J. McNulty et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 11 (2001) 169±172
171
using aluminium amalgam in THF, with the resulting
amine being immediately protected as the methoxy-
carbonyl derivative giving cyclohexene 7 in 96% overall
yield from 6.11 Epoxidation with MCPBA gave the a-
and b-epoxides 8 and 9 (ratio 2.7:1) in 93% yield. The
epoxides were readily separable on ¯ash silica and
independently subjected to a surprisingly stereospeci®c
ring opening using the method reported by Magnus and
co-workers.5c Reaction of the a-epoxide 8 with re¯uxing
aqueous sodium benzoate followed by treatment with
acetic anhydride in pyridine provided the diacetoxy deri-
vative 10 in 55% yield. Similar opening of the b-epoxide 9
and likewise protection as the diacetate gave the same
diol derivative 10 in 62% yield. Under these conditions,
the conformationally biased diastereomeric epoxides are
opened exclusively by axial attack. Thus in 8, opening
occurs from the axial direction by attack at C-3 while
the diastereomeric epoxide 9 is opened by axial attack
at C-2 yielding the same 2,3-diaxial diol. The relative
stereochemistry in product 10 was con®rmed by a single
crystal X-ray structural determination (Scheme 3). The
crystal structure clearly shows the chair conformation
of the cyclohexane ring of 10 locked by the equatorial
aryl and methoxycarbonylamino substituents as well as
the diaxial-2,3-diacetoxy substituents.12 All four sub-
stituents on the cyclohexane ring are therefore set up
with the correct relative stereochemistry desired in ana-
logue 3. Cyclization of 10 to give the phenanthridone
skeleton was eected in low yield (5±15%) using the
method of Banwell.13 Under these conditions two inter-
mediate products were also isolated in addition to the
desired product 13. These were readily identi®ed as 11
and 12 in comparison with the results of the Magnus
work.5c Further investigation showed that the cycliza-
tion reaction with Tf2O and DMAP was extremely
rapid, complete in 15 min at 0 ꢀC, giving 12 which
slowly converts to 13 on standing. Quenching the reac-
tion after 15 min and acidic hydrolysis of the mixture
led also to partial loss of the acetate groups requiring a
®nal re-acetylation step. The cyclization process is very
sensitive to traces of water, however under the opti-
mized cyclization/hydrolysis/reprotection protocol a
74±90% yield of the cyclized protected diol 13 could be
realized with no detectable trace of the side products.
Removal of the acetate groups completed the synthesis
of the desired diol 3.
mL). Overall, compound 3 was not suciently potent to
generate a useful mean-graph for COMPARE analysis14
(Scheme 3)
The present study helps further de®ne the minimum
cytotoxic pharmacophore shared by pancratistatin 1
and trans-dihydrolycoricidine 2. In addition to the
necessary conformationally locked trans-fused B/C ring
junction, at least two correctly positioned hydroxyl
groups appear to be needed in the C-ring for potent
cytotoxic activity. The results with the complementary
analogues 3 and 4 rule out any monoalcohol analogue
as a minimum pharmacophore and the modest potency
of 3 suggests the importance of either, or both, of the
C-2 and C-3 hydroxyl groups, in addition to the C-4
hydroxyl as a minimum pharmacophore. We tentatively
conclude that the minimum structural pharmacophore
must reside in either of the diols 14 or 15 (Scheme 3) or
may in fact be that depicted in the trihydroxy containing
natural product 2. The synthesis of analogues 2, 14 and
15 is currently under investigation in our laboratories.
Acknowledgements
Financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engi-
neering Research Council of Canada, Research Cor-
poration (Cottrell Scholar Science Award to J.McN)
and the Canada Foundation for Innovation are grate-
fully acknowledged. One of us (G.R.P.) wishes to thank
the Arizona Disease Control Research Commission
and Outstanding Investigator Grant CA-44344-10-12
awarded by the DCTD, National Cancer Institute,
DHHS. We thank Mr. Tim Jones for conducting MS
and 2D-NMR analyses.
References and Notes
1. Lewis, J. R. Nat. Prod. Rep. 2000, 17, 57 and prior reports
in this series.
2. Pettit, G. R.; Gaddamidi, V.; Cragg, G. M.; Herald, D. L.;
Sagawa, Y. Chem. Commun. 1984, 1693.
3. Gabrielsen, B.; Monath, T. P.; Huggins, J. W.; Kefauver,
D. F.; Pettit, G. R.; Groszek, G.; Hollinshead, M.; Kirsi, J. J.;
Shannon, W. M.; Schubert, E. M.; Dare, J.; Ugarkar, B.;
Ussery, M. A.; Phelan, M. J. J. Nat. Prod. 1992, 55, 1569.
4. Mondon, A.; Krohn, K. Chem. Ber. 1975, 108, 445.
5. (a) Rigby, J. H.; Maharoof, U. S. M.; Mateo, M. E. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 6624. (b) Keck, G. E.; Wager, T. T.;
Rodriquez, J. F. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 5176.
(c) Magnus, P.; Sebhat, I. K. Tetrahedron 1998, 54, 15509.
(d) Doyle, T. J.; Hendrix, M.; VanDerveer, D.; Javanmard, S.;
Haseltine, J. Tetrahedron 1997, 53, 11153. (e) Schultz, A. G.;
Holoboski, M. A.; Smyth, M. S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118,
6210. (f) Tian, X.; Hudlicky, T.; Konigsberger, K. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 3643. (g) Trost, B. M.; Pulley, S. R. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 10143. (h) Park, T. K.; Dani-
shefsky, S. J. Tetrahedron Lett. 1995, 36, 195. (i) Banwell,
M. G.; Cowden, C. J.; Gable, R. W. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin
Trans. 1 1994, 3515. (j) Lopes, R. S. C.; Lopes, C. C.; Heath-
cock, C. H. Tetrahedron Lett. 1992, 33, 6775.
Initial screening of complementary analogues 3 and 4
against the P-388 mouse leukemia cell line gave inter-
esting results. The mono alcohol derivative 4 displayed
marginal inhibition (ED50=40.1 mg/mL) while the diol 3
proved to be relatively potent (ED50=0.45 mg/mL),
although less potent than pancratistatin itself. Further
comparative assaying of compound 3 against the NCI
60 panel human tumor cell-line assay was undertaken
simultaneously with authentic pancratistatin. The
results con®rmed that 3 was in fact overall two to three
magnitudes less potent than pancratistatin although
selective inhibition of some of the cell lines was indi-
cated. Compound 3 inhibited proliferation of the non-
small cell lung cancer line NCI-H226 (ED50=0.65 mg/mL),
as well as two of the leukemia cell lines; CCRF-CEM
(ED50=0.55 mg/mL) and HL-60(TB) (ED50=0.89 mg/
6. Pettit, G. R.; Pettit, G. R., III; Backhaus, R. A.; Boyd,
M. R.; Meerow, A. W. J. Nat. Prod. 1993, 56, 1682.
7. (a) Pettit, G. R.; Melody, N.; O'Sullivan, M.; Thompson,
M. A.; Herald, D. L.; Coates, B. Chem. Commun. 1994, 2725.