ing peptide6 and Boc peptide synthesis, inserting an oNBn-
protected cysteine into a peptide,7 have been reported.
Therefore, we expected an analogous S-o-nitrobenzyl-
protected cysteine congener to be compatible with Fmoc
solid-phase peptide synthesis. In addition to chemical caging,
an in vitro translation technique, utilizing a nonsense
anticodon tRNA, has been successfully applied to generate
a cysteine-caged analogue of a functional protein.8 To the
best of our knowledge, however, further chemical manipula-
tions of the photoliberated cysteine have not been described.
To optimize the proposed tandem deprotection-conjugation
sequence and to prepare all the necessary tools for hybrid
library generation, we initiated the model study that follows.
The requisite Fmoc S-o-nitrobenzyl cysteine 2 for solid-
phase peptide synthesis was prepared from o-nitrobenzyl-
protected amino acid hydrochloride 19 by first masking the
carboxylate group transiently as a trimethylsilyl (TMS) ester10
prior to reaction with fluorenylmethylchloroformate (Scheme
1).11 Model system 3 was also synthesized from the same
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the post-assembly chemose-
lective ligation strategy: site-specific installation of orthogonal
functionality (a) on the established peptide lead (b) provides a
scaffold (c), from which uniquely reactive small-molecules (d) can
be displayed (ligated) in a structurally conserved mode and then
screened against the target (e) in a high-throughput fashion.
modification step(s), coupled directly to high-throughput
screening.
A key requirement for the successful generation of such
a library would be strict chemoselectivity during the con-
jugation. Several chemical transformations have been gener-
ally recognized as being fully orthogonal to the richly
functionalized biopolymers while involving mutually and
uniquely reactive functionalities.2 The long-term stability of
the resulting conjugates in the assay media, their unambigu-
ous stereostructure, and the availability of the required
diversity elements were also considered as critical criteria
for the choice of the ligation reaction.
Scheme 1. Synthesis of the Caged Cysteine Congeners for
Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis (2) and for Photolysis Model
Study (3)
The natural amino acid cysteine is recognized as a unique
chemical handle, enabling site-specific modifications to be
conducted on peptides and proteins at the post-assembly
stage.3 Both chemoselective alkylations and sulfenylations
can be used for library generation from an unpaired cysteine
due to the enhanced reactivity of both the thiol and thiolate
anion, toward respective electrophiles in the presence of
potentially competing nucleophiles.
At the post-assembly stage, chemical manipulation of the
highly reactive and sensitive cysteine residue requires that
the unpaired thiol group remain uniquely masked by an
appropriate protecting group, being unaffected by the condi-
tions necessary for scaffold assembly. The subsequent release
of the thiol handle must also be accomplished with no
chemical or structural damage to the attendant functionalities.
With these strict criteria in mind, we turned to photolysis-
mediated unmasking, as a mild, reagent-free, and chemically
orthogonal deprotection strategy. 4
precursor by blocking both the amine and carboxylate termini
with the Boc and amido groups, respectively.
The UV spectrum of the fully protected cysteine congener
3 (Scheme 1) features a λmax at ca. 260 nm with an extended
shoulder, potentially rendering the chromophore photosensi-
tive up to 370-390 nm. Under such an irradiation regime,
even the photosensitive amino acid tryptophan should remain
intact. Deprotection of 3 was investigated via irradiation in
a photoreactor at 366 nm with six 300 µW/cm2 UV tubes
o-Nitrobenzyl (oNBn) heteroatom derivatives represent a
class of UV-excitable chromophores capable of undergoing
intramolecular hydrogen abstraction (Norrish-type II reac-
tion) to afford hydrolysis-prone o-nitroso-benzaldehyde
derivatives.5 Both postsynthetic caging of a cysteine-contain-
(6) Pan, P.; Bayley, H. FEBS Lett. 1997, 405, 81.
(7) Hazum, E.; Gottlieb, P.; Amit, B.; Patchornik, A.; Fridkin, M. In
Peptides 1980, Proceedings of the Sixteenth European Peptide Symposium,
Helsingor, Denmark; Brunfeldt, K., Ed; Scriptor: Copenhagen, 1981; pp
105-110.
(2) For a review, see: Lemieux, G. A.; Bertozzi, C. R. Trends Biotech.
1998, 16, 506.
(3) (a) Liu, T. W. In The Proteins; Neurath, H., Hill, R. L., Eds.;
Academic Press: New York, 1977; Vol. 3, pp 240-271. (b) Lundbland,
R. L. Techniques in Protein Modification; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL,
1994.
(4) For a review, see: Bochet, C. G. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1
2002, 1, 125.
(8) Philipson, K. D.; Gallivan, J. P.; Brandt, G. S.; Dougherty, D. A.;
Lester, H. A. Am. J. Physiol. Cell. Physiol. 2001, 281, C195.
(9) Gante, J.; Weitzel, R. Tetrahedron Lett. 1988, 29, 191.
(10) Bolin, D. R.; Sytwu, I.-I.; Humiec, F.; Meienhofer, J. Int. J. Pept.
Protein Res. 1989, 33, 353.
(11) The caged cysteine 2 is fully compatible with Fmoc solid-phase
peptide synthesis: Manjappara, U.; Chaiken, I. M.; Savinov S. N.; Smith,
A. B., III. Unpublished results.
(5) Patchornik, A.; Amit, B.; Woodward, R. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1970,
92, 6333
4042
Org. Lett., Vol. 4, No. 23, 2002