the reduced FAD (3) to the oxocarbenium ion intermediate
(4) is also feasible.4c,d In this mechanism, a SET is followed
by a radical recombination between the resulting substrate
radical (11) and the FAD semiquinone (12) to give the
FAD-substrate adduct (6/7/8).4d As delineated in Scheme
1, this FAD-substrate adduct may play a central role to
facilitate the opening and recyclization of the galactose ring.
Formation of an oxocarbenium ion intermediate has been
implicated in the mechanism of numerous chemical and
enzymatic reactions.8 The intermediacy of this ionic species
has prompted the design of oxocarbenium mimics as transi-
tion-state inhibitors for many enzymes.9 Although such an
oxocarbenium ion is not an intermediate in the SN2 mech-
anism for UGM catalysis, it must exist if the reaction
proceeds via either an SN1 or SET mechanism. To design
effective inhibitors for this promising drug target, detailed
knowledge about UGM reaction intermediates and/or transi-
tion states is essential. Herein, we report the chemical
synthesis and enzymatic analysis of a linear substrate
analogue, UDP-galactitol (UDP-GalOH, 13), to probe the
possible involvement of an oxocarbenium ion intermediate
in UGM catalysis. Galactose (Gal), galactose-1-phosphate
(Galp-P), UMP, and UDP were also used, along with 13, to
study the binding of a substrate/inhibitor to UGM.
Scheme 1
UDP-GalOH (13) was synthesized according to Scheme
2.10 Methyl R-D-galactopyranoside (14) was used as the
starting material and was converted to 2,3,4,6-tetra-O-benzyl-
galactopyranose (16) following a literature procedure in two
steps.11 The linear alcohol 17 was readily obtained by
reduction of 16 with NaBH4. Selective protection of the
primary alcohol by a tert-butyldimethylsilyl group followed
by blocking of the 5-OH by a benzyl group gave 19. Partial
deprotection of the tert-butyldimethylsilyl group occurred
under the benzylation conditions, which resulted in the low
yield (33%) of 19. After deprotection of the tert-butyldi-
methylsilyl group, compound 20 was treated with dibenzyl
chlorophosphonate12 to give the dibenzyl phosphate deriva-
tive 21. The benzyl groups of 21 were then removed by
hydrogenolysis on catalytic amounts of palladium hydroxide
to give the phosphonate derivative 22. The final product
UDP-GalOH (13) was prepared by incubating 22 and uridine
phosphomorpholidate in anhydrous pyridine in the presence
of 1H-tetrazole for 4 days.13 The desired product was purified
possibilities have been proposed.4 In an early report, a
pathway involving a 1,4-anhydrogalactopyranose intermedi-
ate (5) was postulated (Scheme 1).4a,b This mechanism was
based on a positional isotope exchange experiment which
indicated cleavage of the anomeric C-O bond of UDP-Galp
occurred during turnover.4a However, this mechanism is not
consistent with recent experiments showing that incubation
of synthetic 5 with UGM and UDP does not yield 1 and 2
as products.4d,5
Because the catalytic efficiency (kcat/Km) of UGM is
increased by more than 2 orders of magnitude under reducing
conditions,3b,6 several alternative mechanisms involving the
reduced FAD cofactor (3) have since been proposed (Scheme
1). One possible route involving the formation of a FAD-
substrate adduct (7)4d is supported by experiments trapping
the adduct (7) by chemical reduction and verification of the
reduced product (9) using mass spectroscopy.7 The adduct
formation may be initiated by an SN2 attack of N5 of the
reduced FAD (3) on C-1 of the substrate (1 in the forward
direction) to give 6/7/8. It is also possible that the attack
proceeds in an SN1 fashion at C-1 where an oxocarbenium
ion intermediate (4 in the forward direction) is generated
after the cleavage of the UDP group (1 f 4 f 6/7/8).7 A
redox process involving a single-electron transfer (SET) from
(8) (a) Woods, R. J.; Andrews, C. W.; Bowen, J. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1992, 114, 859-864. (b) Banait, N. S.; Jencks, W. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1991, 113, 7951-7958. (c) Richard, J. P.; Huber, R. E.; Heo, C.; Amyes,
T. L.; Lin, S. Biochemistry 1996, 35, 12387-12401. (d) Scheuring, J.;
Schramm, V. L. Biochemistry 1997, 36, 4526-4534. (e) Namchuk, M. N.;
McCarter, J. D.; Becalski, A.; Andrews, T.; Withers, S. G. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2000, 122, 1270-1277. (f) Withers, S. G. Carbohydr. Polym. 2001,
44, 325-337. (g) Unrau, P. J.; Bartel, D. P. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
2003, 100, 15393-15397.
(4) (a) Barlow, J. N.; Girvin, M. E.; Blanchard, J. S. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1999, 121, 6968-6969. (b) Zhang, Q.; Liu, H.-w. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001,
123, 6756-6766. (c) Fullerton, S. W.; Daff, S.; Sanders, D. A.; Ingledew,
W. J.; Whitfield, C.; Chapman, S. K.; Naismith, J. H. Biochemistry 2003,
42, 2104-2109. (d) Huang, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, H.-w. Bioorg. Chem. 2003,
31, 494-502.
(9) (a) Boutellier, M.; Horenstein, B. A.; Semenyaka, A.; Schramm, V.
L.; Ganem, B. Biochemistry 1994, 33, 3994-4000. (b) Chen, X. Y.; Link,
T. M.; Schramm, V. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 3067-3068. (c) Allart,
B.; Gatel, M.; Guillerm, D.; Guillerm, G. Eur. J. Biochem. 1998, 256, 155-
162. (d) Shi, W.; Li, C. M.; Tyler, P. C.; Furneaux, R. H.; Grubmeyer, C.;
Schramm, V. L.; Almo, S. C. Nat. Struct. Biol. 1999, 6, 588-593.
(10) See Supporting Information for details.
(5) Caravano, A.; Sinay, P.; Vincent, S. P. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett.
2006, 16, 1123-1125.
(11) Koto, S.; Morishima, N.; Miyata, Y.; Zen, S. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn.
1976, 49, 2639-2640.
(6) Zhang, Q.; Liu, H.-w. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 9065-9070.
(7) Soltero-Higgin, M.; Carlson, E. E.; Gruber, T. D.; Kiessling, L. L.
Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2004, 11, 539-543.
(12) Macher, I. Carbohydr. Res. 1987, 162, 79-84.
(13) Wittmann, V.; Wong, C. H. J. Org. Chem. 1997, 62, 2144-2147.
880
Org. Lett., Vol. 9, No. 5, 2007