2322
D. C. Danila et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18 (2008) 2320–2323
sisted transport of phenylalanine to be 14 nmol/h · m2
from the data reported by Sunamoto et al., which is
comparable to the values we observed.16 Since all carri-
ers were always run together using the same batch of lip-
osomes, relative transport rates offer a meaningful
comparison. Compounds 4 and 6 exhibited fastest trans-
port rates in the series, and compound 3 was the slowest
carrier.
6. Scrimin, P.; Tonelatto, U.; Zanta, N. Tetrahedron Lett.
1988, 29, 4967.
7. Tsukube, H.; Shinoda, S.; Uenishi, J.; Schiode, M.;
Yonemitsu, O. Chem. Lett. 1996, 11, 969.
8. Mohler, L. K.; Czarnik, A. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993,
115, 7037.
9. Smith, B. D. Supramol. Chem. 1996, 7, 55.
10. Lyutikova, I. V.; Pletnev, I. V.; Matveeva, I. G.;
Torocheshnikova, I. I. Russ. Chem. Bull. 1998, 47, 177.
11. Furuta, H.; Furuta, K.; Sessler, J. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1991, 113, 4706.
12. Janout, V.; DiGiorgio, C.; Regen, S. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2000, 122, 2671.
13. Smith, B. D.; Gardiner, S. J. Adv. Supramol. Chem. 1999,
5, 157.
14. Janout, V.; Jing, B.; Staina, I. V.; Regen, S. L. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 4436.
15. Janout, V.; Regen, S. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 22.
16. Sunamoto, J.; Iwamoto, K.; Mohri, Y.; Kominato, T. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 1982, 104, 5502.
17. Antipin, I. S.; Stoikov, I. I.; Garifzyanov, A. R.; Kono-
valov, A. I. Russ. J. Gen. Chem. 1996, 66, 391.
18. Antipin, I. S.; Stoikov, I.; Pinkhassik, E.; Fitseva, N.;
Stibor, I.; Konovalov, A. Tetrahedron Lett. 1997, 38, 5865.
19. Kabachnik, M. I.; Medved, T. Ya. Dokl. Akad. Sci. USSR
1952, 83, 689.
20. Fields, E. K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1952, 74, 1528.
21. Pietri, S.; Miollan, M.; Martel, S.; Le Moigne, F.; Blaive,
B.; Culcasi, M. J. Biol. Chem. 2000, 275, 19505.
22. Martel, S.; Clement, J.-L.; Muller, A.; Culcasi, M.; Pietri,
S. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2002, 10, 1451.
We observed no direct relationship between hydropho-
bicity and efficiency of aminophosphonate carrier. It is
likely that optimum transport efficiency is the function
of availability of the carrier at the bilayer boundary,
hydrophobicity of the complex, and mobility of both
complex and free carrier. We observed significant differ-
ences between carrier 2 and carriers 4 and 6 as well as
carrier 5 and carriers 4 and 6. This can open an oppor-
tunity for finding relationships between carrier structure
and transport efficiency.
Based on transport rates measured in this study, 50% re-
lease of alanine, encapsulated in a 100-nm liposome with
the concentration of 300 mM, over a period of 3 weeks
would require 4–5 mol % of aminophosphonate carriers
relative to membrane phospholipids. Such concentra-
tions are attainable, and can be scaled down for even
longer release. Further tuning of transport efficiency
through additional binding by side-arm substituents
may offer control of mass transfer kinetics in a wider
range. Rapid progress in long-circulating liposomes
makes artificial transporters an attractive component
of the drug delivery systems.29
23. Davankov, V. A. Chirality 1997, 9, 99.
24. Reagents and conditions: 1, 2, 3, 6: amine (0.01 mol),
phosphite (0.01 mol), acetone (5 ml), 56 ꢁC, overnight; 4,
5, 7: amine (0.01 mol), cyclohexanone (0.01 mol), phos-
phite (0.01 mol), toluene (3 ml), 80 ꢁC, overnight. Solvent
was evaporated, and the mixture was separated by column
chromatography on silica gel with hexane/ethyl acetate
(5:1) eluent. Yields and spectroscopic data for the a-
aminophosphonates are as follows (1H NMR, CDCl3,
270 MHz):
In summary, we synthesized a series of a-aminophos-
phonates and evaluated their transport properties. Ami-
nophosphonates are capable of transporting alanine, a
model hydrophilic compound, across bilayer lipid mem-
branes at moderate rates. Due to ease of structural vari-
ations, a-aminophosphonates can be attractive
platforms for building carriers for facilitating transmem-
brane transport and regulating permeability of long-cir-
culating continuous release drug delivery devices.
Compound 1: Yield 75%, 1.48 ppm (d, 6H, J = 15.6 Hz),
3.72 ppm (d, 6H, J = 10.4 Hz), 6.82 ppm (t, 1H,
J = 7.4 Hz), 7.02 ppm (d, 2H, J = 1.2 Hz), 7.16 ppm (t,
2H, J = 20.0 Hz).
Compound 2: Yield 68%, 0.9 ppm (t, 6H, J = 32.4 Hz),
1.36 ppm (m, 4H, J = 51.3 Hz), 1.46 ppm (d, 6H,
J = 15.6 Hz), 1.56 ppm (m, 4H, J = 21.6 Hz), 4.09 ppm
(m, 4H, J = 21.0 Hz), 6.82 ppm (t, 1H, J = 7.4 Hz),
7.02 ppm (d, 2H, J = 1.2 Hz), 7.16 ppm (t, 2H,
J = 20.0 Hz).
Acknowledgments
We thank Chelsey Hunter for help with synthesis of
compounds 2 and 5. This work was supported in part
by the NSF CAREER award (CHE-0349315) and Uni-
versity of Memphis New Faculty Research Initiation
Award to E.P.
Compound 3: Yield 50%, 0.86 ppm (t, 12H, J = 54.0 Hz),
1.28 ppm (m, 10H, J = 27.0 Hz), 1.33 ppm (m, 4H,
J = 13.5 Hz), 1.48 ppm (d, 6H, J = 15.6 Hz), 1.55 ppm
(m, 2H, J = 35.1 Hz), 3.93 ppm (m, 4H, J = 21.0 Hz),
6.82 ppm (t, 1H, J = 7.4 Hz), 7.02 ppm (d, 2H,
J = 1.2 Hz), 7.16 ppm (t, 2H, J = 20.0 Hz).
Compound 4: Yield 61%, 1.26 ppm (m, 2H, J = 27 Hz),
1.51 ppm (m, 4H, J = 14 Hz), 1.80 ppm (m, 2H,
J = 40.5 Hz), 2.2 ppm (m, 2H, J = 19 Hz), 3.68 ppm (d,
6H, J = 10.4 Hz), 6.82 ppm (t, 1H, J = 7.4 Hz), 7.02 ppm
(d, 2H, J = 1.2 Hz), 7.16 ppm (t, 2H, J = 20.0 Hz).
Compound 5: Yield 39%, 0.86 ppm (t, 6H, J = 13.5 Hz),
1.30 ppm (m, 6H, J = 35.1 Hz), 1.51 ppm (m, 4H,
J = 27 Hz), 1.8 ppm (m, 2H, J = 35.1 Hz), 2.2 ppm (m,
2H, J = 21.6 Hz), 4.09 ppm (m, 4H, J = 21.0 Hz),
6.79 ppm (t, 1H, J = 7.4 Hz), 7.02 ppm (d, 2H,
J = 1.2 Hz), 7.14 ppm (t, 2H,J = 20.0 Hz).
References and notes
1. Chonn, A.; Cullis, P. R. Curr. Opin. Biotech. 1995, 6, 698.
2. Lian, T.; Ho, R. J. Y. J. Pharm. Sci. 2001, 90, 667.
3. Stoikov, I. I.; Antipin, I. S.; Konovalov, A. I. Russ. Chem.
Rev. 2003, 72, 1055.
4. Kobuke, Y. Adv. Supramol. Chem. 1997, 4, 163.
5. Brice, L. J.; Pirkle, W. H. Chiral Separations: Applications
and Technology; American Chemical Society: Washington,
1996.
Compound 6: Yield 59%, 1.44 ppm (d, 6H, J = 15.6 Hz),