incorporated into a membrane-permeable probe, it could
be used to detect NO and HNO at the cellular level. A
number of groups have developed a variety of fluorescent
probes for NO and HNO, and these have been partially
successful for fluorescent imaging agents in living cells.7-9,12
However, these probes have some undesirable character-
istics related to their compatibility with living cells,
pH-dependent fluorescence, water solubility, and mem-
brane permeability.10,8b Membrane permeability is the key
feature for imaging experiments in intact cells for which
continual permeation of intracellular with artificial physio-
logical conditions is required.11 Fluorescein12 and boron-
dipyrromethene (BODIPY)9 dyes have been designed as
fluorophore platforms for the construction of efficient
membrane-permeable probes. Coumarin and its deriva-
tives are used extensively as fluorescence labeling reagents
for their excellent photophysical properties of high fluor-
escence quantum yield and efficient membrane permeabi-
lity.13 Therefore, we designed a probe for nitroxyl (HNO)
including a coumarin chromophore and a tripodal dipico-
lylamine receptor, which was attachedvia a triazole bridge.
The receptor provides a rigid Cu(II) binding site spacer
between the coumarin fluorophore and chelating ligand.
This type of probe was previously reported by Lippard’s
group, and the aim of this work was to produce a probe
with an improved response compared to their BODIPY
probe. With the aid of Lippard’s design strategy,9 the
probe also provides N bridges to minimize the distance
between the Cu2þ binding site and coumarin fluo-
rophore, which will ensure strong fluorescence quenching
in the off state of Cu(II) coumarin. Upon interaction with
HNO, chelated Cu(II) coumarin is reduced and the Cu(I)
coumarin complex forms, which induces an increase in the
fluorescence intensity. Changes in [HNO] under physiologi-
cal conditions will exhibit “turn-on” type fluorogenic beha-
vior, which can be detected by measuring the ratio of green
fluorescence intensity with good sensitivity and selectivity.
The synthesis of coumarin-trizole (COT1) and a pro-
posed mechanism are shown in Scheme 1. Diazotization of
Scheme 1. Synthesis of Coumarin-Trizole (COT1) and
Proposed Mechanism of Interaction with HNO To Generate
Fluorescence
amino-coumarin with NaN3 afforded azide-coumarin 3,
which was further installed by the copper(I)-mediated click
cycloaddition14 of alkyne 2 to give COT1 in 63% yield. The
chelated complex CuII[COT1]Cl2 was easily prepared by
addition of CuCl2 to COT1. This complex was soluble and
stable under physiological conditions in saline. COT1 and
Cu(I)-COT1 are both green emission fluorophores, and
they each displayed one absorption band in the visible
region centered at 400 nm (COT1, 8.08 ꢀ 104 M-1 cm-1
)
and 408 nm (Cu(I)-COT1, 8.15 ꢀ 104 M-1 cm-1) (Figure
S1, Supporting Information). Acid-base fluorescence titra-
tions revealed that the fluorescence intensity of Cu(I)-
COT1/Cu(II)-COT1 was unaffected by pH values between
6.08 and 9.41 (excitation at 415 nm). This suggests that the
probe would work well at physiological pH, although the
fluorescence intensity of Cu(I)-COT1 was quenched slightly
at pH <6.0 (Figures S2 and S3, Supporting Information).
The emission profile of COT1 showed typical coumarin
green fluorescence at 499 nm, with a high quantum yield
(Φf = 0.63) compared to that of 3 (Φf = 0.03), suggesting
the cycloaddition of 3 leads an increase in the electron-
donating ability in emission of coumarin. When 1 equiv of
Cu2þ was added to COT1 in aqueous solution, a dramatic
fluorescence quenching was observed (23.6-fold). This
could be attributed to the photoinduced electron transfer
(PET)15 from the coumarin fluorophore to the chelated
Cu2þ. The association constant of COT1 with Cu2þ was
determined to be 7.9 ꢀ 105 M-1 on the basis of the fluo-
rescence titration experiments (Figure S4; see the Support-
ing Information). The fluorescence intensity increased
(8) (a) Lim, M. H.; Lippard, S. J. Acc. Chem. Res. 2007, 40, 41–51. (b)
Hilderbrand, S. A.; Lim, M. H.; Lippard, S. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004,
126, 4972–4978. (c) Tonzetich, Z. J.; McQuade, L. E.; Lippard, S. J.
Inorg. Chem. 2010, 49, 6338–6348. (d) Marti, M. A.; Bari, S. E.; Estrin,
D. A.; Doctorovich, F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 4680–4684. (e)
Tennyson, A. G.; Do, L.; Smith, R. C.; Lippard, S. J. Polyhedron 2007,
26, 4625–4630.
(9) Rosenthal, J.; Lippard, S. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 5536–
5537.
(10) (a) Smith, R. C.; Tennyson, A. G.; Lim, M. H.; Lippard, S. J.
Org. Lett. 2005, 7, 3573–3575. (b) Do, L.; Smith, R. C.; Tennyson, A. G.;
Lippard, S. J. Inorg. Chem. 2006, 45, 8998–9005.
(11) McQuadea, L. E.; Ma, J.; Lowe, G.; Ghatpande, A.; Gelperin,
A.; Lippard, S. J. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107, 8525–8530.
(12) (a) Lim, M. H.; Xu, D.; Lippard, S. J. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2006, 2,
375–380. (b) Lim, M. H.; Wong, B. A.; Pitcock, W. H., Jr.; Mokshagundam,
D.; Baik, M. H.; Lippard, S. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 14364–
14373. (c) Pluth, M. D.; McQuade, L. E.; Lippard, S. J. Org. Lett. 2010,
12, 2318–2321.
(13) (a) Trenor, S. R.; Shultz, A. R.; Love, B. J.; Long, T. E. Chem.
Rev. 2004, 104, 3059–3077. (b) Lim, N. C.; Schuster, J. V.; Porto, M. C.;
Tanudra, M. A.; Yao, L.; Freake, H. C.; Bruckner, C. Inorg. Chem.
2005, 44, 2018–2030. (c) Ray, D.; Bharadwaj, P. K. Inorg. Chem. 2008,
47, 2252–2254. (d) Maity, D.; Govindaraju, T. Inorg. Chem. 2010, 49,
7229–7231. (e) Yuan, L.; Lin, W.; Song, J. Chem. Commun. 2010, 46,
7930–7932.
(14) (a) Boren, B. C.; Narayan, S.; Rasmussen, L. K.; Zhang, L.;
Zhao, H.; Lin, Z.; Jia, G.; Fokin, V. V. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130,
8923–8930. (b) Sivakumar, K.; Xie, F.; Cash, B. M.; Long, S.; Barnhill,
H. N.; Wang, Q. Org. Lett. 2004, 6, 4603–4306.
(15) (a) Chen, X.; Nam, S. W.; Kim, G. H.; Song, N.; Jeong, Y.; Shin,
I.; Kim, S. K.; Kim, J.; Park, S.; Yoon, J. Chem. Commun. 2010, 46,
8953–8955. (b) Royzen, M.; Dai, Z.; Canary, J. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2005, 127, 1612–1613.
Org. Lett., Vol. 13, No. 6, 2011
1291