indications of secondary structure. The mean residue molar
ellipticity of the hexamer at 230 nm is nearly three times
larger than the trimer indicating that in this case the
oxygens are not suitably oriented for nfπ* interactions with
the ꢀ-carboxyl side chains.5 A possible approach to solve
this problem is to limit the flexibility of the five-membered
ring, as in the methano-fused6 or ethano-bridged7 structures
6 or 7, or to control amide conformation by R,R-disubsti-
tution as in 8.8 Oligomers of 7 and 8 show evidence of order
secondary structure may be stabilized by the longer ꢀ-peptide
chain. Gellman4 independently investigated oligomers (n )
2-6) of all (S)-3 with terminal N-Boc and OBn groups in
methanol and observed a maximum ellipticity at 228 nm
when n ) 3-6. However, little evidence beyond CD spectra
was provided to show that these ꢀ-amino acid oligomers
adopted well-defined structures in solution.
in their CD spectra; a possible structure for oligomers of 7
has been calculated.
An alternative conformational restriction is the introduction
of a methano-bridge into an N-acyl-pyrrolidine ring to
maintain an idealized Cꢀ ring pucker, as in structure 9.9 The
bridge constrains two internal angles of the pyrrolidine (Φ
∼ -127° and θ ∼ 54°). Of the two remaining rotatable
bonds, the amide bond might be biased with the carbonyl
oriented either syn or anti to the bridgehead C1, so that ω ∼
180° or 0°. Thus, the major remaining rotational freedom
responsible for secondary structure would be from the
external C5-CO bond (Ψ). We believed that introducing
such a conformational constraint in ꢀ-proline oligomers could
provide entry into a well-defined and potentially useful
foldamer secondary structure.
A model was proposed for the oligomeric peptides of 2.2
It assumed an all-trans amide structure with a Φ angle of
-72° enforced by the pyrrolidine ring. An antiperiplanar
conformation around the C(R)-C(ꢀ) bond (θ ) 180°) was
chosen on the basis of this angle in a trifluoroacetate salt of
a trimer of 2 that contains amine and benzyl ester end groups.
However, it should be noted that the peptide salt crystallized
with four CF3COOH molecules and the carbonyls of the
amide bonds of the salt were hydrogen bonded to acid
molecules. A large angle, Ψ ) 180°, was chosen so that the
large substituents at C(R) were antiperiplanar to the large
substituents at the carbonyl C-atom. The outcome of this
somewhat speculative model is a right-handed 103 helix with
three pitches to bring residue (i + 10) above residue i. The
model suggests consecutive fully extended chain segments
[N-C(ꢀ)-C(R)-CO-N], which are twisted by -72°. The
structure of peptide oligomers of 3 was not modeled.
(R)-3-Carboxypyrrolidine 4 (PCA) might also be viewed
as a ꢀ-amino acid proline analogue in which the acid is
moved one atom away from the nitrogen. Gellman3 has used
the (S)-PCA enantiomer to search for order in pyrrolidine-
based oligomers (n ) 2-6). Normalized CD spectra in
methanol for oligomers 5 terminated by N-Boc and OBn
groups are most ordered when at the tetramer to hexamer
level with a minimum ellipticity at 214 nm. A possible
conformation has been modeled by calculation.4
In preparation for homooligomer formation, racemic acid
9 was resolved as its salt using (S)-(-)-R-methylbenzylamine
with THF as recrystallization solvent. The absolute config-
uration of the resolved (-) acid 9 was established as
(1S,4R,5R) by X-ray structure determination of the condensed
amide 10.
One of the difficulties in evaluating the order in homoo-
ligomers of pyrrolidine-based ꢀ-amino acids such as 2 or
PCA 4 is the number of degrees of freedom in the molecules.
There are no intramolecular hydrogen bonds to control
geometry, and unlike N-acyl prolines, the amide carbonyl
(5) (a) Shoulders, M. D.; Raines, R. T. Annu. ReV. Biochem. 2009, 78,
929–958. (b) Choudhary, A.; Gandla, D.; Krow, G. R.; Raines, R. T. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 7244–7246. See refs 3-6 therein.
(6) Medda, A. K.; Lee, H.-S. Synlett 2009, 921–924.
(7) Otani, Y.; Futaki, S.; Kiwada, T.; Sugiura, Y.; Muranaka, A.;
Kobayashi, N.; Uchiyama, M.; Yamaguchi, K.; Ohwada, Tetrahedron 2006,
62, 11635–11644.
(8) (a) Huck, B. R.; Fisk, J. D.; Guzei, I. D.; Carlson, H. A.; Gellman,
S. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 9035–9037. (b) Huck, B. R.; Gellman,
S. H. J. Org. Chem. 2005, 70, 3353–3362.
(3) Huck, B. R.; Langenhan, J. M.; Gellman, S. H. Org. Lett. 1999, 1,
1717–1720.
(4) Sandvoss, L. M.; Carlson, H. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125,
(9) Krow, G. R.; Lin, G.; Herzon, S. B.; Thomas, A. M.; Moore, K. P.;
Huang, Q.; Carroll, P. J. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 68, 7562–7564.
15855–15862.
Org. Lett., Vol. 12, No. 23, 2010
5439