3522
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 3522-3523
Communications to the Editor
Design of Potent Inhibitors for Human Brain
Memapsin 2 (â-Secretase)
Arun K. Ghosh,† Dongwoo Shin,† Debbie Downs,‡
Gerald Koelsch,‡ Xinli Lin,‡ Jacques Ermolieff,‡ and
Jordan Tang*,‡,§
Department of Chemistry, UniVersity of Illinois
at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Protein Studies Program, Oklahoma Medical Research
Foundation and Department of Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology, UniVersity of Oklahoma Health
Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104
ReceiVed January 27, 2000
Figure 1. Structures of OM99-1 (Val-Asn-Leu*Ala-Ala-Glu-Phe) and
OM99-2 (Glu-Val-Asn-Leu*Ala-Ala-Glu-Phe) inhibitors. The asterisk in
the sequence designates the hydroxyethylene transition-state isostere.
The generation of the 40/42-residue amyloid â (Aâ) peptide
in human brain by proteolysis of the membrane anchored
â-amyloid precursor protein (APP) is a key event in the
progression of Alzheimer’s disease.1 Proteases involved in the
production of Aâ peptide are known as γ- and â-secretases.
â-Secretase, which catalyzes the rate-limiting step in Aâ produc-
tion, hydrolyzes an easily accessible site in the luminal side of
APP, and is regarded as the major therapeutic target for the design
of inhibitor drugs. Our laboratory recently cloned a human brain
aspartic protease called memapsin 2, which we demonstrated to
be the long sought â-secretase.2 Several other laboratories also
independently discovered the same enzyme.3 The new knowledge
on kinetics and specificity of memapsin 22 has enabled us to
design and test two potent inhibitors for human memapsin 2.
The â-secretase site of APP (SEVKM/DAEFR) is hydrolyzed
poorly (kcat/Km ) 40 s-1 M-1) by recombinant memapsin 2.
However, the same site from the Swedish mutant APP (SEVNL/
DAEFR) is an excellent substrate (kcat/Km ) 2450 s-1 M-1).2 Thus,
for the initial design of memapsin 2 inhibitors, we utilized the
template of the â-secretase site of Swedish APP with a change
of P1′ Asp to Ala. Not only does the specificity at the P1′ site
indicate that Ala is a highly preferred residue,2 such a change
also reduces polarity and increases lipophilicity of the inhibitor,
factors important for blood-brain barrier penetration.4 The peptide
bond between P1 and P1′ sites in the inhibitors is replaced by a
hydroxyethylene transition-state isostere, which is a highly
effective transition-state analogue for the inhibition of aspartic
proteases.5 The structures of two of the initially designed
inhibitors, OM99-1 (1) and OM99-2 (2), are shown in Figure 1.
The strategy for the synthesis of these inhibitors is to first
synthesize Leu*Ala dipeptide isostere (the asterisk represents
hydroxyethylene isostere) which was then used in solid-state
Scheme 1a
a Reagents and conditions: (a) LiAlH4, Et2O, -40 °C, 30 min (86%);
(b) LDA, HCtC-CO2Et, THF, -78 °C, 30 min, then 4, -78 °C, 1 h
(42%); (c) H2, Pd-BaSO4, EtOAc; (d) AcOH, PhMe, reflux, 6 h (74%);
(e) LiHMDS, MeI, THF, -78 °C, 20 min (76%); (f) aqueous LiOH,
THF-H2O, 23 °C, 10 h; (g) TBDMSCl, imidazole, DMF, 24 h (90%);
(h) CF3CO2H, CH2Cl2, 0 °C, 1.5 h; (i) Fmoc-OSu, aqueous NaHCO3,
dioxane, 23 °C, 8 h (61%).
† University of Illinois at Chicago.
‡ Protein Studies Program.
§ Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
peptide synthesis6 of the inhibitors. The synthesis of Leu*Ala is
outlined in Scheme 1. Commercial Boc-leucine was converted
to Weinreb amide 3 by treatment with isobutyl chloroformate and
N-methylpiperidine followed by treatment of the resulting mixed
anhydride with N,O-dimethylhydroxylamine.7 Reduction of 3 with
lithium aluminum hydride in diethyl ether provided the aldehyde
4 which was reacted with lithium propiolate derived from the
treatment of ethyl propiolate and lithium diisopropylamide to
(1) (a) Selkoe, D. Trends Cell Biol. 1998, 8, 447-453. (b) Selkoe, D. Nature
1999, 399A, 23-31. (c) Sinha, S.; Lieberburg, I. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
1999, 96, 11049-11053.
(2) Lin, X.; Koelsch, G.; Wu, S.; Downs, D.; Dashti, A.; Tang, J. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2000, 97, 1456-1460.
(3) (a) Vassar, R.; Bennett, B. D.; Babu-Khan, S.; Kahn, S.; Mendiaz, E.
A.; et al. Science 1999, 286, 735-741. (b) Yan, R.; Bienkowski, M. J.; Shuck,
M. E.; Miao, H.; Tory, M. C.; et al. Nature 1999, 402, 533-537. (c) Sinha,
S.; Anderson, J. P.; Barbour, R.; Basi, G. S.; Caccavello, R.; et al. Nature
1999, 402, 537-540. (d) Hussain, I.; Powell, D.; Howlett, D. R.; Tew, D. G.;
Meek, T. D.; et al. Mol. Cell. Neurosc. 1999, 14, 419-427.
(4) Kearney, B. P.; Aweeka, F. T. Neurol. Clin. 1999, 17, 883-900.
(5) (a) Marciniszyn, J., Jr.; Hartsuck, J. A.; Tang, J. J. Biol. Chem. 1976,
251, 7088-7094. (b) Vacca, J. P. Methods Enzymol. 1994, 241, 311-334.
(c) Greenlee, W. J. Med. Res. ReV. 1990, 10, 173-236.
(6) The solid-state peptide synthesis of OM99-1 and OM99-2 was carried
out at the Molecular Biology Resource Center on the campus of the University
of Oklahoma Health Science Center.
(7) Nahm, S.; Weinreb, S. M. Tetrahedron Lett. 1981, 32, 3815-3819.
10.1021/ja000300g CCC: $19.00 © 2000 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 03/23/2000