10.1002/anie.201902005
Angewandte Chemie International Edition
COMMUNICATION
are required to reach high conversions (Table 4, 20). Increasing
the steric bulk of the other substituent on the ketone provided
products with poor levels of enantioselectivity (Table 4, 21,22).
This limitation can be overcome by using FlOYE as a catalyst
(98:2 er), although this reaction occurs with diminished yields
(Supplemental Table 2). Alternatively, we imagine protein
engineering could be applied to increase the enantioselectivity of
a particular transformation. Finally, non-acetophenone derivatives
were unreactive, presumably due to their low reduction potentials.
Finally, we envisioned that a single enzyme with ene-
reductase and ketoreductase catalytic activity could streamline
biocatalytic synthesis. When ketone 23 was subjected to the
reaction conditions, we observed global reduction of the substrate,
presumably with the ERED conducting its native reactivity,
followed by a non-natural ketone reduction to provide the desired
product in 89% yield and 83:17 er (Figure 5, 24). In contrast, in
the absence of light only alkene reduction is observed in 98%
yield (Figure 5, 25).
range of chemical transformations. Herein, we demonstrate that
a new mechanistic pathway can be accessed to generate chiral
products that are unexpected for this enzyme class without
biocatalyst modification. Furthermore, as significant efforts are
often made to engineer enzymes to tolerate conditions typically
used in organic synthesis, finding more examples of catalytic
promiscuity expands their synthetic utility and maximizes the
return on investment for such engineering projects.
Experimental Section
General Reaction Procedure. In an anaerobic chamber (Coy,
Grass Lake, MI), a stock solution of turnover mix containing GDH-
105 (5 mg) and glucose (180 mg) in 1 mL of degassed KPi (100
mM, pH 8) was prepared. A catalyst mix solution containing NAD+
(14.3 mg) and Ru(bpy)3Cl2 (8 mg) in 1 mL of degassed KPi (100
mM, pH 8) was prepared. To a dram vial containing 150 µL of
degassed KPi (100 mM, pH 8) was added 50 µL of turnover mix,
followed by 10 µL of catalyst mix and enzyme (volume of enzyme
varies with concentration). Finally, 10 µL of ketone (1.0 M in
DMSO) was added. The vial was sealed with a cap and removed
from the anaerobic chamber. The reaction was placed on a
shaker and illuminated with 460 nm light for 24 hours.
MorB
Ru(bpy)3Cl2
MorB
Ru(bpy)3Cl2
OH
O
O
Me
Me
Me
25
Ph
Ph
Ph
No Light
460 nm LED
Me
24
Me
23
98% yield
89% yield
83:17 er
Acknowledgements
T.K.H thanks the NIH-NIGMS (R01 GM127703), Searle Scholars
Award (SSP-2017-1741), Sloan Research Fellowship, the
Princeton Catalysis Initiative, and Princeton University for support.
B.A.S. and S.I.K. thank the Edward C. Taylor Fellowship for
support.
Figure 5. Change in Product Selectivity
One of the current limitations of biocatalysis in organic
synthesis is the perception that enzymes are limited to their
natural catalytic activity, suggesting that novel reactivity in
biocatalysis can only be obtained by screening nature for new
transformations, or with significant engineering of the biocatalyst.
This perception is in stark contrast to small molecule chiral
catalysts, which are often used to impart selectivity in a wide
Keywords: biocatalysis • photoredox • reduction • hydrogen
atom transfer • ‘ene’-reductase
[1]T.P. Yoon, E.N. Jacobsen, Science. 2003, 299, 1691-1693.
97-105.
[2] a) U.T. Bornscheur; R.J. Kazlauskas, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43,
6032-6040. b) H. Renata, Z.J. Wang, F.H. Arnold, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
2015, 54, 3351-3367. c) F. H. Arnold, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017, 57, 4143-
4148.
[11] a) S.H. Lee, D.S. Choi, M. Pesic, Y.W. Lee, C.E. Paul, F. Hollmann, C. B.
Park, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 8681-8685. b) Z.C. Litman, Y. Wang,
H. Zhao, J.F. Hartwig, Nature, 2018, 560, 355-359.
[12] a) E. Brenna, F.G. Gatti, D. Monti, F. Parmeggiani, A. Sacchetti.
ChemCatChem 2012, 4, 653-659. b) H.S. Toogood, N.S. Scrutton, ACS Catal.
2018, 8, 3532-3549.
[3] A.E. Allen, D.W.C. MacMillan, Chem. Sci. 2012, 3, 633-658.
[4] a) D. A. Nicewicz, D.W.C. MacMillan, Science, 2008, 322, 5898, 77-80. b)
J. Du, K. Skubi, D. M. Schultz, T. P. Yoon 2014, 344, 392. c) A. Gil, F.
Albericio, M. Alvarez Chem. Rev. 2017, 117, 8420.
[13] S. Fukuzumi, K. Ishikawa, K. Hironaka, T. Tanaka, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin
Trans. II 1987, 751-760.
[5] a) S. Krautwald, D. Sarlah, M. A. Schafroth, E. M. Carreira, Science 2013,
340, 1065. (b) I. Ibrahem, A. Córdova, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 1952-
1956.
[14] a) R. Maidan, I. Willner, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1986, 108, 1080-1082. b) C.
Pac, M. Ihama, M. Yasuda, Y. Miyauchi, H. Sakurai, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1981,
103, 6496-1497.
[6] M. Hönig, P. Sondermann, N.J. Turner, E.M. Carreira, Angew. Chem. Int.
Ed. 2017, 56, 8942-8973.
[15] C. K. Prier, D. A. Rankic, D. W. C. MacMillan, Chem. Rev. 2013, 113,
5322-5363.
[7] H. Zipse. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2003, 1, 692-699.
[16] B. A. Sandoval, A. J. Meichan, T. K. Hyster, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017,
139, 11313-11316.
[8] a) A.K. Turek, D.J. Hardee, A. M. Ullman, D.G. Nocera, E.N. Jacobsen,
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2016, 55, 539-544. b) H. Zipse. Org. Biomol. Chem.
2003, 1, 692-699.
[17] M.K. Peers, H.S. Toogood, D.J. Heyes, D. Mansell, B.J Coe, N. S.
Scrutton, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2016, 6, 169-177.
[9] K.F. Biegasiewicz, S.J. Cooper, M.A. Emmanuel, D.C. Miller, T.K. Hyster,
Nat. Chem. 2018, 10, 770-775.
[18] H.L. Messiha, A.W. Munro, N.C. Bruce, I. Barsukov, N.S. Scrutton, J. Biol.
Chem. 2005, 280, 10695-10709.
[10] a) R.M. Kohli, V. Massey, J. Biol. Chem. 1998, 273(98), 32763-32770. b)
C.K. Winkler, G. Tasnádi, D. Clay, M. Hall, K Faber, J. Biotechnol. 2012, 162,
381-389. c) C.K. Winkler, K. Faber, M. Hall, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2018, 43,
[19] a) J. Stubbe, D.G. Nocera, C.S. Yee, M.C.Y. Chang, Chem. Rev. 2003,
103(6), 2167-2202. b) B.I. Morinaka, A.L. Vagstad, M.J. Helf, M. Gugger, C.
For internal use, please do not delete. Submitted_Manuscript
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.