Figure 2. Structures of GPI anchor analogues 2-4.
the 6-position of Man3. Building from this position, each
analogue contains one or more mannose residues, based on
the structure of the S. cereVisiae GPI (1). Consequently, they
have been truncated to remove the terminal lipid domain,
the myo-inositol, and two or more sugar units. These
analogues were designed to be used as soluble substrates
for GPI-T.
The synthetic strategy adopted here involves the assembly
of common building blocks and synthetic routes. Orthogonal
protecting groups for the glycosyl donor-acceptor pairs were
optimized for yield and to obtain the desired diastereo-
selectivity in the glycosylation reactions. In order to introduce
the phosphoethanolamine moiety onto each glycan, phos-
phoramidite reagent 5 was synthesized in two steps following
published procedure.7
Figure 1. Structure of the yeast GPI anchor 1. R groups denote
sites of known species-specific modifications.1d,3
analogues that contain both carbohydrate and lipid func-
tionalities.4 These lipid-linked compounds are useful for
studying the functions of the GPI anchor and anchored
proteins, but their amphipathic nature hinders their utility
for soluble experiments.1a,d
Synthesis of GPI anchor analogue 2 started from com-
mercially available 1,2,3,4-tetra-O-benzyl-R-D-mannopyra-
noside 6 (Scheme 1). A standard phosphoramidite coupling
reaction employing 4,5-dicyanoimidazole (DCI) as the
coupling agent and previously synthesized phosphoramidate
5 resulted in an intermediate phosphite, which was subse-
quently oxidized in a one-pot reaction to generate 7 in good
yield (73%) over two steps.4a,8 A methanolic solution of
formic acid with Pd/C and hydrogen9 provided the best
conditions for cleavage of the benzyl and benzyloxy carbonyl
(Cbz) groups in 7 to furnish 2 in quantitative yield (Scheme
1).
Synthesis of GPI analogues 3 and 4 required glycosyl
donor-acceptor pairs. The synthesis of mannose building
blocks 11 and 13 started from known ortho ester 810 (Scheme
2), obtained from D-mannose. Acid-catalyzed ortho ester
deprotection of 8, followed by acetylation of the intermediate,
afforded 9. Selective deacetylation using hydrazinium acetate
afforded 10r,ꢀ in excellent yield (83%). Successive treat-
ment with trichloroacetonitrile in the presence of 1,8-
diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene (DBU)4e almost exclusively
afforded R-trichloroacetimidate 11 in 71% yield. Neighboring
group participation of the 2-O-acetyl group in 11 enables
R-selectivity in glycosylation reactions.4e Reaction of com-
In vivo, GPI anchors are attached to proteins via the
action of GPI transamidase (GPI-T); this enzyme catalyzes
the replacement of a C-terminal peptide signal sequence
with the full-length GPI anchor.5 Remarkably, the entire
GPI anchor substrate can be replaced by potent small
nucleophiles like hydrazine and hydroxylamine, if they
are presented to GPI-T in sufficiently high concentration.6
Here we describe the synthesis of three GPI anchor
analogues (2-4, Figure 2), which we predict will be more
effective soluble substrates for GPI-T than either hydrazine
or hydroxylamine because they more closely resemble the
full-length GPI anchor. Peptides modified with a C-
terminal disaccharide similar to 3 have been reported
previously.4c
Compounds 2-4 each begin with the site of protein
attachment, namely the phosphoethanolamine side chain at
(4) (a) Paulick, M. G.; Wise, A. R.; Forstner, M. B.; Groves, J. T.;
Bertozzi, C. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 11543. (b) Wu, X.; Guo, Z.
Org. Lett. 2007, 9, 4311. (c) Tanaka, Y.; Nakahara, Y.; Hojo, H; Nakahara,
Y. Tetrahedron 2003, 59, 4059. (d) Xue, J.; Shao, N.; Guo, Z. J. Org.
Chem. 2003, 68, 4020. (e) Mayer, T. G.; Schmidt, R. R. Eur. J. Org. Chem.
1999, 5, 959. (f) Udodong, U. E.; Madsen, R.; Roberts, C.; Roberts, S. C.;
Fraser-Reid, B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 7886.
(5) (a) Hong, Y.; Ohishi, K.; Kang, J. Y.; Tanaka, S.; Inoue, N.;
Nishimura, J.; Maeda, Y.; Kinoshita, T. Mol. Biol. Cell 2003, 13, 1780. (b)
Chen, R.; Anderson, V.; Hiroi, Y.; Medof, M. E. J. Cell Biochem. 2003,
88, 1025. (c) Fraering, P.; Imhof, I.; Meyer, U.; Strub, J. M.; van Dorsselaer,
A.; Vionnet, C.; Conzelmann, A. Mol. Biol. Cell 2001, 12, 3295. (d)
Amathauer, R.; Kodukula, K.; Gerber, L.; Udenfriend, S. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U.S.A. 1993, 90, 3973.
(7) Campbell, A. S.; Fraser-Reid, B. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 1994, 2, 1209.
(8) Gu, Q.-M.; Prestwich, G. D. J. Org. Chem. 1996, 61, 8642
.
(9) (a) Becker, C. F. W.; Liu, X.; Olschewski, D.; Castelli, R.; Seidel,
R.; Seebeger, P. H. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 8215. (b) Yagi, H.;
Thakker, D. R.; Lehr, R. E.; Jerina, D. M. J. Org. Chem. 2004, 69, 6341.
(10) Beignet, J.; Tiernan, J.; Woo, C. H.; Kariuki, B. M.; Cox, L. R. J.
Org. Chem. 2004, 69, 6341.
(6) (a) Ramalingam, S.; Maxwell, S. E.; Medof, M. E.; Chen, R.; Gerber,
L. D.; Udenfriend, S. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1996, 93, 7528. (b)
Maxwell, S. E.; Ramalingam, S.; Gerber, L. D.; Brink, L.; Udenfriend, S.
J. Biol. Chem. 1995, 270, 19576.
Org. Lett., Vol. 12, No. 9, 2010
2081