tion was seen when 5b was subjected to hot aqueous ammomnia
affording the zwitterion 9b.
oligonucleotides should be straightforward as it has been with
analogous dinucleotides with shorter nucleobase–phosphor-
triester linkages.5,6 The lability of the allylic phosphortriesters
gives, on the other hand, the interesting opportunity of
conjugation to the nucleobase applying other nucleophiles.
Thus, transferring the RCM chemistry to solid phase oligonu-
cleotide synthesis reveals the 2-butene linkage as a platform for
postsynthetic functionalisation19 e.g. towards zwitterionic
DNA.20
In conclusion, the present RCM-based strategy has proven
very convenient towards conformationally restricted cyclic
dinucleotides. Importantly, the precatalyst 1 has proven very
useful also as an efficient and selective hydrogenation catalyst
even towards compounds unobtainable by conventional hydro-
genation methods. We expect the conformational restriction
introduced, and the present RCM methodology in general, to be
a very important tool towards nucleic acid analogues mimicking
tertiary nucleic acid structures.
Since the present significant electrophilic character of the
phosphortriester moiety must at least in part be deduced to its
allylic nature, a hydrogenation of the 2-butene linker was
approached. However, when 6a was subjected to standard
hydrogenation conditions, i.e. atmospheric pressure of hydro-
gen and a palladium catalyst, this led surprisingly not only to the
hydrogenation of the double bond but also to reduction of the
phosphortriester linkage to give the dinucleotide 10a in a
quantitative yield. Palladium hydroxide as a catalyst gave the
same result. A solution to the problem of hydrogenation was
given by a method of Grubbs and co-workers who recently
presented a tandem ring-closing metathesis and hydrogenation
procedure in which catalyst 1 was applied also as a hydro-
genation catalyst.18 Thus, a solution of 4a in CH2Cl2 was
refluxed with 5 mol% of 1 until completion of the RCM reaction
as detected by TLC and then subjected to 1000 psi H2 at 50 °C
overnight to give 11a as an epimeric mixture in 54% (Scheme
2). Thus, while the RCM reaction proceeded in moderate yield,
the hydrogenation was quantitative as indicated by the yield,
which is similar to the yield of the RCM reaction alone, and by
MS and NMR as no presence of the unsaturated compound 5a
could be detected after hydrogenation. 11a was deprotected
using the usual acidic treatment14 to give 12a in 85% yield.¶
Applying the same conditions, 11b was synthesised as an
epimeric mixture in an even higher 63% yield from 4b.
Deprotection gave 12b in quantitative yield.¶ The stability
towards nucleophiles of these saturated phosphortriesters was
examined and, as expected, found to be significantly improved
compared to the unsaturated analogues. Thus, 12a did not react
at all with deuterated pyridine within 24 h, and treatment with
concentrated aqueous ammonia for 24 h at room temperature
resulted in only approximately 10% conversion to 13a accord-
ing to 31P NMR. A harsher treatment of 12a with ammonia at 55
°C for 5 days resulted, however, in complete conversion to 13a.
Similar properties were seen in the 2A-deoxy series as treatment
of 12b with 32% aq. NH3 at 55 °C in 5 days gave complete
conversion to 13b, whereas less than 10% conversion was seen
after 24 h at room temperature.
Notes and references
‡ 6a contains a 10+10+1+1 mixture of the (E,SP), (E,RP), (Z,SP) and (Z,RP)
stereoisomers, respectively.15
§ Selected data: for 4b: 1H NMR (CDCl3) d 5.00–5.41 (4H, m, CHNCH2),
5.84–5.95 (2H, m, CHNCH2); 31P NMR (CDCl3) d 20.61. For 5b: 1H NMR
(CDCl3) d 5.84–5.98 (2H, m, CHNCH); 31P NMR (CDCl3) d 20.65, 2.01;
IR (KBr) 3431, 3065, 1694, 987, 780 cm21
.
¶ Selected data: for compound 12a: 1H NMR (DMSO-d6) d 1.50–1.70 (4H,
m, CH2CH2), 1.76–1.80 (3H, br s, CH3), 2.28–2.43 (4H, m, CH2-U, T-
H2A,2B), 3.60–3.65 (2H, m, T-H5A,5B), 3.98–4.39 (8H, m, T-H4A, U-
H5A,5B,4A,3A,2A, CH2-OP), 4.93–4.99 (1H, m, T-H3A), 5.80 (0.5H, d, J 2.3 Hz,
U-H1A), 5.87 (0.5H, d, J 3.9 Hz, U-H1A), 6.18–6.24 (1H, m, T-H1A), 7.28
(0.5H, s, U-H6), 7.41 (0.5H, s, U-H6), 7.67–7.71 (1H, br s, T-H6),
11.34–11.40 (2H, m, NH); 31P NMR (DMSO-d6) d 20.58, 0.29; IR (KBr)
3419, 1695, 1024, 786 cm21. HiRes MALDI FT-MS: [MNa+] found/calc.
m/z 625.1507/625.1517. For compound 12b: 1H NMR: (DMSO-d6) d
1.50–1.70 (4H, m, CH2CH2), 1.76–1.79 (3H, br s, CH3), 2.10–2.42 (6H, m,
CH2-dU, 2 3 H2A,2B), 3.50–4.40 (9H, m, 2 3 H5A,5B,4B, dU-H3A, CH2-OP),
4.93–4.97 (1H, m, T-H3A), 6.18–6.29 (2H, m, 2 3 H1A), 7.31 (0.5H, s, dU-
H6), 7.43 (0.5H, s, dU-H6), 7.66–7.70 (1H, br s, T-H6), 11.31–11.35 (2H,
m, NH); 31P NMR (DMSO-d6) d 20.71, 0.00; IR (KBr) 3435, 1690, 1022,
In summary, the RCM protocol has proven very efficient in
preparing the conformationally restricted cyclic dinucleotides
5a,b. The potential use of these compounds, however, is
hampered by the high base lability, which is not compatible
with standard solid phase oligonucleotide synthesis applying
base-labile protecting groups and solid support connections.
The saturated counterparts 12a,b are much more stable, and the
standard deprotection conditions usually applied (i.e. conc.
ammonia at rt) afforded only a slow cleavage of the conforma-
tionally restricting rings. Thus, the incorporation of 12a,b into
784 cm21
;
HiRes MALDI FT-MS: [MNa+] found/calc. m/z
609.1584/609,1568.
1 E. T. Kool, Chem. Rev., 1997, 97, 1473.
2 P. Herdewijn, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1999, 1489, 167.
3 C. J. Leumann, Bioorg. Med. Chem., 2002, 10, 841.
4 M. Meldgaard and J. Wengel, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1, 2000,
3539.
5 M. Sekine, O. Kurasawa, K. Shohda, K. Seio and T. Wada, Eur. J. Org.
Chem., 2001, 1989.
6 M. Sekine, O. Kurasawa, K. Shohda, K. Seio and T. Wada, J. Org.
Chem., 2000, 65, 6515.
7 M. Seio, T. Wada and M. Sekine, Helv. Chim. Acta, 2000, 83, 162.
8 J. F. Reichwein, C. Versluis and R. M. J. Liskamp, J. Org. Chem., 2000,
65, 6187.
9 H. E. Blackwell, J. D. Sadowsky, R. J. Howard, J. N. Sampson, J. A.
Chao, W. E. Steinmetz, D. J. O’Leary and R. H. Grubbs, J. Org. Chem.,
2001, 66, 5291.
10 M. Scholl, S. Ding, C. W. Lee and R. H. Grubbs, Org. Lett., 1999, 1,
953.
11 T. M. Trnka and R. H. Grubbs, Acc. Chem. Res., 2001, 34, 18.
12 J. Ravn and P. Nielsen, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1, 2001, 985.
13 A. M. Sørensen and P. Nielsen, Org. Lett., 2000, 2, 4217.
14 A. M. Sørensen, K. E. Nielsen, B. Vogg, J. P. Jacobsen and P. Nielsen,
Tetrahedron, 2001, 57, 10191.
15 P. Børsting, A. M. Sørensen and P. Nielsen, Synthesis, 2002, 797.
16 B. Bhat, N. J. Leonard, H. Robinson and A. H.-J. Wang, J. Am. Chem.
Soc., 1996, 118, 10744.
17 J. L. Ruth and D. E. Bergstrom, J. Org. Chem., 1978, 14, 2870.
18 J. Louie, C. W. Bielawski and R. H. Grubbs, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2001,
123, 11312.
Scheme 2 Reagents and conditions: i, 5 mol% 1, CH2Cl2, 40 °C then 1000
psi H2, 50 °C, 54% (11a), 63% (11b); ii, 90% aq. TFA, 85% (12a), quant.
(12b); iii, 32% aq. NH3, 55 °C, quant. (13a), quant. (13b).
19 S. Dey and T. L. Sheppard, Org. Lett., 2001, 3, 3983.
20 H. Hashimoto, M. G. Nelson and C. Switzer, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1993,
115, 7128.
CHEM. COMMUN., 2002, 2140–2141
2141