1942
R. B. Perni et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 14 (2004) 1939–1942
that other compounds containing small substituents on
the 3-position of the P2 proline were nearly as potent at
many similar compounds with large 4-hydroxyproline
groups (e.g., 19 versus 3). Nevertheless, these initial
results were extremely encouraging.
Chemistry; King F. D., Oxford, A. W., Eds. Elsevier
Science B.V., 2002, p 215.
2. (a) Perni, R. B.; Britt, S. D.; Court, J. J.; Courtney, L. F.;
Deininger, D. D.; Farmer, L. J.; Gates, C. A.; Harbeson,
S. L.; Kim, J. L.; Landro, J. A.; Levin, R. B.; Luong,
Y.-P.; O’Malley, E. T.; Pitlik, J.; Rao, B. G.; Schairer,
W. C.; Thomson, J. A.; Tung, R. D.; Van Drie, J. H.;
Wei, Y. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2003, 13, 4059. (b) Perni,
R. B.; Pitlik, J.; Britt, S. D.; Court, J. C.; Courtney, L. F.;
Deininger, D. D.; Farmer, L. J.; Gates, C. A.; Harbeson,
S. L.; Lin, C.; Lin, K.; Moon, Y.-C.; Luong, Y.-P.;
O’Malley, E. T.; Rao, B. G.; Thomson, J. A.; Tung, R. D.;
Van Drie, J. H.; Wei, Y. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2004,
14, 1441.
Having developed smaller P2 containing inhibitors that
possess significant enzymatic potency we embarked on a
broader survey of potential non-polar 3-position analo-
gues on an optimized scaffold that bears no charge and
would presumably be better able to penetrate cells.
Those results are presented in Table 2.
3. (a) For recent examples see: Johansson, A.; Poliakov, A.;
Akerblom, E.; Wiklund, K.; Lindeberg, G.; Winiwarter,
S.; Danielson, U. H.; Samuelsson, B.; Hallberg, A.
Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2003, 11, 2551. (b) Beevers, R.; Carr,
M. G.; Jones, P. S.; Jordon, S.; Kay, P. B.; Lazell, R. C.;
Raynham, T. M. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2002, 12, 641.
4. Dunitz, J. D. Science 1994, 670, 264.
5. Perni, R.; Court, J.; O’Malley, E.; Rao, B. G., PCT WO
01/74768 2001.
6. Herdeis, C.; Huberman, H. P. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry
1992, 3, 1213.
7. Corey, E. J.; Jautelat, M.; Oppolzer, W. Tetrahedron Lett.
1967, 8, 2325.
8. Hanson, M. W.; Rieke, R. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995,
117, 10775.
9. Hashimoto, M.; Hashimoto, K.; Shirahama, H. Tetra-
hedron 1996, 52, 1931.
This series of proline variants, 21–29, was based on a
02b
14
scaffold comprised of optimized P1 and P3, P4 sub-
stituents. The resulting inhibitors demonstrated class-
wide binding potency relative to carboxy-terminal inhi-
bitors, 16–20. Again, there is little spread in the data
with inhibitory constants ranging from 0.09 mM to 0.46
mM with no visible steric trends in this, albeit limited,
series. As hoped significant cellular activity13 is evident
in this series. Several compounds exhibit IC50 values of
<1 mM in an HCV replicon assay. While 21 incorpo-
rates the smallest proline substituent of the series shown
in Table 2, an ethyl group, it is among the most potent
compounds, along with 22 and 23, in the replicon cel-
lular assay (IC50=0.45 mM, cLogP=5.5) indicating that
size alone is not the major determinant of activity. The
unsubstituted proline P2 derivative, 29 Ki=1.2 mM),
provides a baseline comparator that clearly demon-
strates the advantage of incorporating a substituent at
the 3-position relative to no substitution. The combin-
ation of a small proline moiety and optimized P3–P4
substituents results in a molecule with good cellular
activity probably due to an improved balance between
enzymatic binding affinity and overall physicochemical
properties.
10. Thottathil, J. K.; Moniot, J. L.; Mueller, R. H.; Wong,
M. K. Y.; Kissick, T. P. J. Org. Chem. 1986, 51, 3140.
11. Holladay, M. W.; Lin, W. L.; May, C. S.; Garvey, D. S.;
Witte, D. G.; Miller, T. R.; Wolfram, C. A. W.; Nadzan,
A . M.J. Med. Chem. 1991, 34, 457.
12. Parr, I. B.; Boehlein, S. K.; Dribben, A. B.; Schuster,
S. M.; Richards, N. G. J. J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39, 2367.
13. Lohmann, V.; Korner, F.; Koch, J.-O.; Herian, U.;
Theilmann, L.; Bartenschlager, R. Science 1999, 285, 110.
14. Increasing lipophilicity of the groups at the P3 and P4
positions using hydrocarbon-substituted amino acids
optimized the hydrophobic interaction with the S3 and S4
pockets. SAR results indicate that, in general, cyclohexyl
glycine is optimal at P4 and t-butyl glycine is optimal
at P3. These results are consistent with those pre-
viously reported in: Ingallinella, P.; Altamura, S.; Bianchi,
E.; Taliani, M.; Ingenito, R.; Cortese, R.; De Francesco,
R.; Steinkuhler, C.; Pessi, A. Biochemistry 1998, 37,
8906.
15. (a) The results presented in this manuscript form the basis
for the design of the fused-bicyclic proline derivatives
described in: Yip, Y.; Victor, F.; Lamar, J.; Johnson,
R.; Wang, Q. M.; Barket, D.; Glass, J.; Jin, L.; Liu, L.;
Venable, D.; Wakulchik, M.; Xie, C.; Heinz, B.; Villar-
real, E.; Colacino, J.; Yumibe, N.; Tebbe, M.; Munroe, J.;
Chen, S.-H. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2004, 14, 251.
(b) Victor, F.; Lamar, J.; Snyder, N.; Yip, Y.; Guo, D.;
Yumibe, N.; Johnson, R.; Wang, Q. M.; Glass, J. I.;
Chen, S.-H. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2004, 14, 257.
Although the original hypothesis of targeting a sub-
stituent from the P2 proline into the NS3 catalytic site
was not possible as initially formulated, exploiting the
subtleties of the enzyme inhibitor interactions at this
site led to the discovery of a series potent inhibitors with
compact P2 substituents and improved physicochemical
parameters relative to the corresponding 4-hydroxy-
proline-derived analogues. Further investigation of
this series is in progress and will be reported in due
course.15
References and notes
1. Narjes, F.; Koch, U.; Steinkuhler, C. Exp. Opin. Invest.
Drugs 2003, 12, 153. For a comprehensive recent review
see: Perni, R. B.; Kwong, A. D. In Progress in Medicinal