Evidence for the formation of Michael adducts from reactions of (E,E)-muconaldehyde with glutathione and other thiols

Article abstract of DOI:10.1016/j.bioorg.2005.05.004

Glutathione induces the rapid isomerization of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde to (E,E)-muconaldehyde via (E,Z)-muconaldehyde, probably via reversible Michael addition of the thiol to one of the enal moieties of the muconaldehyde. Reactions of (E,E)-muconaldehyde with glutathione (in the presence and absence of equine glutathione S-transferase), phenylmethanethiol, N-acetyl-l-cysteine, and N-acetyl-l-cysteine methyl ester were investigated using mass spectrometric techniques. In each case, evidence was obtained for the formation of Michael adducts, e.g., reaction between (E,E)-muconaldehyde and glutathione gave 4-glutathionyl-hex-2-enedial and 3,4-bis-glutathionyl-hexanedial. These experiments suggest that (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde, a putative metabolite of benzene, could lead to the long established urinary metabolite of benzene, (E,E)-muconic acid, via glutathione-mediated isomerization to (E,E)-muconaldehyde.

Full text of DOI:10.1016/j.bioorg.2005.05.004

Bioorganic Chemistry 33 (2005) 363–373
www.elsevier.com/locate/bioorg
Evidence for the formation of Michael adducts
from reactions of (E,E)-muconaldehyde with
glutathione and other thiols
Alistair P. Henderson a,b,¤, Christine Bleasdale b, Kirsty Delaney b,
Andrew B. Lindstrom c, Stephen M. Rappaport a,
Suramya Waidyanatha a, William P. Watson d,
Bernard T. Golding b,¤
a Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, School of Public Health,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 7431, USA
b School of Natural Sciences-Chemistry, Bedson Building, Newcastle University,
Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
c National Exposure Research Laboratory, United States Environmental Protection Agency, MD-205-05,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
d Syngenta Central Toxicology Laboratory, Alderley Park, MacclesWeld, SK10 4TJ, UK
Received 14 March 2005
Available online 11 July 2005
Abstract
Glutathione induces the rapid isomerization of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde to (E,E)-muconalde-
hyde via (E,Z)-muconaldehyde, probably via reversible Michael addition of the thiol to one of
the enal moieties of the muconaldehyde. Reactions of (E,E)-muconaldehyde with glutathione
(in the presence and absence of equine glutathione S-transferase), phenylmethanethiol, N-ace-
tyl-L-cysteine, and N-acetyl-L-cysteine methyl ester were investigated using mass spectrometric
techniques. In each case, evidence was obtained for the formation of Michael adducts, e.g.,
reaction between (E,E)-muconaldehyde and glutathione gave 4-glutathionyl-hex-2-enedial and
3,4-bis-glutathionyl-hexanedial. These experiments suggest that (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde, a
*
Corresponding authors. Fax: + 44 191222 6929 (A.P. Henderson).
E-mail addresses: alistair@email.unc.edu (A.P. Henderson), b.t.golding@ncl.ac.uk (B.T. Golding).
0045-2068/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bioorg.2005.05.004

364
A.P. Henderson et al. / Bioorganic Chemistry 33 (2005) 363–373
putative metabolite of benzene, could lead to the long established urinary metabolite of ben-
zene, (E,E)-muconic acid, via glutathione-mediated isomerization to (E,E)-muconaldehyde.
2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: (E,E)-Muconaldehyde; Glutathione; Isomerization; Thiols adducts; Benzene
1. Introduction
The complex metabolism and toxicities of benzene [1,2] are initiated by cyto-
chrome P450 (CYP450)1 oxidation to benzene oxide–oxepin [3–5], which undergoes
further metabolism to an array of intermediates and products (Scheme 1). Attempts
to elucidate the mechanisms of benzene toxicities have been focused on the roles of
several reactive metabolites including benzene oxide–oxepin [3–5], muconaldehydes
(1–3) [6–9], 1,2- and 1,4-benzoquinones [10], as well as reactive oxygen species [2].
(E,E)-Muconic acid is a long established ring-opened metabolite of benzene [11–13],
the levels of which in the urine of humans and animals exposed to benzene can be
used as a biomarker [14,15]. The precursor of (E,E)-muconic acid is presumed to be
(E,E)-muconaldehyde (3), which is derived from its (Z,Z)-isomer (1) via the (E,Z)-
isomer (2). The (Z,Z)-isomer is believed to be formed from benzene oxide–oxepin via
a CYP450-dependent oxidation of the oxepin component [16]. In model experiments,
it was shown that (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde slowly isomerizes by an electrocyclic process
to (E,Z)-muconaldehyde, which can undergo either acid- or base-catalyzed conver-
sion to the more stable (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) [9,17].
(E,E)-Muconaldehyde (3) is comparable to benzene with respect to its toxic eVects
on bone marrow, and was shown in experiments with bacterial and mammalian cells
to be both genotoxic and cytotoxic [6,18,19]. A comparative study on the metabolism
of benzene to (E,E)-muconic acid in DBA/2N and CB57BL/6 mice was consistent
with the hypothesis that reactive ring-opened metabolites, such as (E,E)-muconalde-
hyde (3), play a role in benzene hemotoxicity [20]. The benzene sensitive mouse
strain, DBA/2N, excreted signiWcantly more muconic acid than the less sensitive
strain, CB57BL/6, after treatment with hemotoxic doses of benzene [20]. It has also
been suggested that the mono-reduced and mono-oxidized forms of muconaldehyde,
because of their lesser electrophilicity/reactivity, are more likely to clear the liver
unconjugated and Wnd their way to target tissues [21], and that reversible thiol conju-
gation, e.g., with GSH (4), is a possible transport mechanism for muconaldehyde [22].
Little evidence for the formation of adducts with thiol nucleophiles has previously
been reported and, due to the complex chemistry and reactivity of the muconaldehy-
des, isolation and identiWcation of products are diYcult. The kinetics of the reaction
1
Abbreviations used: GSH, glutathione; GST, glutathione S-transferase; DBU, 1,8-diazabicy-
clo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene; CYP450, cytochrome P450; PCI, positive chemical ionization; NCI, negative chemi-
cal ionization.

A.P. Henderson et al. / Bioorganic Chemistry 33 (2005) 363–373
365
Scheme 1. SimpliWed metabolic pathway for benzene showing major reactive species.
of GSH with (3) were studied but adducts were only characterized by UV spectros-
copy [22].
In this paper, we report an investigation of the GSH (4)-catalyzed isomerization of
(Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) to (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) via (E,Z)-muconaldehyde (2).
The reaction of (E,E)-muconaldehyde with (4), phenylmethanethiol (5), N-acetyl-L-
cysteine (6), and N-acetyl-L-cysteine methyl ester (7) were studied using mass spectro-
metric techniques to detect adducts. Reaction between (3) and (4) resulted in the
formation of 4-glutathionyl-hex-2-enedial (8) and 3,4-bis-glutathionyl-hexanedial (9)
as observed by mass spectrometry.
2. Results and discussion
2.1. Isomerization of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) in water
The diastereoselective isomerization of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) to (E,Z)-mucon-
aldehyde (2) has previously been investigated in the non-aqueous solvents acetoni-
trile, benzene, and dimethyl sulfoxide [9,17]. A thermally allowed electrocyclic
process, via a small equilibrium concentration of 2-formyl-2H-pyran, was suggested
for the mechanism [9].
To assist in the interpretation of the reactions of muconaldehyde with GSH (4),
the behavior of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) in water was also considered. Thus, reac-
1
tion of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) in D2O (pH 6.5) at 25 °C was monitored by H
NMR spectroscopy (Scheme 2), by integration of the resonances from aldehyde
groups and using 8% (E,E)-muconaldehyde as internal standard. Within 15 min of
preparation of the reaction mixture, 20% of the (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) had under-
gone isomerization to (E,Z)-muconaldehyde (2) (Fig. 1). The percentage of (Z,Z)-
muconaldehyde (1) diminished to 25% within 4 h at 25 °C and to 8% after 10 h.
Concurrently, the level of (E,Z)-muconaldehyde (2) increased from 29% at 1 h, to
58% at 4h, and to 69% after 10 h. Under these conditions, the (E,Z)-isomer remained
stable and did not undergo further isomerization to the (E,E)-isomer. The half-life

366
A.P. Henderson et al. / Bioorganic Chemistry 33 (2005) 363–373
Scheme 2. Isomerization of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) to (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) and its subsequent reac-
tion with GSH (4) in water solvent.
Fig. 1. Isomerization of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) to (E,Z)-muconaldehyde (2) under aqueous conditions.
for the isomerization was ca. 2h. Throughout the reaction, there was no change in the
concentration of (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) (8%).
2.2. Isomerization of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) catalyzed by glutathione (4) in water
The eVect of GSH (4) on the isomerization of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) to (E,E)-
muconaldehyde (3) via (E,Z)-muconaldehyde (2) at 25°C under aqueous conditions
was investigated. The isomerization is believed to proceed via a Michael addition of the
thiol nucleophile to the (Z)-enal to aVord an intermediate, which eliminates the thiol to
give an (E)-enal [17]. This process is analogous to the slow triethylamine-catalyzed
isomerization of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) to (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) via (E,Z)-
muconaldehyde (2) [17], but is mechanistically diVerent from the thermally induced
route to (E,Z)-muconaldehyde (2) from (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1), which occurs via an
electrocyclic process [9,23]. 1H NMR was used to monitor the isomerization of (Z,Z)-

A.P. Henderson et al. / Bioorganic Chemistry 33 (2005) 363–373
367
Fig. 2. Isomerization of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) to (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) via (E,Z)-muconaldehyde
(2) in the presence of GSH (4) (expansion showing the data for the Wrst hour of reaction).
muconaldehyde (1) over 16h (Scheme 2). Within 15min of the addition of (4), only 3%
of the total muconaldehyde content was accounted for by the (Z,Z)-isomer, whereas
(E,Z)-muconaldehyde (2) accounted for 50% and the (E,E)-isomer for 47% (Fig. 2).
This is in sharp contrast to the isomerization observed in the absence of GSH (4) where
only 20% of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) had isomerized after 15min. It is noteworthy
that in the absence of (4), conversion of 1 exclusively yields (E,Z)-muconaldehyde (2).
However, in the presence of (4), within 1h (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) had completely
isomerized to the (E,Z)- and (E,E)-isomers (2 and 3), or had reacted with (4).
The concentration of (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) was at its maximum (78%) after
1h, with the isomer mixture containing 22% of the (E,Z)-isomer (2). The (E,E)-iso-
mer then decreased over time; after 6 h the concentration was half of its maximum.
After 6h only the (E,E)-isomer was present (39%), while after 16h it had reduced to
16%. The mechanism of isomerizations presumably involves reversible Michael addi-
tions of GSH to an enal moiety of a muconaldehyde. The formation of such adducts
was shown by mass spectrometric analysis of solutions of (3) with thiols, including
GSH (see below).
2.3. Reaction of (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) with glutathione (4)
Incubation of (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) with varying molar ratios of GSH (4) was
carried out at pH 8, in the presence and absence of commercial equine GST. Mass
spectrometric analysis (NCI) of these reaction mixtures showed the formation of two
adducts (Fig. 3). These were identiWed as 4-glutathionyl-hex-2-enedial (8) [m/z 416.1
(M¡ 1)], formed by addition of one equivalent of GSH (4) to (E,E)-muconaldehyde
(3), and 3,4-bis-glutathionyl-hexanedial (9) [m/z 723.4 (M ¡ 1)] from addition of two
equivalents of (4) (Scheme 2). Although adducts 8 and 9 are relatively stable they
eventually disappear with the formation of unidentiWed products. The presence of
GST had no eVect on the formation of adducts 8 and 9 compared with its absence,

368
A.P. Henderson et al. / Bioorganic Chemistry 33 (2005) 363–373
Fig. 3. Mass spectrum of the reaction mixture of (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) with GSH (4) in the presence of GST.
but this could be due to the lack of the appropriate isozyme [24] in the commercial
preparations used.
When (3) and (4) were allowed to reacted in a 1:1 ratio, mono adduct (8) was
observed with only a trace of the bis adduct (9). However, increasing the GSH (4) to
a 5-fold molar excess caused increases in the levels of (8) and (9) (8:1, 8:9), but still
favoring a greater proportion of the mono adduct (8). This is in agreement with a
report [22] that a second nucleophilic addition to (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) is not
favored. The reactions of conjugated aldehydes with thiols generally proceed by a
1,4-addition [25]. Although a bis adduct can be formed due to the multi-functional
nature of (E,E)-muconaldehyde, it is expected that the Wrst addition would decrease
the reactivity of the remaining enal [18]. Steric hindrance from the bound glutathio-
nyl group would further decrease the likelihood of a second nucleophilic addition.
When a 5-fold excess of (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) was allowed to react with GSH
(4) in the presence of GST, only the mono adduct (8) (m/z 416.1, M ¡1) was
observed. Mass fragmentation of the peak at m/z 416.1 (M¡ 1) produced daughter
ions at m/z 306.1 due to released GSH (4) and at m/z 271.9 from loss of the glutamic
acid residue from GSH (4). Fragmentation analysis of (9) showed m/z 723.4 (M ¡ 1),
which appears to be more stable than the m/z 416.1 peak from mono adduct (8).
There were weak signals for the daughter ion at m/z 416.0 (loss of one molecule of
GSH) and at m/z 306.1 (GSH).
2.4. Reaction of (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) with phenylmethanethiol (5)
Reaction of (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) with the model thiol phenylmethanethiol (5)
appeared to result in formation of a mono adduct from a Michael-type addition to

A.P. Henderson et al. / Bioorganic Chemistry 33 (2005) 363–373
369
Scheme 3. Reaction between (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) and thiols (5), (6), and (7).
one of the enal groups (Scheme 3). Analysis of the reaction mixture by GC-MS
showed a signal corresponding to 4-benzylsulfanyl-hex-2-enedial (10) (tR 24.6min, m/z
234). PCI GC/MS showed an ion at m/z 235 corresponding to MH+. Treatment of
adduct (10) with sodium borohydride resulted in the formation of 4-benzylsulfanyl-
hex-2-ene-1,6-diol (m/z 238) by reduction of the two aldehyde functions. PCI analysis
showed MH+ at m/z 239. However, no bis adduction was observed when monitoring
by GC-MS and may be due to instability of the bis adduct or the reversible conjuga-
tion of (4) at the elevated temperatures of the GC column.
Mass spectrometric analysis in the negative ion mode showed a signal relating to
(10) (m/z 233.1, M ¡1) with daughter ions due to benzyl (m/z 91.0) and C7H7S¡ (m/z
122.9) by MS/MS analysis. The bis adduct, 3,4-bis-benzylsulfanyl-hexanedial (11) (m/z
356.2, M ¡1) also fragmented to give a daughter ion at m/z 91.0 corresponding to
benzyl. The adducts were observed in the ratio 7:1, 10:11.
2.5. Reaction of (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) with N-acetyl-L-cysteine (6) and N-acetyl-
L-cysteine methyl ester (7)
Reactions of (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) with N-acetyl-L-cysteine or N-acetyl-L-cys-
teine methyl ester were studied because the expected adducts might be useful refer-
ence standards for the quantitative measurement of cysteine adduct levels in blood
using methods similar to those developed for benzene oxide [5,10]. When (E,E)-
muconaldehyde (3) was incubated with either N-acetyl-L-cysteine (6) or N-acetyl-L-
cysteine methyl ester (7) at a range of pH (7, 8.5, and 10) both mono (12) and bis (13)
adducts were observed in the reactions (Scheme 3) in a ratio of 4:1, 12:13.
For N-acetyl-L-cysteine (6), MS/MS analysis in the negative ion mode showed for-
mation of an adduct, 2-acetylamino-3-[4-oxo-1-(2-oxo-ethyl)-but-2-enylsulfanyl]-
propionic acid (12) with m/z 272.1 (M ¡1) corresponding to addition of one molecule
of N-acetyl-L-cysteine (6) to (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) (Scheme 3). The fragmentation
of the ion at m/z 272.1 gave daughter ion signals at m/z 124.6, corresponding to
muconaldehyde with a sulfur attached, whilst the signal at m/z 108.9 corresponded to
muconaldehyde. An apparent hydrate of the adduct showing an ion at m/z 290.0
(M¡ 1) was also observed. The bis adduct, 2-acetylamino-3-[(2-acetylamino-2-car-

370
A.P. Henderson et al. / Bioorganic Chemistry 33 (2005) 363–373
boxy-ethylsulfanyl)-4-oxo-1-(2-oxoethyl)-butylsulfanyl]-propionic acid (13) was
observed with an ion at m/z 435.1 (M ¡ 1) and its hydrate at m/z 453.2 (M ¡1). Prod-
uct fragmentation of the ion at m/z 435.1 (13) showed a signal due to two sulfurs
attached to muconaldehyde (m/z 143.2, M ¡1).
For N-acetylcysteine methyl ester (7), using MS/MS analysis in the positive ion
mode, two adducts were again seen, with the mono adduct, 2-acetylamino-3-[4-oxo-
1-(2-oxoethyl)-but-2-enylsulfanyl]-propionic acid methyl ester, (14) observed at m/z
288.3 (M+ 1), while the bis adduct, 2-acetylamino-3-[2-(2-acetylamino-2-methoxy-
carbonyl-ethylsulfanyl)-4-oxo-1-(2-oxoethyl)-butylsulfanyl]-propionic acid methyl
ester, (15) was observed at m/z 465.2 (M + 1). The fragmentation of ion m/z 288.3
(M+ 1) (14) showed loss of the methyl ester (m/z 229.0), while the signal at m/z 144.0
was from sulfur attached to muconaldehyde. There was also a signal due to muconal-
dehyde at m/z 111.1. The fragmentation of ion m/z 465.2 (15) (M+ 1) showed signals
due to muconaldehyde with two sulfurs attached (m/z 176.0) and muconaldehyde
with two SCH2C+ attached (m/z 205.1). For adduct formation of (E,E)-muconalde-
hyde (3) with N-acetylcysteine methyl ester (7), the products were in the ratio 2:1,
14:15.
3. Conclusions
These studies have shown that if (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde is formed as a metabolite
of benzene it can undergo an intracellular GSH-catalyzed isomerization to the (E,E)-
isomer. The formation of mono- and bis-adducts from (3) and thiols including GSH
(4) has been demonstrated by the studies described above. The reversibility of the
addition of GSH to muconaldehydes indicates that GSH could act as a physiological
transporter of (E,E)-muconaldehyde to target sites. Future work will attempt to iso-
late puriWed adducts and to explore the eVect of individual GST isozymes [24] on
adduct formation.
4. Experimental
4.1. Caution
Benzene oxide–oxepin and muconaldehydes must be handled in a well-ventilated
hood by an operator wearing appropriate protective clothing.
4.2. General
All chemicals were obtained from Sigma–Aldrich (Gillingham, Dorset, UK or St.
Louis, MO, USA) or Lancaster (Newgate, Lancashire, UK). Chemicals and solvents
were either AnalaR grade, which were used directly, or laboratory reagent grade
1
puriWed further where appropriate. The H NMR spectra were run on a Bruker or
Jeo1 spectrometer at either 200 or 500 MHz using residual proton signals from the

A.P. Henderson et al. / Bioorganic Chemistry 33 (2005) 363–373
371
deuterated solvents as references: acetonitrile (1.95ppm), chloroform (7.25 ppm). All
coupling constants were measured in hertz.
4.3. Mass spectrometry
MS/MS analyses were conducted using a Sciex API3000 triple quadrupole mass
spectrometer (Applied Biosystems/MDS Sciex, Foster City, CA, USA). Analytes
were injected via infusion mode at a rate of 10 ꢀL/min. The mass spectrometer was
operated in Q1 scan mode to determine parent ions and then in multiple reaction
monitoring mode to assess resulting daughter ions. The system was operated with
negative and positive turbo ion spray atmospheric pressure ionization.
GC-MS analyses in electron ionization mode were conducted using a HP 5980
series gas chromatograph coupled to a HP 5989A MS engine. The mass spectra were
recorded by scanning the mass spectrometer from m/z 50 to 550. The injector, trans-
fer-line, and ion source temperatures were 250, 280, and 150°C, respectively, and the
electron energy was 70eV. A DB-5 fused silica capillary column (60 m, 0.25mm i.d.,
and 0.25ꢀm Wlm thickness) was used with helium as the carrier gas at a Xow rate of
1.5mL/min. Injections of 2ꢀL were made in splitless mode, with the GC oven held at
75°C for 2 min and then ramped at 10°C/min to 250 °C where it was held for 30 min.
4.4. Synthesis of benzene oxide and (E,E)-muconaldehyde
Benzene oxide–oxepin was prepared essentially as described in the literature
[26,27], with modiWcations as developed by our group [28]. Thus, one double bond of
1,4-cyclohexadiene was brominated and the other was epoxidized. Treatment of the
dibromoepoxide with DBU gave benzene oxide–oxepin. (Z,Z)-Muconaldehyde (1)
and (E,Z)-muconaldehyde (2) were synthesized according to Golding et al. [17].
Periodate cleavage of cis-cyclohexa-3,5-diene-1,2-diol in ice-cold water aVorded
(Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1), which was isomerized to (E,Z)-muconaldehyde (2) by
heating in acetonitrile at 55°C in the dark. (Z,Z)-Muconaldehyde (1) was also syn-
thesized from benzene oxide via reaction with dimethyldioxirane [16] (E,E)-Mucon-
aldehyde (3) was prepared as described by Davis and Whitman [29]. Essentially,
benzene oxide–oxepin (1mol equiv.) in DMSO and water (1.1 mol equiv.) was oxi-
dized with N-bromosuccinimide (1.1 mol equiv.) and extracted into ether.
4.5. Reactions of (E,E)-muconaldehyde
4.5.1. Isomerization of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) with water
(Z,Z)-Muconaldehyde containing 8% (E,E)-muconaldehyde (5 mg, 0.05 mmol) in
D2O (0.7mL, pH 6.5) was placed in a NMR tube. The reaction mixture was kept at
25°C in the absence of light and was monitored hourly by 1H NMR for 16 h.
4.5.2. Isomerization of (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (1) with glutathione (4) in water
To (Z,Z)-muconaldehyde (5mg, 0.05 mmol) in D2O (0.7mL) in a NMR tube was
added GSH (13.8mg, 0.05 mmol). The reaction mixture was kept at 25 °C in the

372
A.P. Henderson et al. / Bioorganic Chemistry 33 (2005) 363–373
1
absence of light and was monitored immediately, and then hourly by H NMR for
16h.
4.5.3. Reaction of (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) with glutathione (4) and glutathione
S-transferase
(E,E)-Muconaldehyde (3.6 mg, 0.03 mmol) was incubated with varying molar
ratios of GSH (molar ratio EE:GSH 1:1, 1:2, or 5:1) in the presence and absence of
equine glutathione S-transferase (1mg) at 37 °C for 30 min in ammonium acetate
buVer (5 mL, 0.1 M, pH 8). The resulting solution was analyzed by mass spectrome-
try.
4.5.4. Reaction of (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) with phenylmethanethiol (5)
To phenylmethanethiol (2mol equiv.) in acetonitrile (3 mL) was added triethyl-
amine (2mol equiv.) and the solution was stirred for 10min. (E,E)-Muconaldehyde
(100mg, 1mol equiv.) was added and the solution was stirred for 2 h at room temper-
ature. The reaction mixture was diluted into two aliquots. One aliquot was reduced
by adding sodium borohydride (0.5 equivalents). The other was not reduced. Partial
puriWcation of each aliquot was achieved by preparative TLC. The fractions were
analyzed by GC-MS.
4.5.5. Reaction of (E,E)-muconaldehyde (3) with N-acetyl-L-cysteine (6) and
N-acetyl-L-cysteine methyl ester (7)
(E,E)-Muconaldehyde (5mg, 0.05 mmol) was incubated with N-acetyl-L-cysteine
(7.4mg, 0.05 mmol) or N-acetyl-L-cysteine methyl ester (8.8 mg, 0.05 mmol) at 37 °C
for 30min in ammonium acetate buVer (5 mL, 0.1M, various pH) and the solutions
were analyzed by mass spectrometry.
Acknowledgments
The research at Newcastle University was funded by the BBSRC, EPSRC, and
NERC. K.D. was a recipient of an EPSRC CASE award in conjunction with Shell
Research. The work at the University of North Carolina was supported by the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences through Grant P42ES05948.
The information in this document has been funded in part by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. It has been subjected to Agency review and approved for publica-
tion. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
References
[1] B.T. Golding, W.P. Watson, in: B. Singer, H. Bartsch (Eds.), Exocyclic Nucleic Acid Adducts in
Carcinogenesis and Mutagenesis, IARC ScientiWc Publications, Lyons, 1999, pp. 75–88 International
Agency for Research on Cancer, Chapter 2.

A.P. Henderson et al. / Bioorganic Chemistry 33 (2005) 363–373
[2] R. Snyder, Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 32 (2002) 155–210.
373
[3] A.B. Lindstrom, K. Yeowell-O’Connell, S. Waidyanatha, B.T. Golding, R. Tornero-Velez, S.M. Rap-
paport, Carcinogenesis 18 (1997) 1637–1641.
[4] M.R. Lovern, M.J. Turner, M. Meyer, G.L. Kedderis, W.E. Berchtold, P.M. Schlosser, Carcinogenesis
18 (1997) 1695–1700.
[5] A.B. Lindstrom, K. Yeowell-O’Connell, S. Waidyanatha, T.A. McDonald, B.T. Golding, S.M. Rappa-
port, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 11 (1998) 301–310.
[6] G. Witz, G.S. Rao, B.D. Goldstein, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 80 (1985) 511–516.
[7] K. Cooper, G. Witz, C. Witmer, Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 19 (1992) 343–349.
[8] C. Bleasdale, B.T. Golding, G. Kennedy, J.O. MacGregor, W.P. Watson, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 6 (1993)
407–412.
[9] B.T. Golding, C. Bleasdale, J.O. MacGregor, J. Nieschalk, K. Pearce, W.P. Watson, Environ. Health
Perspect. 104 (Suppl. 6) (1996) 1201–1209.
[10] S.M. Rappaport, S. Waidyanatha, Q. Qingshan, R. Shore, J. Ximei, B. Cohen, L.C. Chen, A.A. Meli-
kian, Y. Songnian, H. Yan, B. Xu, R. Mu, Y. Li, X. Zhang, K. Li, Cancer Res. 62 (2002) 1330–1337.
[11] M. JaVe, Hoppe Zeylers Z. Physiol. Chem. 62 (1909) 58–67.
[12] D.V. Parke, R.T. Williams, Biochem. J. 54 (1953) 231–238.
[13] J.C. Drummond, I.L. Finar, Biochemistry 32 (1938) 79–84.
[14] W.E. Bechtold, G. Lucier, L.S. Birnbaum, S.N. Yin, G.L. Li, R.F. Henderson, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J.
52 (1991) 473–478.
[15] P.J. Boogaard, N.J. van Sittert, Environ. Health Perspect. 104 (Suppl. 6) (1996) 1151–1157.
[16] C. Bleasdale, R. Cameron, C. Edwards, B.T. Golding, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 10 (1997) 1314–1318.
[17] B.T. Golding, G. Kennedy, W.P. Watson, Tetrahedron Lett. 29 (1988) 5991–5994.
[18] G. Witz, S.C. Gad, R.R. Tice, Y. Oshiro, C.E. Piper, B.D. Goldstein, Mutat. Res. 240 (1990) 295–306.
[19] H. Glatt, G. Witz, Mutagenesis 5 (1990) 263–266.
[20] G. Witz, W. Maniara, V. Mylavarapu, B.D. Goldstein, Biochem. Pharmacol. 40 (1990) 1275–1280.
[21] D. Goon, X. Cheng, J.A. Ruth, D.R. Peterson, D. Ross, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 114 (1992) 147–155.
[22] S.A. Kline, Q. Xiang, B.D. Goldstein, G. Witz, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 6 (1993) 578–583.
[23] D. Nauduri, A. Greenberg, Tetrahedron Lett. 45 (2004) 4789–4793.
[24] R.N. Armstrong, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 10 (1997) 2–18.
[25] H. Esterbauer, H. Zollner, N. Scholz, Z. Naturforsch. 30 (1975) 466–473.
[26] E. Vogel, H. Gunter, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 6 (1967) 385–401.
[27] J.R Gillard, M.J. Newlands, J.N. Bridson, D.J. Burnell, Can. J. Chem. 69 (1991) 1337–1343.
[28] A.P. Henderson, M.L. Barnes, C. Bleasdale, R. Cameron, W. Clegg, S.L. Heath, A.B. Lindstrom, S.M.
Rappaport, S. Waidyanatha, W.P. Watson, B.T. Golding, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 18 (2005) 265–270.
[29] S.G. Davies, G.H. Whitman, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin 1 (1977) 1346–1347.