2522
Z. Guo et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15 (2005) 2519–2522
since in the 6-methyluracil series, the 2-fluorine group
causes about 4-fold increase in binding affinity. This
may indicate that the small fluorine atom, without the
6-methyl group at the uracil ring, has little effect on ori-
entating the 5-phenyl ring. The larger chlorine atom
(compound 18, Ki = 1.2 nM), however, increased the
binding affinity about 6-fold over 16. On the other hand,
the trifluoromethyl group (19, Ki = 4.0 nM) had mini-
mal impact. The hydroxy analogue 20 (Ki = 18 nM)
was slightly less active than its parent 17 (Ki = 8.0 nM),
but much less potent than the methoxy compound 9
(Ki = 0.64 nM), suggesting that the methoxy group is
strongly favored. Further increasing the bulk over the
methoxy group led to progressive decrease in binding
affinity (compound 21–23). Although the 2-chloro-3-
methoxylphenyl compound 24 (Ki = 0.45 nM) possessed
similar binding affinity to 9, 24 (IC50 = 0.53 nM) was
much more potent than 9 (IC50 = 7.2 nM) in the func-
tional IP3 turnover assay.14 While adding a methyl
group at the 4-position on the 5-phenyl ring did not im-
prove binding affinity (25, Ki = 2.6 nM), incorporating a
trifluoromethyl group actually dramatically reduced its
potency (26, Ki = 200 nM). These results may imply that
an electron-deficient phenyl ring is unfavored at this
position.
structure–activity relationship studies at the 1- and
5-positions of the uracil core resulted in re-optimized
compounds with subnanomolar potency (i.e., 24,
Ki = 0.45 nM). Importantly, these compounds do not
possess atropisomeric property.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported, in part, by National Institutes
of Health grants 1-R43-HD38625-01 and 2-R44-
HD38625-02.
References and notes
1. (a) Sealfon, S. C.; Weinstein, H.; Millar, R. P. Endocr.
Rev. 1997, 18, 180; (b) Millar, B. P.; Lu, Z.-J.; Pawson, A.
J.; Flanagan, C. A.; Morgan, K.; Maudsley, S. R. Endocr.
Rev. 2004, 25, 235.
2. Cheng, K. W.; Leung, P. C. K. Can. J. Physiol. Pharma-
col. 2000, 78, 1029.
3. Cottreau, C. M.; Ness, R. B.; Modugno, F.; Allen, G. O.;
Goodman, M. T. Clin. Cancer Res. 2003, 9, 5142.
4. Karten, M. J.; Rivier, J. E. Endocr. Rev. 1986, 7, 44.
5. Huirne, J. A.; Lambalk, C. B. Lancet 2001, 358, 1793.
6. For recent review articles on small molecule GnRH
antagonists, see: (a) Tucci, F. C.; Chen, C. Curr. Opin.
Drug Discovery Dev. 2004, 7, 832; (b) Zhu, Y.-F.; Chen,
C.; Struthers, R. S. Non-peptide GnRH antagonists.
Annu. Rep. Med. Chem. 2004, 39, 99.
7. Tucci, F. C.; Zhu, Y.-F.; Struthers, R. S.; Guo, Z.; Gross,
T. D.; Rowbottom, M. R.; Acevedo, O.; Gao, G.;
Saunders, J.; Xie, Q.; Reinhart, G. J.; Liu, X.-J.; Ling,
N.; Bonneville, A. K. L.; Chen, T.-K.; Bozigian, H.; Chen,
C. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 1169.
Similar to the 6-methyluracil series, compounds derived
from R-phenylalaninol were much more potent than
their S-isomers (S-2 and S-9, Ki = 570 and 55 nM,
respectively). This strong stereopreference suggests that
both the amino and the phenyl groups of this side-chain
have major contributions to the binding energy.
These non-methyl uracil GnRH antagonists do not pos-
sess atropisomers as evidenced by a single set of NMR
signals in different solvents at room temperature. No
such atropisomeric property was observed even for
derivatives of the 5-phenyl group substituted with a
larger ortho group such as chlorine.
8. Tucci, F. C.; Hu, T.; Mesleh, M. F.; Bokser, A.; Allsapp,
E.; Gross, T. D.; Guo, Z.; Zhu, Y.-F.; Struthers, R. S.;
Ling, N.; Chen, C. Chirality, submitted for publication.
9. Daniels, J. M.; Nestmann, E. R.; Kerr, A. Drug Info. J.
1997, 31, 639.
10. For experimental details, see: Zhu, Y.; Chen, C.; Tucci,
F. C.; Guo, Z.; Gross, T. D.; Rowbottom, M.; Struthers,
R. S. WO 01/55119.
11. Rowbottom, M. W.; Tucci, F. C.; Zhu, Y.-F.; Guo, Z.;
Gross, T. D.; Reinhart, G. J.; Xie, Q.; Struthers, R. S.;
Saunders, J.; Chen, C. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2004, 14,
2269.
12. Betz, S. F.; Reinhart, G. J.; Lio, F. M.; Chen, C.;
Struthers, S. J. Biol. Chem., submitted for publication.
13. For recent review articles on aromatic interactions, see: (a)
Hunter, C. A.; Lawson, K. R.; Perkins, J.; Urch, C. J.
J. Chem. Soc., Perkin. Trans. 2 2001, 651; (b) Janiak, C.
J. Chem. Soc. Dalton Trans. 2000, 3885.
14. Zhou, W.; Rodic, V.; Kitanovic, S.; Flanagan, C. A.; Chi,
L.; Weinstein, H.; Maayani, S.; Millar, R. P.; Sealfon, S.
C. J. Biol. Chem. 1995, 270, 18853.
On the bases of computational modeling of the 3-D hu-
man GnRH receptor,15 the binding site for this 5-phenyl
group could be located in the proximity at the top part
between helices 4 and 5, where two residues, Tyr-211
and Asn-212, are identified to project into the binding
pocket. While the tyrosine aromatic ring might interact
with this 5-phenyl group through p–p stacking, the
asparagine could form hydrogen-bond with the 3-meth-
oxyl group on the phenyl ring. Asn-212 has been known
to be important for the architecture of the ligand-bind-
ing pocket based on mutagenesis and computational
modeling studies, and it is proposed that Asn-212 inter-
acts with pGlu1 of GnRH via hydrogen-bonding.1b In
addition, alanine replacement of Tyr-211 results in a
receptor, which is neither capable of ligand binding
nor signal transduction by GnRH peptide.16
15. Hoffmann, S. H.; ter Laak, T.; Kuhne, R.; Reilander, H.;
Beckers, T. Mol. Endocrinol. 2000, 14, 1099.
16. CCDC 265975 contains the supplementary crystallo-
graphic data for this paper. These data can be obtained
by emailing data_request@ccdc.cam.ac.uk, or by contact-
ing The Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre, 12,
Union Road, Cambridge CB2 1EZ, UK; fax: +44 1223
336033.
In conclusion, a series of uracils with no 6-methyl group
was synthesized to address the atropisomerism of the 6-
methyl analogues such as 1. While initial des-methyl-
ation of 6-methyluracil 1 (Ki = 0.56 nM) caused about
10-fold reduction in binding affinity (2, Ki = 5.3 nM),