794
A. Okamoto et al. / Tetrahedron Letters 46 (2005) 791–795
Next, an ESR spectral analysis of the single-stranded
ODN1 and the duplex ODN1/ODN10 was carried out,
and the results are shown in Figure 2a and b. The
ESR spectrum of the single-stranded ODN1 exhibited
the characteristic five-line pattern, with a typical hyper-
fine coupling constant of aN = 8.21 G, whereas the value
of aN for the spin probe in ODN1/ODN10 (8.25 G) was
slightly higher than that of the single-stranded state.
This result reflects the increased micropolarity at the
binding site of the nitronyl nitroxide group in the major
groove of the duplex. In addition, the duplex formation
caused the line broadening. This line broadening is
attributed to the motional restriction of the NNU spin
label within duplex DNA.2f,8
the spins was separated over two base pairs, then the sig-
nal intensity increased markedly. When the distance be-
tween the spins was separated over four base pairs, then
the interaction between two NNU spin labels was elimi-
nated. The change in ESR signal intensities of doubly
NNU-labeled ODNs will be a useful tool for monitoring
spatial proximity at room temperature.
In conclusion, we have designed a nucleoside labeled
with a nitronyl nitroxide group, dNNU, and have synthe-
sized ODNs containing one or two NNUs groups. The
spin signals from the NNU-containing ODNs varied be-
cause of the degree of hybridization of the complemen-
tary strand and the distance between the nitronyl
nitroxide spins. Therefore, NNU spin labels will be useful
as a powerful SDSL tool for exploring the structure and
dynamics of nucleic acids.
Using our synthetic protocol for an NNU-containing
ODN, we prepared a doubly NNU-labeled ODN
ODN2(0), which contained an NNUNNU sequence.
In the ESR spectrum of ODN2(0) hybridized with a
complementary strand ODN2(0)0, the signal intensity
was observed to be much lower than that of ODN1/
ODN10 in spite of this duplex having two spin labels
(Fig. 2c). The remarkable line broadening of ODN2(0)/
ODN2(0)0 is assumed to originate from the spin–spin
interaction and motional restriction between the labeled
side chains due to the close proximity of the spin labels
within the duplex.9,10
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Dr. T. Nishinaga, Dr. A. Wakamiya,
and Professor K. Komatsu (Kyoto University) for tech-
nical assistance and for useful discussions on the ESR
data.
References and notes
We also prepared other doubly NNU-labeled ODNs with
different distances between two nitronyl nitroxide
groups (Table 1), and measured the resulting ESR sig-
nals. The ESR signal intensities observed for each
duplex are shown in Figure 3. As the distance between
the two NNU sites increased, the signal intensities grad-
ually increased. In particular, when the distance between
1. (a) Robinson, B. H.; Thomann, H.; Beth, A. H.; Fajer, P.;
Dalton, L. R. EPR and Advanced EPR Studies of
Biological Systems; CRC: New York, 1985; (b) Hubbell,
W. L.; Mchaourab, H. S.; Altenbach, C.; Lietzow, M. A.
Structure 1996, 4, 779–783; (c) Klug, C. S.; Su, W.; Feix, J.
B. Biochemistry 1997, 36, 13027–13033; (d) Brown, L. J.;
Sale, K. L.; Hills, R.; Rouviere, C.; Song, L.; Zhang, X.;
Fajer, P. G. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2002, 99, 12765–
12770; (e) Hoofnagle, A. N.; Stoner, J. W.; Lee, T.; Eaton,
S. S.; Ahn, N. G. Biophys. J. 2004, 86, 395–403; (f) Hurth,
K. M.; Nilges, M. J.; Carlson, K. E.; Tamrazi, A.; Belford,
R. L.; Katzenellenbogen, J. A. Biochemistry 2004, 43,
1891–1907; (g) Buchaklian, A. H.; Funk, A. L.; Klug, C.
S. Biochemistry 2004, 43, 8600–8606.
2. (a) Strobel, O. K.; Kryak, D. D.; Bobst, E. V.; Bobst, A.
M. Bioconjugate Chem. 1991, 2, 89–95; (b) Tyagi, S. C. J.
Biol. Chem. 1991, 266, 17936–17940; (c) Makino, K.;
Nagahara, S.; Konishi, Y.; Mukae, M.; Ide, H.; Mura-
kami, A. Free Radical Res. Commun. 1993, 19(Suppl. 1),
S109–116; (d) Murakami, A.; Mukae, M.; Nagahara, S.;
Konishi, Y.; Ide, H.; Makino, K. Free Radical Res.
Commun. 1993, 19(Suppl. 1), S117–128; (e) Giordano, C.;
Fratini, F.; Attanasio, D.; Cellai, L. Synthesis 2001, 565–
572; (f) Okamoto, A.; Inasaki, T.; Saito, I. Bioorg. Med.
Chem. Lett. 2004, 14, 3415–3418.
3. (a) Spaltenstein, A.; Robinson, B. H.; Hopkins, P. B. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110, 1299–1301; (b) Spaltenstein,
A.; Robinson, B. H.; Hopkins, P. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1989, 111, 2303–2305; (c) Spaltenstein, A.; Robinson, B.
H.; Hopkins, P. B. Biochemistry 1989, 28, 9484–9495; (d)
Qin, P. Z.; Hideg, K.; Feigon, J.; Hubbell, W. L.
Biochemistry 2003, 42, 6772–6783.
4. (a) Akaike, T.; Yoshida, M.; Miyamoto, Y.; Sato, K.;
Kohno, M.; Sasamoto, K.; Miyazaki, K.; Ueda, S.;
Maeda, H. Biochemistry 1993, 32, 827–832; (b) Gibson,
A.; Lilley, E. Gen. Pharmacol. 1997, 28, 489–493; (c)
Yoshie, Y.; Ohshima, H. Carcinogenesis 1997, 18, 1359–
Figure 3. Comparison of the signal intensities obtained from the ESR
spectra of NNU-containing duplexes. A solution of the duplexes
(100 lM) in 50 mM sodium phosphate and 0.1 M sodium chloride
(pH 7.0) was examined at 27 °C. The ESR spectrum was performed
using a Bruker EMX spectrometer, in the X-band, with a modulation
amplitude of 2.0 G, a time constant of 20 ms, and a microwave power
of 1 mW. The sample holder was a glass capillary tube. The ESR peak
intensity of ODN1/ODN10 was normalized to 1.0.