Communications
Library L1 includes various chemical motifs that are
containing heterodimers. Indeed, glutathione was not
expected to interact favorably with DNA because of its
overall negative charge at pH 7.4. We observed a net
amplification of the peaks corresponding to the macrocycle–
side-chain conjugates (Figure 1a,c).[13]
positively charged at physiological pH and exhibit different
potential for hydrogen bonding and electrostatic interactions
(A–E, Scheme 1). Library L1 (100 mm in each of the building
blocks) was combined with the quadruplex-binding platform
1 (100 mm) to generate DCL1.[10] The exchange buffer (50 mm
Tris/HCl pH 7.4, 150 mm KCl) contained an excess of both
reduced (1.28 mm) and oxidized glutathione (0.32 mm) to act
as an exchange mediator.[8d,g]
The level of amplification for the macrocyclic species in
the presence of c-Kit21 was 1-E > 1-A @ 1-D > 1-B @ 1-C
(Figure 1c).[14] Although all side chains are positively charged
at pH 7.4, this discrimination suggests binding events that are
not purely due to nondirectional electrostatic interactions
between the positively charged molecules and the polyanionic
DNA target, but rather due to the geometry and/or the
hydrogen-bonding potential of the side chains. Molecules 1-E
and 1-A were then resynthesized on a larger scale, and their
binding affinities for c-Kit21 were evaluated by surface
plasmon resonance (SPR).[10] Molecule 1-E was found to
bind the quadruplex with a dissociation constant (Kd) of 6.6 Æ
0.1 mm. This value is an approximately 10-fold improvement
in affinity as compared with the macrocycle platform 1, which
exhibits a Kd value of 67.5 Æ 16.8 mm for c-Kit21. In contrast,
the affinity of 1-A for c-Kit21 (Kd = 10.9 Æ 1.9 mm) is about
sixfold better than 1. These results are consistent with the
relative amplifications obtained for 1-E and 1-A: + 2200%
and + 1900%, respectively (Figure 1c).
DCL1 was prepared either in the absence or in the
presence of various DNA targets (100 mm). The nucleic acid
targets used were two intramolecular quadruplex-forming
sequences (c-Kit21, c-Myc22) and a 22-mer duplex DNA
(dsDNA; sequences are given in Table S1 in the Supporting
Information). Oligonucleotides c-Kit21 and c-Myc22 are
derived from G-rich sequences found in the promoters of c-
KIT and c-MYCproto-oncogenes, respectively. [11,12] In potas-
sium aqueous buffer at neutral pH, c-Myc22 folds into a single
1
parallel-stranded G-quadruplex structure.[11] Using H NMR
and CD spectroscopy, we showed that c-Kit21 predominantly
folds into a quadruplex with a parallel topology under nearly
physiological conditions.[12] The main differences between c-
Kit21 and c-Myc22 quadruplexes are likely to be in the
sequence and size of the loops.
In a typical experiment, DCL1 was left to equilibrate for
three days at room temperature, under air, without stirring.[10]
Then the exchange process was stopped by lowering the pH
value to 2.[10] For mixtures that included DNA targets, the
biotinylated targets were removed by using streptavidin-
coated magnetic beads, were heat denatured, and washed
several times to release any bound ligands. DCL compositions
were then analyzed by UV-HPLC-MS.[10] In the absence of
any target, DCL1 predominantly contained the glutathione
adducts of the macrocycle scaffold and of the side-chain
building blocks. Only small traces of other homo- and hetero-
disulfides were detected (Figure 1a). In the presence of c-
Kit21, marked changes in the composition of DCL1 occurred.
Notably, there was a clear decrease in the glutathione-
The thiol macrocycle platform 1 binds c-Myc22 with a Kd
value of 82.5 Æ 9.9 mm, which is slightly higher than the Kd
value determined for c-Kit21. In the presence of c-Myc22, the
two most amplified adducts from DCL1 were the guanidi-
nium derivatives 1-A and 1-E (Figure 2), as with c-Kit21. The
Figure 2. Proportion changesof the macrocycle–side-chain conjugates
in DCL1 upon introduction of c-Myc22.
other macrocycle–side-chain products (1-B, 1-C, 1-D) were
only moderately amplified (Figure 2). However, by con-
trast with the experiment performed in the presence of
c-Kit21, 1-A was this time more strongly amplified
(+ 2200%) than 1-E (+ 1700%). Indeed, SPR experiments
revealed that 1-A (Kd = 6.8 Æ 1.4 mm) binds approximately
12-fold better to c-Myc22 than 1, while the acyl–guanidi-
nium side chain E increases the affinity by approximately
eightfold (Kd = 9.8 Æ 0.2 mm).
Furthermore, in contrast to quadruplex targets, the
presence of dsDNA did not induce any significant changes
in the compositions of DCL1, thus suggesting no inter-
action between the components of the DCL and the DNA
duplex, as was also confirmed by SPR. Taken together,
Figure 1. Expansions of the HPLC traces of templated and untemplated
a) DCL1 and b) DCL2, and proportion changesof macrocycle–side-chain
conjugatesin c) DCL1 and d) DCL2 upon introduction of c-Kit21.
ꢀ 2008 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 2677 –2680