domain of hERR was conducted using a competitive
displacement assay,10 in most cases indicating relatively poor
affinity for the receptor. This is presumably due to the
reduction in hydrogen bonding capacity relative to the native
ligands, two such interactions between â-estradiol and the
receptor having been identified.8 Our attention therefore
turned to accessible ligands which possess an enediyne-
tethering site in addition to diol functionality. It is known
that certain 17R-alkynyl steroid derivatives possess compa-
rable binding to the parent steroidal nucleus;9 thus analogues
23 and 24 were prepared by coupling 8, with either the
alkynyl carboxylate or propargyl alcohol, both of which are
readily prepared from commercially available 17R-ethynyl
estradiol. Ester 23 and ether 24 both showed sub-micromolar
affinity to hERR;10 however, in the case of 24, the compound
proved unstable, decomposing to a mixture of products on
standing for extended periods. Subsequent investigations
revealed that 23, like â-estradiol, is capable of recruiting the
AIB1, GRIP1, and RAC3 estrogen receptor coactivator
proteins, which are important for formation of estrogenic
complexes competent for transcription.11 For these reasons,
the enediyne-estrogen derived from 23 became the candidate
for synthesis.12 The thermally labile enediyne core 25 was
prepared in eight steps from commercially available methyl
hexynoate, the key enediyne closure utilizing an intramo-
lecular carbenoid coupling reaction.13 Alkyne 26, prepared
from ethynyl estradiol, was converted to alkynyl carboxylate
27 and immediately coupled with freshly prepared 25
(Scheme 3). Subsequent desilylation gave key enediyne-
cycloaromatization to yield adduct 23 (half-life approxi-
mately 15 h at 37 °C), identical in all respects to the authentic
material, and underscoring our design philosophy (Scheme
2). We were now able to study the key interaction of diyl
29 with the receptor target. Accordingly, a freshly prepared
sample of 28 was incubated with 35S-labeled full length
hERR at various concentrations for two half-lives (36 h),
and then the protein was separated using SDS-PAGE and
visualized using fluorography. The results indicate that the
enediyne induces degradation of the receptor (Figure 2, lanes
Figure 2. ERR degradation mediated by enediyne 28. 35S-
Methionine-labeled full length hERR incubated with either ethanol
alone (lanes 1 and 8), estradiol (lanes 2 and 9, 10 µM), 4-OH-
tamoxifen (lanes 3 and 10, 10 µM), ICI182,780 (lanes 4 and 11,
10 µM), and 28 (lanes 5-7 and 12-14 at concentrations indicated)
at either 37 °C or 4 °C for 36 h. The samples were resolved (10%
SDS-PAGE), fixed, enhanced, dried, and visualized using fluorog-
raphy. Incubation with 23 or 25 (1 mM) produced no change relative
to control (data not shown).
Scheme 3. Preparation of Chemically Reactive
Estrogen-Enediyne Probe
13 and14), and that the process has concentration and
temperature-dependent components (lanes 6 and 7). This
finding constitutes the first example of targeted protein
degradation using a designed enediyne. Control reactions
either with estradiol, the antiestrogens 4-hydroxytamoxifen
or ICI 182,780,14 arene 23, or enediyne 25 indicate the
enediyne-estrogen conjugate is responsible for the degrada-
tion, which implies a proteolytic mechanism involving diyl
29.3,4 The obserVation of receptor degradation at micromolar
concentration is especially encouraging giVen the fact that
the affinity of 23 for hERR was only in the low micromolar
range. It is thus possible that improved analogues can be
found which approach the nanomolar affinity levels observed
for natural ligands, including â-estradiol, which in turn may
improve both the specificity and selectivity of the degradation
event.
estrogen 28 in good yield. As expected, in the presence of a
hydrogen donor, this enediyne underwent Bergman type
(12) Wang, J.; DeClercq, P. J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1995, 34,
1749. Py, S.; Harwig, C. W.; Banerjee, S.; Brown, D. L.; Fallis, A. G.
Tetrahedron Lett. 1998, 39, 6139.
(13) Jones, G. B.; Huber, R. S.; Mathews, J. E. J. Chem. Soc., Chem.
Commun. 1995, 1791. Jones, G. B.; Wright, J. M.; Plourde, G. W., II; Hynd,
G.; Huber, R. S.; Mathews, J. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 1937.
(14) Wakeling, A. E.; Bowler, J. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1992,
43, 173. Osborne, C. K.; Coronado, E.; Allred, D. C.; Wiebe, V.;
DeGregorio, M. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1991, 83, 1477.
(10) Relative binding affinities (RBA’s) determined by displacement of
3H estradiol from ligand binding domain of hERR using increasing
concentrations (nM through mM) of candidate compounds at 4 °C/37 °C.
RBA’s of compounds 9-22 were all >1 µM, 23 (0.5 µM), and 24 (0.1
µM) relative to estradiol (1 nM). Specific details of the entire screen will
be published in a full account of this work.
(11) Chen, H.; Lin, R. J.; Xie, W.; Wilpitz, D.; Evans, R. M. Cell 1999,
98, 675.
Org. Lett., Vol. 2, No. 13, 2000
1865