtOAc, ꢀ99% ee.
DMAP=4-(N,N-dimethylamino)pyridine, DMB=3,4-dimethoxybenzyl,
DMF=N,N-dimethylformamide, Ts=toluenesulfonyl.
To this end, we converted methyl ether carboxylic acid 3
to DMB ether DMB ester 9 through demethylation (48% aq
HBr, nBu4NBr cat., 1108C) followed by exposure to DMBBr
in the presence of K2CO3 and catalytic nBu4NI at ambient
temperature (55% overall yield). We were then pleased to
find that Noyori reduction of 9 under the same conditions as
those described above for 4 furnished lactone 8, presumably
via intermediate 10, in 95% yield and 98% ee. A single
recrystallization of the so-obtained material from ethyl
acetate afforded the key intermediate 8 in ꢀ 99% ee (m.p.
181–1828C, EtOAc). This intermediate was then elaborated
to (+)-uncialamycin (1, natural) and (+)-26-epi-uncialamycin
(2) by the same sequence as that used to synthesize the
racemic forms of these compounds.[6] In order to ensure that
the Noyori reduction of 9 produced the predicted enantiomer
of 8, a sample of the latter compound was iodinated (I2,
AgO2CCF3) as shown in Scheme 2 to afford the crystalline
iodide 11 (m.p. 200–2028C, CH3CN). X-ray crystallographic
analysis of 11 confirmed its absolute configuration [26(S), see
ORTEP drawing, Scheme 2].[8] Thus, the absolute configu-
ration of uncialamycin was unambiguously determined to be
that shown in Figure 1.
With ample quantities of synthetic uncialamycins 1 and 2
on hand, we were in a position to investigate their biological
186
www.angewandte.org
ꢀ 2008 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 185 –189

Angewandte
Chemie
Figure 2. Pictures of electrophoresis gels showing DNA cleavage by
uncialamycin (1). a) Variable concentration, with and without thiol
activator. FX174 form I DNA (10 nm plasmid, 50 mm base pair) was
incubated for 24 h at 378C with uncialamycin (1, variable concentra-
tion) with and without 1 mm glutathione in pH 8.0 buffer (10 mm
Tris·HCl, 1 mm EDTA, 1% DMSO) and analyzed by gel electrophoresis
(1% agarose gel, ethidium bromide stain). Lane 1: control incubated
without 1; lanes 2–9: 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 2500, and 5000 nm
1, respectively. b) Variable time, with and without thiol activator.
FX174 form I DNA (10 nm plasmid, 50 mm base pair) was incubated
for 0–24 h at 378C with uncialamycin (1, 1000 nm without glutathione
or 100 nm with glutathione) with and without 1 mm glutathione in
pH 8.0 buffer (10 mm Tris·HCl, 1 mm EDTA, 1% DMSO) and analyzed
by gel electrophoresis (1% agarose gel, ethidium bromide stain).
Lane 1: control (no compound added, incubated for 24 h); lanes 2–8:
compound added, incubated for 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 h, respectively.
Forms I, II, and III refer to supercoiled, relaxed circular, and linear
DNA, respectively. EDTA=ethylenediaminetetraacetate, DMSO=
dimethyl sulfoxide.
Scheme 3. Presumed mechanism of DNA cleavage by uncialamycin (1)
and 26-epi-uncialamycin (2) in the presence of glutathione (RSH). A
similar mechanism is envisioned for acid-catalyzed or enzymatically
promoted DNA cleavage by uncialamycins 1 and 2. The calculated
distance between the two acetylenic carbon atoms (labeled c and d)
that form the carbon-carbon bond during the cycloaromatization in 14
is considerably shorter (3.09 Š by calculation) than the corresponding
distance in 1 (3.41 Š by calculation; 3.60 Š by X-ray crystallographic
analysis[6]).
ococcus faecalis [MIC = 0.002 mgmLÀ1 (1), 0.007 mgmLÀ1 (2)]
as well as against bacterial strains present in pulmonary
infections such as Burkholderia cepacia [MIC =
0.0004 mgmLÀ1 (1), 0.006 mgmLÀ1 (2)] and Streptococcus
pneumoniae [MIC = 0.0004 mgmLÀ1 (1), 0.004 mgmLÀ1 (2)].
The activity against Burkholderia cepacia is particularly
significant to cystic fibrosis patients, where these compounds
may hold promise as anti-infective agents.[4]
one from each stand, causing the observed double-strand cuts,
and being itself converted to the benzenoid compound 16.
In light of the impressive DNA-cleaving properties
observed for natural uncialamycin (1) and its reported activity
against Staphylococcus aureus,[3] we set out to assay unciala-
mycins 1 and 2 against a broad panel of bacterial strains. We
were pleased to find potent antibacterial activity against all
bacterial strains tested, including Gram positive, Gram
negative, and drug-resistant strains (Table 1). In particular,
both compounds displayed extraordinary activity against
Gram positive Staphylococci: Staphylococcus aureus
[MIC=0.0002 mgmLÀ1 (1), 0.001 mgmLÀ1 (2)], methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MIC = 0.0002 mgmLÀ1 (1),
0.0009 mgmLÀ1 (2)], and Staphylococcus epidermidis [MIC =
0.00009 mgmLÀ1 (1), 0.0003 mgmLÀ1 (2)]. Both compounds
also showed good activity against vancomycin-resistant Enter-
We also assayed uncialamycins 1 and 2 for activity against
ovarian carcinoma cell line 1A9, Taxol-resistant mutants 1A9/
PTX10 and 1A9/PTX22, and epothilone B resistant mutant
1A9/A8 (Table 2).[12] The compounds were found to be
extremely potent against the parental 1A9 cell line [1A9,
50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) = 1 ” 10À11m (1), 6 ”
10À11m (2)], Taxol-resistant [1A9/PTX10, IC50 = 6 ” 10À11
(1), 6 ” 10À10
(2)], and epothilone-resistant [1A9/A8,
IC50 = 9 ” 10À12 m (1), 1 ” 10À10 m (2)] cell lines.
m
m
Prompted by these findings, uncialamycins 1 and 2 were
selected for testing by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)
against their panel of 60 human-tumor cell lines.[13] The results
were equally impressive, with the natural isomer (1) generally
exhibiting modestly higher potencies than its C26 epimer (2).
Natural uncialamycin (1) showed particularly high lethal
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 185 –189
ꢀ 2008 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.angewandte.org
187

Communications
Table 1: Antibacterial profiles of uncialamycins 1 and 2.[a]
Table 3: LC50 profiles of natural uncialamycin (1) against selected cancer
cell lines.[a]
Bacterial strain
Control (MIC)
1 (MIC)
[mgmLÀ1
2 (MIC)
[mgmLÀ1
]
]
Cell line
Cancer type
Taxol
Epothilone B Compound 1
(LC50 [m]) (LC50 [m])
(LC50 [m])
MRSA
vancomycin
0.0002
0.0002
0.00009
0.0003
0.001
0.001
0.0009
0.0003
0.002
0.006
0.007
0.004
0.02
(1 mgmLÀ1
)
M14
melanoma
8”10À5
6”10À5
–
8”10À5
6”10À5
–
9”10À9
2”10À8
8”10À9
Staphylococcus aureus
Staphylococcus epidermidis
Bacillus cereus
vancomycin
(4 mgmLÀ1
vancomycin
(2 mgmLÀ1
vancomycin
(2 mgmLÀ1
vancomycin
(2 mgmLÀ1
daptomycin
(2 mgmLÀ1
daptomycin
(2 mgmLÀ1
streptomycin
(1 mgmLÀ1
streptomycin
(9 mgmLÀ1
streptomycin
(6 mgmLÀ1
streptomycin
(6 mgmLÀ1
SK-MEL-5 melanoma
MDA-MB- breast
468
NCI-H226 non-small cell
lung
)
)
8”10À5
> 10À4
8”10À5
> 10À4
–
2”10À8
6”10À9
9”10À9
)
SF-295
central nervous
system
central nervous
system
Lysteria monocytogenes
VRE
)
SF-539
<10À8
0.002
)
[a] Antitumor assays were performed by the National Cancer Institute
(NCI) in accordance with their published protocols.[13] Data for Taxol and
epothilone B are from the NCI June 2007 test.
Streptococcus pneumoniae
Escherichia coli
0.0004
0.006
)
)
Burkholderia cepacia
Salmonella typhimurium
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
0.0004
0.009
0.006
0.02
)
The described chemistry provides ready access to
enantiopure uncialamycin (1) and 26-epi-uncialamycin (2),
enabling extensive biological investigations of these highly
potent DNA-cleaving molecules. Exploratory investigations
revealed impressive broad-spectrum antibacterial properties
and highly potent antitumor activities against a variety of cell
lines, including drug-resistant cell lines. While the developed
synthetic route will provide access to a variety of designed
analogues of these compounds, the biological profiles of 1 and
2 warrant further investigation, including the evaluation of
antibody–drug conjugates[5] for potential antitumor,[2] anti-
bacterial,[14] and antiviral[15] applications.
)
0.02
0.04
)
[a] Antibacterial activity was determined by the National Committee for
Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) broth microdilution methods.[11]
Detailed experimental procedures may be found in the Supporting
Information.
Table 2: IC50 profiles of uncialamycins 1 and 2 against ovarian tumor cell
lines.[a]
Cell line
Taxol
Epothilone B Compound 1 Compound 2
(IC50 [m]) (IC50 [m])
(IC50 [m])
(IC50 [m])
Received: October 3, 2007
Published online: December 3, 2007
1A9
2”10À9
4”10À10
8”10À10
5”10À10
4”10À9
1”10À11
6”10À11
3”10À11
9”10À12
6”10À11
6”10À10
2”10À10
1”10À10
1A9/PTX10 4”10À8
1A9/PTX22 5”10À8
Keywords: antibiotics · antitumor agents ·
.
1A9/A8
1”10À8
asymmetric synthesis · enediynes · natural products
[a] Detailed experimental procedures may be found in the Supporting
Information. 1A9 is an ovarian tumor cell line derived from A2780; 1A9/
PTX10 and 1A9/PTX22 are Taxol-resistant strains; 1A9/A8 is an
epothilone B resistant strain. These cell lines were obtained from P.
Giannakakou (Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill
Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY).
[1] a) A. L. Smith, K. C. Nicolaou, J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39, 2103 –
2117; b) G. B. Jones, F. S. Fouad, Curr. Pharm. Des. 2002, 8,
2415 – 2440.
[2] J. S. Thorson, E. L. Sievers, J. Ahlert, E. Shepard, R. E.
Whitwam, K. C. Onwueme, M. Ruppen, Curr. Pharm. Des.
2000, 6, 1841 – 1879.
[3] J. Davies, H. Wang, T. Taylor, K. Warabi, X.-H. Huang, R. J.
Andersen, Org. Lett. 2005, 7, 5233 – 5236.
[4] J. S. Elborn, Thorax 2004, 59, 914 – 915.
[5] A. M. Wu, P. D. Senter, Nat. Biotechnol. 2005, 23, 1137 – 1146.
[6] K. C. Nicolaou, H. Zhang, J. S. Chen, J. J. Crawford, L.
Pasunoori, Angew. Chem. 2007, 119, 4788 – 4791; Angew.
Chem. Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 4704 – 4707.
[7] a) A. Fujii, S. Hashiguchi, N. Uematsu, T. Ikariya, R. Noyori, J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 2521 – 2522; b) R. Noyori, S.
Hashiguchi, Acc. Chem. Res. 1997, 30, 97 – 102.
[8] CCDC 658644 contains the supplementary crystallographic data
for this paper. These data can be obtained free of charge from
The Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre via www.ccdc.
cam.ac.uk/data_request/cif.
[9] a) M. Konishi, H. Ohkuma, K. Matsumoto, T. Tsuno, H. Kamei,
T. Miyaki, T. Oki, H. Kawaguchi, G. D. VanDuyne, J. Clardy, J.
Antibiot. 1989, 42, 1449 – 1452; b) M. Konishi, H. Ohkuma, T.
potencies against selected cell lines, notably melanoma [for
example, M14, 50% lethal concentration (LC50) = 9 ” 10À9 m;
compare Taxol: LC50 = 8 ” 10À5 m, and epothilone B:
LC50 = 8 ” 10À5 m, see Table 3], breast cancer (MDA-MB-
468, LC50 = 8 ” 10À9 m), lung cancer (NCI-H226, LC50 = 2 ”
10À8 m), and central nervous system cancer (SF-295, LC50
=
6 ” 10À9 m) cell lines (see Table 3). Uncialamycin (1) also
demonstrated considerable selectivity against the various cell
lines tested, with minimal cytotoxicity observed against
leukemia cell lines (LC50 > 10À5 m for all cell lines tested, see
the Supporting Information). The entire spectrum of cytotox-
icities of uncialamycins 1 and 2 against the NCI panel of 60
human-tumor cell lines at concentrations ranging from 10À5 to
10À11m can be found in the Supporting Information.
188
www.angewandte.org
ꢀ 2008 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 185 –189

Angewandte
Chemie
Tsuno, T. Oki, G. D. VanDuyne, J. Clardy, J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1990, 112, 3715 – 3716; c) Y. Sugiura, T. Shiraki, M. Konishi, T.
Oki, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1990, 87, 3831 – 3835; d) Y.
Sugiura, T. Arakawa, M. Uesugi, T. Shiraki, H. Ohkuma, M.
Konishi, Biochemistry 1991, 30, 2989 – 2992.
Nicolaou, T. Fojo, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 2904 –
2909.
[13] a) M. C. Alley, D. A. Scudiero, A. Monks, M. L. Hursey, M. J.
Czerwinski, D. L. Fine, B. J. Abbott, J. G. Mayo, R. H. Shoe-
maker, M. R. Boyd, Cancer Res. 1988, 48, 589 – 601; b) M. R.
Grever, S. A. Schepartz, B. A. Chabner, Semin. Oncol. 1992, 19,
622 – 638; c) M. R. Boyd, K. D. Paull, Drug Dev. Res. 1995, 34,
91 – 109.
[14] N. Cerca, T. Maira-Litrꢁn, K. K. Jefferson, M. Grout, D. A.
Goldmann, G. B. Pier, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104,
7528 – 7533.
[10] a) R. R. Jones, R. G. Bergman, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1972, 94, 660 –
661; b) R. G. Bergman, Acc. Chem. Res. 1973, 6, 25 – 31.
[11] “Methods for determining bactericidal activity of antimicrobial
agents; Approved guideline”, National Committee for Clinical
Laboratory Standards, 2000, M23-A2, Vol. 21, No. 7.
[12] a) P. Giannakakou, D. L. Sackett, Y. K. Kang, Z. Zhan, J. T.
Buters, T. Fojo, M. S. Poruchynsky, J. Biol. Chem. 1997, 272,
17118 – 17125; b) P. Giannakakou, R. Gussio, E. Nogales, K. H.
Downing, D. Zaharevitz, B. Bollbuck, G. Poy, D. Sackett, K. C.
[15] E. A. Berger, B. Moss, I. Pastan, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998,
95, 11511 – 11513.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 185 –189
ꢀ 2008 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.angewandte.org
189