A R T I C L E S
Parrott et al.
specificity and decreased water solubility, resulting in greatly
diminished tumor-localizing capability.7 Additional promising
methods have also been reported, including boron-rich oligo-
meric phosphate diesters8 and carborane-loaded unilamellar
liposomes.9
poly(propylene imine),30 carbosilane,31 polylysine,32 metallo-
dendrimers,33 and the dendrimer-like closomers.34 Of these, only
the PAMAM and polylysine structures exhibited some degree
of aqueous solubility, though neither one proved to be an ideal
boron delivery agent. PAMAM dendrimers are cytotoxic
because of their polycationic nature,35 and the polylysine
scaffold, while clearly biocompatible, exhibited diminished
aqueous solubility upon carborane introduction, requiring aque-
ous-organic solvent mixtures for bioconjugation reactions.32
A more successful approach to producing water-soluble carbo-
rane-functionalized dendrimers, reported by Newkome and co-
workers, involved the reaction of alkyne moieties with decab-
orane to form ortho-carborane cages within the interior of
cascade macromolecules.36 Aqueous solubility over a wide pH
range was provided by peripheral sulfate groups, resulting in a
unimolecular micelle-type structure. However, the biocompat-
ibility and biodegradability of this hydrocarbon-based dendrimer
has not been reported.
Over the past two decades, the use of synthetic macromol-
ecules as drug-delivery agents has gained increasing momentum.
The idea of using water-soluble polymers to mimic transport
proteins was first introduced by Ringsdorf10,11 and Kopecek12,13
and has led to clinical trials of several polymer therapeutic agents
for cancer chemotherapy.14 Polymer-based drug delivery agents
exhibit improved solubility and increased vascular circulation
time because of a decreased rate of renal filtration, a process
that is abated by increasing the molecular size of the delivery
system.15,16 This prolonged circulation time enables macromo-
lecular drug delivery systems to passively target tumor tissues
as a result of increased permeability of tumor vasculature to
macromolecules and the limited lymphatic drainage away from
a tumor.17 Combined, these two factors allow the selective
accumulation of macromolecules in tumor tissue, a phenomenon
known as the enhanced permeation and retention (EPR)
effect.18-20
On the basis of these studies, it is clear that internal dendrimer
functionalization is advantageous, allowing peripheral hydro-
philic groups to impart aqueous solubility and to effectively
mask the presence of hydrophobic carborane cages within the
macromolecule. Additionally, the dendrimer scaffold must be
chosen such that it imparts the required solubility features while
also maintaining biocompatibility. Recently, Fre´chet and co-
workers developed an efficient divergent synthesis of aliphatic
polyester dendrimers based on 2,2-bis(hydroxymethyl)pro-
panoic acid (bis-MPA),37 originally prepared by Ihre et al. in a
convergent manner.38,39 These structures were found to be
promising as drug delivery agents, as they are biocompatible,
nonimmunogenic, nontoxic, water-soluble, and well-tolerated
in vivo.26,40 We have therefore undertaken the development of
similar aliphatic polyester dendrimers that incorporate an easily
controllable number of carboranes within the interior of the
dendrimer structure. Critical to this approach was the develop-
ment of a bifunctional carborane synthon that matches the dual
functionality of the bis-MPA monomer, allowing it to be inserted
within the dendrimer synthesis at any generation using traditional
carbodiimide esterification reactions. This flexibility in the
position of carborane insertion provides control over the boron
concentration within a specific dendrimer target compound.
Within the area of polymer therapeutics, dendritic macro-
molecules exhibit several distinct advantages over their linear
counterparts. These include their precisely controlled architec-
ture, monodispersity, and the ability to incorporate specific
functional groups at the periphery or the interior of the
molecule.21-25 Dendrimers can therefore serve as highly versatile
drug delivery vehicles, allowing for control over solubility,
molecular weight, multiplicity of therapeutic agents, and
potentially the incorporation of active targeting moieties.17,26
In light of these advantages, several research groups have
already investigated the incorporation of carboranes within a
dendritic polymer architecture. Perhaps the first example was
Yamamoto’s ortho-carborane coupled to a cascade-type tetraol
that exhibited enhanced water solubility over the non-dendron-
functionalized starting material.27,28 Following this, other groups
investigated the coupling of multiple carborane cages to the
peripheral groups of various dendrimers, including PAMAM,29
(8) Nakanishi, A.; Guan, L. F.; Kane, R. R.; Kasamatsu, H.; Hawthorne, M.
F. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1999, 96, 238-241.
(9) Feakes, D. A.; Shelly, K.; Hawthorne, M. F. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
1995, 92, 1367-1370.
(27) Nemoto, H.; Cai, J. P.; Yamamoto, Y. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun.
1994, 577-578.
(10) Ringsdorf, H. J. Polym. Sci., Polym. Symp. 1975, 135-153.
(11) Bader, H.; Ringsdorf, H.; Schmidt, B. Angew. Makromol. Chem. 1984,
123, 457-485.
(28) Nemoto, H.; Wilson, J. G.; Nakamura, H.; Yamamoto, Y. J. Org. Chem.
1995, 60, 1478-1478.
(12) Kopecek, J. Polym. Med. 1977, 7, 191-221.
(29) Barth, R. F.; Adams, D. M.; Soloway, A. H.; Alam, F.; Darby, M. V.
Bioconjugate Chem. 1994, 5, 58-66.
(13) Kopecek, J.; Kopeckova, P.; Minko, T.; Lu, Z. R. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm.
2000, 50, 61-81.
(30) Yao, H. J.; Grimes, R. N.; Corsini, M.; Zanello, P. Organometallics 2003,
22, 4381-4383.
(14) Duncan, R. Nat. ReV. Drug DiscoVery 2003, 2, 347-360.
(15) Duncan, R. Anti-Cancer Drugs 1992, 3, 175-210.
(16) Maeda, H.; Seymour, L. W.; Miyamoto, Y. Bioconjugate Chem. 1992, 3,
351-362.
(31) Nunez, R.; Gonzalez, A.; Vinas, C.; Teixidor, F.; Sillanpaa, R.; Kivekas,
R. Org. Lett. 2005, 7, 231-233.
(32) Qualmann, B.; Kessels, M. M.; Musiol, H. J.; Sierralta, W. D.; Jungblut,
P. W.; Moroder, L. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1996, 35, 909-911.
(33) Armspach, D.; Cattalini, M.; Constable, E. C.; Housecroft, C. E.; Phillips,
D. Chem. Commun. 1996, 1823-1824.
(17) Gillies, E. R.; Frechet, J. M. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 14137-
14146.
(18) Matsumura, Y.; Maeda, H. Cancer Res. 1986, 46, 6387-6392.
(19) Maeda, H.; Wu, J.; Sawa, T.; Matsumura, Y.; Hori, K. J. Controlled Release
2000, 65, 271-284.
(34) Thomas, J.; Hawthorne, M. F. Chem. Commun. 2001, 1884-1885.
(35) Malik, N.; Wiwattanapatapee, R.; Klopsch, R.; Lorenz, K.; Frey, H.;
Weener, J. W.; Meijer, E. W.; Paulus, W.; Duncan, R. J. Controlled Release
2000, 68, 299-302.
(20) Seymour, L. W. Crit. ReV. Ther. Drug Carrier Syst. 1992, 9, 135-187.
(21) Frechet, J. M. J. Science 1994, 263, 1710-1715.
(22) Esfand, R.; Tomalia, D. A. Drug DiscoVery Today 2001, 6, 427-436.
(23) Tomalia, D. A.; Naylor, A. M.; Goddard, W. A. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.
1990, 29, 138-175.
(36) Newkome, G. R.; Moorefield, C. N.; Keith, J. M.; Baker, G. R.; Escamilla,
G. H. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1994, 33, 666-668.
(37) Ihre, H.; Padilla De Jesus, O. L.; Fre´chet, J. M. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001,
123, 5908-5917.
(24) Frechet, J. M. J.; Tomalia, D. A. Dendrimers and Other Dendritic Polymers;
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: West Sussex, UK, 2001.
(25) Newkome, G. R.; Moorefield, C. N.; Vogtle, F. Dendritic Macromol-
ecules: Concepts, Synthesis, PerspectiVes; VCH: Weinheim, Germany,
1996.
(26) Ihre, H. R.; Padilla De Jesus, O. L.; Szoka, F. C. J.; Frechet, J. M. J.
Bioconjugate Chem. 2002, 13, 443-452.
(38) Ihre, H.; Hult, A.; Soderlind, E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 6388-
6395.
(39) Ihre, H.; Hult, A.; Frechet, J. M. J.; Gitsov, I. Macromolecules 1998, 31,
4061-4068.
(40) De Jesus, O. L. P.; Ihre, H. R.; Gagne, L.; Frechet, J. M. J.; Szoka, F. C.
Bioconjugate Chem. 2002, 13, 453-461.
9
12082 J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 127, NO. 34, 2005