Table 1 Overview of diffusion coefficients determined by PFG NMR
spectroscopy in D2O
D (m2 sꢀ1) (fitting errors)
after 230 min of irradiation
at 295 nm
D (m2 sꢀ1) (fitting errors)
before irradiation
Pure SDS 6.3 ꢁ 10ꢀ11 (ꢂ1.9 ꢁ 10ꢀ13
)
—
—
Pure 4
38 ꢁ 10ꢀ11 (ꢂ4.2 ꢁ 10ꢀ12
14 ꢁ 10ꢀ11 (ꢂ6.7 ꢁ 10ꢀ13
)
Pure 11
)
9.6 ꢁ 10ꢀ11 (ꢂ2.1 ꢁ 10ꢀ12
)
11 in SDS
solutiona
SDS
5.9 ꢁ 10ꢀ11 (ꢂ7.4 ꢁ 10ꢀ14
5.7 ꢁ 10ꢀ11 (ꢂ5.6 ꢁ 10ꢀ14
)
)
6.2 ꢁ 10ꢀ11 (ꢂ2.1 ꢁ 10ꢀ13
)
)
11
5.5 ꢁ 10ꢀ11 (ꢂ1.8 ꢁ 10ꢀ13
11 in SDS
solutionb
SDS
Fig. 3 Overlay of 1H–1H gCOSY experiments of glycothymidine 11
in SDS detergent micelles, in the absence (black contours), and in the
presence of 2.6 mM Mn2+-EDTA (red contours). Correlations are
labeled as follows: R: deoxyribose, M: mannose, A: octyl chain,
L: ethyl linker, SDS: cross peaks of the residual protons in the
deuterated SDS.
5.7 ꢁ 10ꢀ11 (ꢂ2.7 ꢁ 10ꢀ13
5.3 ꢁ 10ꢀ11 (ꢂ5.9 ꢁ 10ꢀ14
)
)
5.7 ꢁ 10ꢀ11 (ꢂ2.2 ꢁ 10ꢀ13
)
)
11
5.3 ꢁ 10ꢀ11 (ꢂ4.2 ꢁ 10ꢀ14
a
Concentration was chosen to give two molecules of 11 per SDS
b
micelle at an average. Concentration was chosen to give eight
molecules of 11 per SDS micelle at an average.
context, they were incorporated into SDS micelles, which serve
as a model system for the in vivo situation of the glycosylated
cell surface. Using 1D- and diffusion NMR experiments it is
demonstrated that glycothymidines undergo [2+2] cycloaddition
when incorporated into micelles, thus leading to an altered
pattern of surface-exposed carbohydrates. As a glyco-micelle
might be regarded as a minimal glycocalyx model, this
investigation represents the first step towards light switching
of glycosylated surfaces, and elucidation of the role of
conformational control in glycobiology.
H.K. acknowledges financial support by SFB 677 (DFG
collaborative network).
Fig. 2 Irradiation of glycothymidine 11 (pure) in D2O-solution (left
spectra) and with SDS micelles (right spectra), followed over time by
1D-1H NMR spectroscopy at 25 1C.
Notes and references
1 L. L. Kiessling, J. E. Gestwicki and L. E. Strong, Angew. Chem.,
Int. Ed., 2006, 45, 2348–2368.
2 W. R. Browne and B. L. Feringa, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem., 2009,
60, 407–428.
3 (a) E. Ben-Hur, D. Elad and R. Ben-Ishai, Biochem. Biophys. Acta,
1967, 149, 355–360; (b) R. Iwaura and T. Shimizu, Angew. Chem.,
Int. Ed., 2006, 45, 4601–4604; (c) W. G. Skene, V. Berl, H. Risler,
R. Khoury and J.-M. Lehn, Org. Biomol. Chem., 2006, 4,
3652–3663.
results were obtained with the dimer in micellar solution (see
suppl. informationz). This implies that both the monomeric
and dimeric form of the investigated amphiphilic glycothymidine
are embedded into the SDS micelle via the lipophilic alkyl
chain, while the hydrophilic mannose is surface-exposed and
accessible to the paramagnetic relaxation agent, and thus
available for lectin binding.
4 J. Dahme
G. Noori, Carbohydr. Res., 1983, 116, 303–307.
5 G. Zemplen and E. Pacsu, Ber. Dtsch. Chem. Ges., 1929, 62,
1613–1614.
´
n, T. Frejd, G. Gronberg, T. Lave, G. Magnusson and
In conclusion, glycothymidines are easily obtained from
20-deoxythymidine and appropriate glycosides. They undergo
a photosensitized [2+2] dimerisation in solution, and are thus
in principle suited to test the influence of accessibility change
and conformational alterations on carbohydrate recognition
within a glycosylated surface. This is important in the context
of cell adhesion and microbial adhesion to cell surfaces,
e.g. lectin binding to the glycocalyx. To investigate if glyco-
thymidines can be used in such a more complex supramolecular
´
6 Y. Inaki, in CRC Handbook of Organic Photochemistry and
Photobiology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2004, 104/1–104/34.
7 W. Bannwarth, Helv. Chim. Acta, 1988, 71, 1517–1527.
8 C. R. Sanders and F. D. Sonnichsen, Magn. Reson. Chem., 2006,
44, S24–S40.
¨
9 D. H. Wu, A. D. Chen and C. S. Johnson, J. Magn. Reson., Ser. A,
1995, 115, 260–264.
10 E. O. Stejskal and J. E. Tanner, J. Chem. Phys., 1965, 42, 288–292.
c
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2011
Chem. Commun., 2011, 47, 9399–9401 9401