1308
V. Mascitti et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 21 (2011) 1306–1309
produced compound 18 (98% ee),9 which was then converted to
the -fluoro azide 19 in 76% yield via a Mitsunobu-type reaction.
Reduction of the azide to the amine followed by amide bond cou-
pling under classical conditions (EDCI/HOBt/Et3N) gave intermedi-
ate 20. This intermediate was converted to the desired product 3
by BOC removal and subsequent installation of the 1-MecPr
carbamate.10
Compound 3 proved to be a full agonist in our functional c-AMP
assay and its EC50 remained within two fold of the methyl analog
14. Importantly, 3 was markedly more stable in HLM incubations
than the corresponding methyl-substituted compounds 14 and
15 as well as less lipophilic.
OH
NH2
a
O
O
O
S
HN
OH
F
F
H
N
NH
OH
O
N
O
F
24
O
O
Figure 4. Representative structure of glutathione adduct 24.
We next sought to confirm the gauche effect hypothesis by
studying the conformation of compound 3 in solution. Indeed, as
depicted in Figure 3, NMR spectroscopic analysis (600 MHz/
CDCl3/300 K) showed that the N-b-fluoroethylamide favors adopt-
ing a gauche conformation, which constitutes about 75% of the con-
former population on the NMR timescale.11
glycine); m/z = 591 (loss of glutamate).14,15 A proposed structure
for the GSH conjugate of 3 that is consistent with the observed
mass spectrum is compound 24 shown in Figure 4.16 This GSH ad-
duct is postulated to occur via an ipso substitution of one of the
pendant fluorine atoms in the course of P450 catalyzed phenyl ring
epoxidation.17 The formation of 24 was NADPH-dependent, sug-
gesting the involvement of cytochrome P450 in the bioactivation
of 3. Also, inclusion of the specific CYP3A4 inhibitor ketoconazole
in the HLM incubations eliminated conjugate formation and over-
all metabolism, implicating that CYP3A4 was responsible for the
oxidative metabolism/bioactivation of 3.
In conclusion, we have described the design and synthesis of
compound 3, a novel GPR119 agonist bearing a N-b-fluoroethyla-
mide motif as key element of design. This group helped maintain
good agonist potency while reducing the lipophilicity and oxida-
tive metabolism in HLM in vitro. However, recognizing the poten-
tial for immune-mediated toxicity due to reactive metabolite
formation, further pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic profiling
of 3 was suspended.18
As observed previously in the methyl case (compounds 14 and
15), the configuration of the stereocenter in 3 had an impact on po-
tency in the functional c-AMP assay (compare 3 vs 17). Again, since
the topology of the receptor is not known, one can only speculate
around the causes of this selectivity. Although it could be the result
of the conformational bias induced by the stereocenter,11 a produc-
tive interaction between the fluorine atom of 3 and the receptor
(and/or an unfavorable one in the case of 17) cannot be ruled
out. The decrease in potency from 3 to 21 is also worth mentioning.
In this case, conformational analysis of simplified versions of com-
pounds 3 and 21 revealed energetically similar conformer distribu-
tions.11 The low energy conformers adopted by the fluoro-
substituted analog 3, including the most stable conformation
shown in Figure 3, are easily accessible to the unsubstituted analog
21. This suggests that the energy required to achieve the bioactive
conformation, whatever this might be, is not the main source of the
potency increase from 21 to 3. While the conformer distribution
does not change significantly, torsional scans for the dihedral an-
gles flanking the F atom revealed energy wells that are narrower
for the fluoro-substituted analog 3 compared to 21.11 Therefore,
it is conceivable that 3 experiences a less significant loss of vibra-
tional entropy upon binding and that this factor contributes to its
increase of potency over 21.7 However, in this case too, a produc-
tive interaction between the fluorine atom and the receptor cannot
be ruled out.
Supplementary data
Supplementary data (details related to the in vitro c-AMP func-
tional assay, NMR and computational studies around compound 3,
collision-induced dissociation spectrum of compound 24) associ-
ated with this article can be found, in the online version, at
References and notes
1. (a) Jones, R. M.; Leonard, J. N. Annu. Rep. Med. Chem. 2009, 44, 149; (b) Semple,
G.; Fioravanti, B.; Pereira, G.; Calderon, I.; Uy, J.; Choi, K.; Xiong, Y.; Ren, A.;
Morgan, M.; Dave, V.; Thomsen, W.; Unett, D. J.; Xing, C.; Bossie, S.; Carroll, C.;
Chu, Z.-L.; Grottick, A. J.; Hauser, E. K.; Leonard, J.; Jones, R. M. J. Med. Chem.
2008, 51, 5172.
In considering further profiling of 3, we were initially concerned
about the formation of a potentially reactive aziridine such as 22
under physiologic conditions (Scheme 2). However, exposure of 3
to various conditions expected to promote cyclization did not lead
to the formation of 22 or dihydrooxazole 23.12,13
Although the risk of aziridine formation appeared low, subse-
quent studies assessing the bioactivation potential of 3 in NADPH-
and glutathione (GSH)-supplemented HLM revealed a risk of reac-
tive species formation by metabolic activation. Formation of a GSH
adduct was clearly observed: m/z = 720 (MH+); m/z = 645 (loss of
2. Shah, U. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 2009, 12, 519.
3. Lauffer, L.; Iakoubov, R.; Brubaker, P. L. Endocrinology 2008, 149, 2035.
4. Jones, R. M.; Leonard, J. N.; Buzard, D. J.; Lehmann, J. Expert Opin. Ther. Patents
2009, 19, 1339. For MBX-2982 see: McWherter, C. Presented at the 32nd
Annual National Medicinal Chemistry Symposium, Minnesota, MN, June 6–9,
2010; oral session 2. For GSK1292263A see: Carpenter, A. J. Presented at the
32nd Annual National Medicinal Chemistry Symposium, Minnesota, MN, June
6–9, 2010; oral session 2. Peckham, G. E. Presented at the 240th National
Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Boston, MA, August 2010; poster
MEDI 199.
5. For a discussion around E Log D for lipophilicity determination see: Lombardo,
F.; Shalaeva, M. Y.; Tupper, K. A.; Gao, F. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 2490.
6. Hoffmann, R. W. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2000, 39, 2054.
7. Chang, C. A.; Chen, W.; Gilson, M. K. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104, 1534.
8. O’Hagan, D.; Bilton, C.; Howard, J. A. K.; Knight, L.; Tozer, D. J. J. Chem. Soc.,
Perkin Trans. 2 2000, 605.
9. Beeson, T. D.; MacMillan, D. W. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 8826.
10. For the preparation of 1-methylcyclopropyl 4-nitrophenyl carbonate see:
Azimioara, M.; Cow, C.; Epple, R.; Jiang, S.; Lelais, G.; Mutnick, D.; Wu, B.
WO09105717, 2009.
11. See online Supplementary data.
12. Hudlicky, M. Israel J. Chem. 1978, 17, 80.
13. Some of the conditions tried were: (a) heating in DMSO for 30 min at
temperatures up to 200 °C in presence of i-Pr2NEt; (b) heating in DMSO for
60 min at temperatures up to 100 °C in presence of NaHMDS.
F O
O
N
N
N
O
22
23
F
F
3
X
F
F
O
O
O
N
F
Scheme 2. Attempts of intramolecular displacement of fluorine in 3.