Two approaches to overcome this limitation were previ-
ously successfully implemented in the area of enzymatic
Baeyer-Villiger oxidation by our two groups. Taking
advantage of nature’s biodiversity, a platform of recombinant
E. coli strains overexpressing BVMOs of various microbial
origin was introduced2 with overlapping substrate profiles
for the conversion of various ketones. These catalysts display
enantiocomplementary stereospecificity3 and regiodivergent
biotransformations.4
Another strategy is based on the modification of a
particular biocatalyst of known characteristics. The combina-
tion of recent protocols from molecular biology5 with
efficient screening methods6 under a directing evolutionary
pressure (directed evolution) represents a powerful approach
toward obtaining new asymmetric catalysts.7 In the field of
enzymatic Baeyer-Villiger oxidation, a random strategy has
been successfully applied to modify the stereopreference of
cyclohexanone monooxygenase (CHMO) from Acinetobacter
sp. NCIMB 9871,8 and enantiodivergent biocatalysts were
evolved within two generations.9 In this process, a limited
number of amino acids become exchanged, and the genes
of the most promising mutants are used as templates for
subsequent rounds of mutagenesis/screening. In a knowledge-
based approach, a region within the active site of phenyl-
acetone monooxygenase (PAMO) from Thermobifida fusca
(ZP_57328)10 was modified to alter the substrate specificity
of the enzyme.11 This was possible on the basis of the
3-dimensional structure of PAMO constituting the first
crystal structure of a BVMO.12
against a library of structurally diverse ketones of different
polarity and electronic properties. In this contribution, we
present the most interesting results of a comparative study
of biotransformations by mutant enzymes and wild-type
CHMO (Scheme 1 and Table 1).
Recombinant whole-cell expression systems were utilized
to implement easy-to-use cofactor recycling (NADPH) and
biocatalyst production within living E. coli cells.9 We used
a screening methodology outlined recently based on a 24-
well plate format with a fermentation volume of 1 mL (0.5
mg of substrate).13 This multidish format reflects fermentation
characteristics of shake-flask cultures to a significant extent,
hence allowing also an assessment of biocatalyst efficiency
and performance on larger scale. In combination with chiral-
phase GC analysis, this screening method allows the
investigation of diverse ketones with respect to conversion
and stereoselectivity within a relatively short period of time.
Conversion of 5,5′-bicycloketone 1a with native CHMO
gave (-)-lactone 1b in very good yield and good enantio-
selectivity. Exchange of phenylalanine by serine at position
432 resulted in a slight increase in stereoselectivity compared
to wild-type CHMO, whereas mutations L426P and A541V
showed a significant decrease of enantiopreference. Remark-
ably, the more lipophilic chloro-bicyclic compound 2a was
biooxidized to enantiocomplementary lactone 2b with good
stereoselectivity, depending on the particular mutant used.
Again, mutation F432S resulted in the same stereoselectivity
as in wild-type CHMO, and mutations at positions 426 and
541 in this case led to formation of the antipodal lactone.
In the cyclobutanone series (substrates 3a, 4a) a related
trend was observed, although the degree of enantioselectivity
turned out to be lower. The mutation F432S for the more
polar precursor 3a led to the antipodal lactone 3b compared
to wild-type CHMO. A different mutation at position 432
(Phe f Ile) gave a slight increase in the enantioselectivity
compared to the wild-type enzyme. Similar results were
obtained with phenylcyclobutanone 4a. The mutation F432S
(together with K78E) increased the stereoselectivity signifi-
cantly compared to wild-type CHMO, while the mutation
F432I had the opposite effect resulting in almost racemic
lactone 4b.
While these previous studies aimed at the modification of
a specific property of the enzyme with respect to the
transformation of a particular substrate, in this contribution
the impact of mutations on a variety of substrates is
investigated. We selected a number of CHMO mutants that
displayed enantiocomplementary biooxidations of 4-hy-
droxycyclohexanone.9 These mutant enzymes were screened
(2) Mihovilovic, M. D.; Rudroff, F.; Gro¨tzl, B.; Kapitan, P.; Snajdrova,
R.; Rydz, J.; Mach, R. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2005, 44, 3609.
(3) (a) Mihovilovic, M. D.; Rudroff, F.; Mu¨ller, B.; Stanetty, P. Bioorg.
Med. Chem. Lett. 2003, 13, 1479. (b) Wang, S.; Kayser, M. M.; Iwaki, H.;
Lau, P. C. K. J. Mol. Catal. B: Enzym. 2003, 22, 211. (c) Mihovilovic, M.
D.; Mu¨ller, B.; Kayser, M. M.; Stanetty, P. Synlett 2002, 700.
(4) (a) Mihovilovic, M. D.; Kapitan, P. Tetrahedron Lett. 2004, 45, 2751.
(b) Kelly, D. R.; Knowles, C. J.; Mahdi, J. G.; Taylor, I. N.; Wright, M. A.
J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1995, 729. (c) Alphand, V.; Furstoss, R. J.
Org. Chem. 1992, 57, 1306.
(5) (a) Svendsen, A. Enzyme Functionality - Design, Engineering, and
Screening; Marcel Dekker: New York, 2005. (b) Brakmann, S.; Schwien-
horst, A. EVolutionary Methods in Biotechnology (CleVer Tricks for Directed
EVolution); Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2004. (c) Arnold, F. H.; Georgiou,
G. Directed EVolution: Screening and Selection Methods; Humana Press:
Totowa, NJ, 2003; Vol. 230.
Based on previous results for the enantiocomplementary
biooxidation of 4-hydroxycyclohexanone,9 we investigated
different substituted prochiral cyclohexanones 5a-7a. Sur-
prisingly, no enantiodivergence was observed, and neither a
change of hybridization (6a) nor modifications in polarity
(7a) of substituents at C-4 showed substantial influence on
the stereopreference. Stereoselectivity was slightly improved
for lactones 6b and 7b.17 The given results are representative
for a larger set of ketones investigated.
(6) Reetz, M. T. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2001, 40, 284.
(7) (a) Reetz, M. T. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2004, 101, 5716. (b)
Reetz, M. T In AdVances in Catalysis; Gates, B. C., Kno¨tzinger, H., Eds.;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2005; Vol. 49, p 1.
(8) Donoghue, N. A.; Norris, D. B.; Trudgill, P. W. Eur. J. Biochem.
1976, 63, 175.
(9) Reetz, M. T.; Brunner, B.; Schneider, T.; Schulz, F.; Clouthier, C.
M.; Kayser, M. M. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 4075.
(10) Fraaije, M. W., Kamerbeek, N. M.; Heidekamp, A. J.; Fortin, R.;
Janssen, D. B. J. Biol. Chem. 2004, 279, 3354.
(11) Bocola, M.; Schulz, F.; Leca, F.; Vogel, A.; Fraaije, M. W.; Reetz,
M. T. AdV. Synth. Catal. 2005, 347, 979.
(12) Malito, E.; Alfieri, A.; Fraaije, M. W.; Mattevi, A. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U.S.A. 2004, 101, 13157.
(13) Mihovilovic, M. D.; Snajdrova, R.; Winninger, A.; Rudroff F. Synlett
2005, 18, 2751.
(14) Mihovilovic, M. D.; Mu¨ller, B.; Kayser, M. M.; Stewart, J. D.;
Stanetty, P. Synlett 2002, 703.
(15) Gagnon, R.; Grogan, G.; Groussain, E.; Pedragosa-Moreau, S.;
Richardson, P. F.; Roberts, S. M.; Willetts, A. J.; Alphand, V.; Lebreton,
J.; Furstoss, R. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1 1995, 2527.
(16) Alphand, V.; Mazzini, C.; Lebreton, J.; Furstoss, R. J. Mol. Catal.
B: Enzym. 1998, 5, 219.
(17) Taschner, M.; Black, D. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110, 6892.
1222
Org. Lett., Vol. 8, No. 6, 2006