Utilization of achiral alkenyl amines for the preparation of high affinity Grb2 SH2 domain-binding macrocycles by ring-closing metathesis.
ABSTRACT A family of previously reported ring-closing metathesis (RCM)-derived macrocycles that exhibit potent Grb2 SH2 domain-binding affinity is characterized by stereoselectively-introduced upper ring junctions that bear bicyclic aryl substituents. However, the synthetic complexity of these macrocycles presents a potential limit to their therapeutic application. Therefore, the current study was undertaken to simplify these macrocycles through the use of achiral 4-pentenylamides as ring-forming components. A series of macrocycles (5a-f) was prepared bearing both open and cyclic constructs at the upper ring junction. The Grb2 SH2 domain-binding affinities of these macrocycles varied, with higher affinities being obtained with cyclo-substituents. The most potent analogue (5d) contained a cyclohexyl group and exhibited Grb2 SH2 domain-binding affinity (K(D) = 1.3 nM) that was nearly equal to the parent macrocycle (2), which bore a stereoselectively-introduced naphthylmethyl substituent at the upper ring junction (K(D) = 0.9 nM). The results of this study advance design considerations that should facilitate the development of Grb2 SH2 domain-binding antagonists.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In 2007, 1179 papers were published that involved the application of optical biosensors. Reported developments in instrument hardware, assay design, and immobilization chemistry continue to improve the technology's throughput, sensitivity, and utility. Compared to recent years, the widest range of platforms, both traditional format and array-based, were used. However, as in the past, we found a disappointingly low percentage of well-executed experiments and thoughtful data interpretation. We are alarmed by the high frequency of suboptimal data and over-interpreted results in the literature. Fortunately, learning to visually recognize good--and more importantly, bad--data is easy. Using examples from the literature, we outline several features of biosensor responses that indicate experimental artifacts versus actual binding events. Our goal is to have everyone, from benchtop scientists to project managers and manuscript reviewers, become astute judges of biosensor results using nothing more than their eyes.Journal of Molecular Recognition 10/2008; 21(6):355-400. · 3.31 Impact Factor