4600
K. Thorn et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 21 (2011) 4597–4601
peptides.29 Thus, further studies are needed to prove unequivocally
Table 1
hPEPT1 affinity dataa
if 14A–C and 20A–C are substrates or inhibitors of hPEPT1. Such
evidence could be acquired by measurements of translocation
using hPEPT1 transfected cell models or oocytes expressing
hPEPT1. Regardless of the translocation properties of 14A–C, these
structures are promising for either the design of substrates or
Product
log Ki log SE
Ki (mM)
H-Phe-Ser-Ala-OH
14A H-Phe-
14B H-Phe-
14C H-Phe-
20A H-Phe-Ser(Bz)-Nal-OH
20B H-Phe-Ser(Bz)-Nva-OH
20C H-Phe-Ser(Bz)-Chg-OH
À0.59 0.09
À0.49 0.05
À0.60 0.09
À1.33 0.09
0.26b
0.32
0.25
0.05
ꢀ0.3c
0.12
0.25
w
[COCH2]Ser(Bz)-Ala-OH
[COCH2]Ser(Bz)-Nva-OH
[COCH2]Ser(Bz)-Chg-OH
w
w
inhibitors. Especially, the 50 lM affinity of 14C could be a starting
point for a chemical effort to find a higher affinity inhibitor which
could be very useful for both in vitro and in vivo studies.
The present study of selected tripeptidic compounds targeting
À0.91 0.03
À0.61 0.02
Nva, norvaline; Chg, cyclohexylglycine; Nal, naphthylalanine.
hPEPT1 has demonstrated that the tripeptidomimetics H-Phe-
w
a
The Ki-values are measured as the concentration dependent inhibition of 20 lM
[
14C]Gly-Sar apical uptake in Caco-2 cells.
[COCH2]-Ser(Bz)-Xaa-OH maintain high affinity upon replacement
of their N-terminal amide bonds with ketomethylene entities. The
results signify that the amino nitrogen of the natural amide bond
is not vital for hPEPT1 recognition of tripeptidic structures. Conse-
quently, replacement of amide bonds with ketomethylene units is
promising for stabilization against degradation of tripeptides tar-
b
Value obtained by refitting data presented in Thorn et al.15
Value estimated due to limited solubility.
c
substitutions that influence hPEPT1 interaction but also the shape
and orientation of the side chains.29
geting hPEPT1 in the GI tract. Derivatization of the serine
a-side
The ketomethylene analogues 14A and 14B did not have signif-
icantly different affinities for hPEPT1 compared to the lead promo-
iety H-Phe-Ser-Ala-OH, whereas 14C displayed a significantly
higher affinity (p < 0.01, N = 3). Moreover, comparing 14B with
the corresponding tripeptide analogue 20B, a twofold significantly
lower affinity was observed for the ketomethylene product 14B
(p < 0.05, N = 3). Compounds 14C and 20C revealed the opposite
pattern, where the affinity for hPEPT1 was significantly higher
for the ketomethylene analogue (p < 0.001, N = 3). These observa-
tions provide no obvious explanation for the behavior of the fa-
vored ketomethylene analogue based on the knowledge about
ligands interacting with hPEPT1. Perhaps the rotational flexibility
of the ketomethylene part facilitates the adoption of a preferred
conformation of the tripeptidomimetic 14C thereby increasing
chain and incorporation of non-proteinogenic aliphatic amino acids
at the C-terminus were also allowed indicating broad ligand recog-
nition of the tripeptidomimetic core. Furthermore, the efficiency
and application of the stereocontrolled tandem chain extension al-
dol (TCEA) reaction for generation of ketomethylene tripeptidomi-
metics using paraformaldehyde for construction of the
serine mimic was nicely demonstrated.
a-side chain
Supplementary data (Experimental procedures)
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the affinity for hPEPT1. The C-terminal
composed of a cyclohexyl group, which is a sterically large
group compared to the -side chain of 14A or 14B. This disparity
could account for the differences between the ketomethylene
compounds.
a-side chain of 14C is
References and notes
1. Nielsen, C. U.; Vabeno, J.; Andersen, R.; Brodin, B.; Steffansen, B. Expert Opin.
Ther. Pat. 2005, 15, 153.
2. Herrera-Ruiz, D.; Knipp, G. T. J. Pharm. Sci. 2003, 92, 691.
3. Rubio-Aliaga, I.; Daniel, H. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2002, 23, 434.
4. Brodin, B.; Nielsen, C. U.; Steffansen, B.; Frokjaer, S. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2002, 90,
285.
5. Liang, R.; Fei, Y. J.; Prasad, P. D.; Ramamoorthy, S.; Han, H.; Yangfeng, T. L.;
Hediger, M. A.; Ganapathy, V.; Leibach, F. H. J. Biol. Chem. 1995, 270, 6456.
6. Balimane, P. V.; Tamai, I.; Guo, A. L.; Nakanishi, T.; Kitada, H.; Leibach, F. H.;
Tsuji, A.; Sinko, P. J. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1998, 250, 246.
7. Jung, D.; Dorr, A. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 1999, 39, 800.
a
All products, 14A–C and 20A–C, displayed high affinity for
hPEPT1 independent on whether the tripeptide skeleton was com-
posed of amide or ketomethylene linkages. In other words, the
nitrogen of the N-terminal amide group of the tripeptidomimetics
did not influence hPEPT1 binding. This finding is supported by a
series of dipeptidomimetics.13,14 The fact that the ketomethylene
compounds maintained the biological affinity for hPEPT1 demon-
strates a promising stabilization strategy towards the environment
in the GI-tract as the ketomethylene linkage is non-hydrolysable.
Furthermore, introduction of the C-terminal non-proteinogenic
amino acids in compound 14B and 14C would presumably in-
crease the stability towards enzymatic degradations caused by
carboxypeptidases.
For the reference tripeptides the stability of similar tripeptides
during the affinity study in Caco-2 cell was investigated in a previ-
ous study. Less than 10% of the tripeptides were decomposed in the
cell assay.30
Recently, a comprehensive investigation of translocation of trip-
eptides via hPEPT1 was published. The study found that 40 out of
55 tripeptides were translocated, 8 interacted with the assay used,
and one (Met-Pro-Pro) was an inhibitor while one (Asp-Ile-Arg)
was not recognized by hPEPT1.31 A series of benzyl esters of
8. Steffansen, B.; Nielsen, C. U.; Frokjaer, S. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2005, 60, 241.
9. Giannis, A. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1993, 32, 1244.
10. Olson, G. L.; Bolin, D. R.; Bonner, M. P.; Bos, M.; Cook, C. M.; Fry, D. C.; Graves, B.
J.; Hatada, M.; Hill, D. E.; Kahn, M.; Madison, V. S.; Rusiecki, V. K.; Sarabu, R.;
Sepinwall, J.; Vincent, G. P.; Voss, M. E. J. Med. Chem. 1993, 36, 3039.
11. Patani, G. A.; LaVoie, E. J. Chem. Rev. 1996, 96, 3147.
12. Gante, J. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1994, 33, 1699.
13. Vabeno, J.; Lejon, T.; Nielsen, C. U.; Steffansen, B.; Chen, W. Q.; Hui, O. Y.;
Borchardt, R. T.; Luthman, K. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1060.
14. Vabeno, J.; Nielsen, C. U.; Ingebrigtsen, T.; Lejon, T.; Steffansen, B.; Luthman, K.
J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 4755.
15. Thorn, K.; Andersen, R.; Christensen, J.; Jakobsen, P.; Nielsen, C. U.; Steffansen,
B.; Begtrup, M. ChemMedChem 2007, 2, 479.
16. Garcialopez, M. T.; Gonzalezmuniz, R.; Harto, J. R. Tetrahedron Lett. 1988, 29,
1577.
17. McMurray, J. S.; Dyckes, D. F. J. Org. Chem. 1985, 50, 1112.
18. Lai, S.; Zercher, C. K.; Jasinski, J. P.; Reid, S. N.; Staples, R. J. Org. Lett. 2001, 3,
4169.
19. Jacobine, A. M.; Lin, W.; Walls, B.; Zercher, C. K. Org. Chem. 2008, 73, 7409.
20. Lin, W.; Theberge, C. R.; Henderson, T. J.; Zercher, C. K.; Jasinsky, J.; Butcher, R. J.
J. Org. Chem. 2009, 74, 645.
21. Lin, W.; Tryder, N.; Su, F.; Zercher, C. K.; Jasinsky, J. P.; Butcher, R. J. J. Org. Chem.
2006, 71, 8140.
22. Wan, Q. H.; Shaw, P. N.; Davies, M. C.; Barrett, D. A. J. Chromatogr. A 1997, 765,
187.
the ketomethylene dipeptidomimetics Phe-
w[COCH2]Asp, Val-w
[COCH2]-Asp and Asp- [COCH2]Gly were also shown to display
w
affinity for hPEPT1 and were transported through Caco-2 cell mon-
olayers.14 It could appear that most ligands are also substrates for
the transporter, however, none of the antimicrobial di- and tripep-
tides tested in a recent study were substrates for hPEPT1 despite
having moderate affinity towards the transporter for some of the
23. Evans, D. A.; Bartroli, J.; Shih, T. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1981, 103, 2127.
24. Evans, D. A.; Ennis, M. D.; Mathre, D. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1982, 104, 1737.
25. Correa, A.; Denis, J. N.; Greene, A. E. Synth. Commun. 1991, 21, 1.
26. Torii, S.; Tanaka, H.; Inokuchi, T.; Nakane, S.; Akada, M.; Saito, N.; Sirakawa, T. J.
Org. Chem. 1982, 47, 1647.
27. Evans, D. A.; Ellman, J. A.; Dorow, R. L. Tetrahedron Lett. 1987, 28, 1123.