Characterization of the two fundamental conformations of benzoylureas and elucidation of the factors that facilitate their conformational interchange

Journal of Organic Chemistry

Volumn 74, Issue 17, 2009, Pages 6511-6525

  Lessene, Guillaume ^a   Smith, Brian J ^a   Gable, Robert W ^b   Baell, Jonathan B ^a  

^a WALTER AND ELIZA HALL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS; CONFORMATIONAL BEHAVIOR; ELECTRONIC EFFECTS; HYDROGEN BONDINGS; INTRAMOLECULAR HYDROGEN BOND; REFERENCE SOURCE; SWITCH CONFORMATIONS;

BINDING SITES; CONFORMATIONS; HYDROGEN;

HYDROGEN BONDS;

ALKYL GROUP; BENZOYLUREA DERIVATIVE; CHLOROFORM; DIMETHYL SULFOXIDE; FUNCTIONAL GROUP; SOLVENT; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ALPHA HELIX; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL REACTION; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CONFORMATIONAL TRANSITION; DENSITY FUNCTIONAL THEORY; ENTHALPY; HYDROGEN BOND; INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; PROTON NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; ROENTGEN SPECTROSCOPY; STEREOSPECIFICITY; TEMPERATURE; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY;

CHEMISTRY, ORGANIC; CHLOROFORM; CRYSTALLOGRAPHY, X-RAY; DIMETHYL SULFOXIDE; HYDROGEN; HYDROGEN BONDING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; MODELS, CHEMICAL; MOLECULAR CONFORMATION; SOLVENTS; SPECTROPHOTOMETRY, INFRARED; UREA;

EID: 69549085003     PISSN: 00223263     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jo900871a     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Baell, J. B.; Duggan, P. J.; Forsyth, S. A.; Lewis, R. J.; Lok, Y. P.; Schroeder, C. I. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2004, 12, 4025-4037.
2. Baell, J. B.; Duggan, P. J.; Lok, Y. P. Aust. J. Chem. 2004, 57, 179-185.
3. Baell, J. B.; Forsyth, S. A.; Gable, R. W.; Norton, R. S.; Mulder, R. J. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2001, 15, 1119-1136.
4. Baell, J. B.; Harvey, A. J.; Norton, R. S. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 245-262.
5. Harvey, A. J.; Gable, R. W.; Baell, J. B. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2005, 15, 3193-3196.
6. Norton, R. S.; Baell, J. B.; Angus, J. A. In Calcium channel pharmacology; McDonough, S. I., Ed.; Kluwer/Academic/Plenum Press: New York, 2003; pp 143-179.
7. Baell, J. B.; Huang, D. C. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2002, 64, 851-863.
8. Lessene, G.; Czabotar, P. E.; Colman, P. M. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2008, 7, 989-1000.
9. Moreover, benzoylureas have a good track record in marketed pharmaceuticals. For example, see: Ware, G.; Whitcare, D. The Pesticide Book, 6th ed.; Meister Media Worldwide, Willoughby, OH, 2004.
10. Okada, H.; Kato, M.; Koyanagi, T.; Mizuno, K. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1999, 47, 430-433.
11. Li, J.-N.; Song, D.-Q.; Lin, Y.-H.; Hu, Q.-Y.; Yin, L.; Bekesi, G.; Holland, J. F.; Jiang, J.-D. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2003, 65, 1691-1699.
12. Orner, B. P.; Ernst, J. T.; Hamilton, A. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 5382-5383.
13. Kutzki, O.; Park, H. S.; Ernst, J. T.; Orner, B. P.; Yin, H.; Hamilton, A. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 11838-11839.
14. Yin, H.; Lee, G.-i.; Sedey, K. A.; Kutzki, O.; Park, H. S.; Orner, B. P.; Ernst, J. T.; Wang, H.-G.; Sebti, S. M.; Hamilton, A. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 10191-10196.
15. L-binding, α helical mimetics was presented in part at the 20th Royal Australian Chemical institute Organic Chemistry Conference, Cairns, Australia, 2004, abstract P(RACIOC) 40 and at Connect 2005, Sydney, Australia, 2005, Abstracts 248 and 364. The worldwide patent disclosing these structures was published in 2006 (Lessene G.; Baell, J. B. α-Helical Mimetics, PCT/AU2005/000968). This system has apparently been "rediscovered" in the interim and published (Rodriguez, J. M.; Hamilton, A. D. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 8614-8617.
16. Rodriguez, J. M.; Ross, N. T.; Katt, W. P.; Dhar, D.; Lee, G.-i.; Hamilton, A. D. ChemMedChem 2009, 4, 649-656).
17. Of 25 structures in version 5.30 of CCD, three were in this alternative conformation.
18. Maximin2 using the Tripos Forcefield as implemented in Sybyl7.01 (Tripos Associates, MO); a third, extended (EEZ) form has been identified as a putative biologically active conformation using the Catalyst/HIPHOP software program but in light of the likely generic inability of molecular mechanics to properly analyse benzoylurea conformation, this finding is questionable (see: Kurogi, Y.; Miyata, K.; Okamura, T.; Hashimoto, K.; Tsutsumi, K.; Nasu, M.; Moriyasu, M. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 2304-2307).
19. Kohmoto et al. have reported the closed form of a benzoylureas (Kohmoto, S.; Iwasaki, N.; Fukui, D.; Nishio, T.; Iida, I.; Kishikawa, K.; Yamamoto, M.; Yamada, K. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1996, 985-988)
20. and analyzed a twisted form of an alkylacylurea (Kohmoto, S.; Kasimura, H.; Nishio, T.; Iida, I.; Kishikawa, K.; Yamamoto, M.; Yamada, K. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1994, 1565-1568) but have not extended this to an understanding of conversion between these two forms.
21. Gilli, G.; Gilli, P. J. Mol. Struct. 2000, 552, 1-15.
22. Gilli, P.; Bertolasi, V.; Pretto, L.; Lycka, A.; Gilli, G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 13554-13567.
23. Gilli, P.; Bertolasi, V.; Ferretti, V.; Gilli, G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 10405-10417.
24. All classes are drawn as extended, conformationally "neutral" forms, indicative of neither the closed nor twisted conformations.
25. Kishikawa, K.; Yamamoto, M.; Kohmoto, S.; Yamada, K. J. Org. Chem. 1989, 54, 2428-2432.
26. Lee, W. W.; Martinez, A. P.; Goodman, L. J. Med. Chem. 1974, 17, 326-330.
27. Smith, T. D.; Jones, P. G.; Schmutzler, R. Z. Naturforsch. B 1992, 47, 526-532.
28. Cooper, R. D. G.; Herron, D. K. Eli Lilly Co.: France, 1975.
29. Ohi, N.; Aoki, B.; Shinozaki, T.; Moro, K.; Kuroki, T.; Noto, T.; Nehashi, T.; Matsumoto, M.; Okazaki, H.; Matsunaga, I. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1987, 35, 1903-1909.
30. Horner, J. H.; Musa, O. M.; Bouvier, A.; Newcomb, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 7738-7748.
31. Esker, J. L.; Newcomb, M. Tetrahedron Lett. 1992, 33, 5913-5916.
32. Aaron, H. S. In Topics in Stereochemistry; Allinger, N. L., Eliel, E. L., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1979; Vol.11, pp 1-52.
33. Gellman, S. H.; Dado, G. P.; Liang, G. B.; Adams, B. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1991, 113, 1164-1173.
34. Stevens, E. S.; Sugawara, N.; Bonora, G. M.; Toniolo, C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1980, 102, 7048-7050.
35. Analogous arguments apply to OH, SH, and amino NH groups, but our focus here is the amide NH.
36. Baxter, N. J.; Williamson, M. P. J. Biomol. NMR 1997, 9, 359-369.
37. Cierpicki, T.; Otlewski, J. J. Biomol. NMR 2001, 21, 249-261.
38. Kessler, H. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1982, 21, 512-523.
39. Nowick, J. S.; Holmes, D. L.; Mackin, G.; Noronha, G.; Shaka, A. J.; Smith, E. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 2764-2765.
40. A slow rate of deuterium exchange is also often used to indicate internal hydrogen bonding. In peptides and proteins, a slow rate of exchange indicates a buried proton, which may or may not be intramolecularly hydrogen bonded (but would usually be expected to be so), or a solvent-exposed proton that is intramolecularly hydrogen bonded. A faster rate of exchange indicates a solvent-exposed and non-hydrogen-bonded proton. In principle, these experiments could be informative for small molecules where solvent exposure is not an issue, and whether an NH proton is hydrogen-bonded or not can be judged by the rate of deuterium exchange. However, these experiments can be tedious to perform and results hard to interpret where rapid equilibria between hydrogen-bonded and non-hydrogen-bonded conformations on an NMR time scale occur, either for a peptide or small molecule.
41. Llinas, M.; Klein, M. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1975, 97, 4731-4737.
42. Martinezmartinez, F. J.; Arizacastolo, A.; Tlahuext, H.; Tlahuextl, M.; Contreras, R. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1993, 1481-1485.
43. Andersen, N. H.; Neidigh, J. W.; Harris, S. M.; Lee, G. M.; Liu, Z. H.; Tong, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 8547-8561.
44. This supposition is supported by the fact that the data we obtain for benzoylureas are consistent with interpretation v and vi in Table 1.
45. Dado, G. P.; Gellman, S. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992, 114, 3138-3139.
46. Dado, G. P.; Gellman, S. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 4228-4245.
47. Dado, G. P.; Gellman, S. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1994, 116, 1054-1062.
48. Gellman, S. H.; Adams, B. R.; Dado, G. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990, 112, 460-461.
49. Gung, B. W.; Zhu, Z. H.; Zou, D.; Everingham, B.; Oyeamalu, A.; Crist, R. M.; Baudlier, J. J. Org. Chem. 1998, 63, 5750-5761.
50. Selection of model compounds that accurately represent the two extreme states is not necessarily trivial (see, for example, ref 41).
51. Gellman, S. H.; Dado, G. P. Tetrahedron Lett. 1991, 32, 7377-7380.
52. 3 has by protonating the carbonyl group.
53. 3 is very weak through participation by a poor hydrogen bond acceptor, this situation could give rise to a downfield shift when the solvent is changed to DMSO.
54. Hence, 5a is a model for noninternally hydrogen-bonded conformations of 1 and 3, 5b is a model for noninternally hydrogen-bonded conformations of 2a and 4a, 5c is a model for noninternally hydrogen-bonded conformations of 2b and 4b, and 5d is a model for noninternally hydrogen-bonded conformations of 2c and 4c.
55. Several different model systems for internally hydrogen-bonded and noninternally hydrogen-bonded conformations of benzoylureas were investigated before finally choosing the most representative models used herein.
56. We have made several other class I compounds and have found that all behave similarly (data not shown).
57. 1 carbonyl.
58. Adrian, J. C.; Wilcox, C. S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1991, 113, 678-680.
59. We have synthesized other class III compounds, and all behave similarly (data not shown).
60. Steiner, T. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 48-76.
61. There are no examples of class III benzoylureas in the Cambridge Crystallographic Database.
62. 2 torsion angle of around 75° predominating.
63. Bowles, P.; Clayden, J.; Helliwell, M.; McCarthy, C.; Tomkinson, M.; Westlund, N. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1 1997, 2607-2616.
64. It cannot be ruled out that the closed conformation in 8 is not relatively stabilized but that the twisted conformation is relatively destabilized. However, scrutiny of the twisted form of these compounds reveals no reason why 2,6-dimethyl substitution should have such an effect.
65. Separation of the NH signals for the two conformations was an unanticipated but useful consequence of the 2,6-dimethyl substitution slowing down the dynamics of conformational interchange. We attribute this to steric hindrance, though a similar phenomenon in certain 2,6-disubstituted tertiary benzamides has been related to an electronic effect on amide resonance. See: Lewin, A. H.; Frucht, M. Tetrahedron Lett. 1970, 11, 1079-1082.
66. Stewart, W. E.; Siddall, T. H. Chem. Rev. 1970, 70, 517.
67. Curran, D. P.; Hale, G. R.; Geib, S. J.; Balog, A.; Cass, Q. B.; Degani, A. L. G.; Hernandes, M. Z.; Freitas, L. C. G. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 1997, 8, 3955-3975.
68. Ahmed, A.; Bragg, R. A.; Clayden, J.; Lai, L. W.; McCarthy, C.; Pink, J. H.; Westlund, N.; Yasin, S. A. Tetrahedron 1998, 54, 13277-13294.
69. Itai, A.; Toriumi, Y.; Saito, S.; Kagechika, H.; Shudo, K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992, 114, 10649-10650.
70. While π-π stacking appears as though it could contribute to the stability of the twisted conformation of benzanilides (aryl-aryl stacking) and benzoylureas (aryl-amide stacking) as they are depicted in Figure 8, this is either not the case or is insignificant, since N-methylalkylanilides also adopt the twisted conformation (see ref 63). Interestingly, this type of conformational interchange where a twisted form alleviates steric hindrance appears to be a general phenomenon as analogous behavior is observed in N-alkyl-N′-phenylureas (see: Nowick, J. S.; Abdi, M.; Bellamo, K. A.; Love, J. A.; Martinez, E. J.; Noronha, G.; Smith, E. M.; Ziller, J. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 89-99) and has been used as a deliberate design strategy to occupy large pockets in protein-protein interactions.
71. See: Park, C.-M.; Oie, T.; Petros, A. M.; Zhang, H.; Nimmer, P. M.; Hensry, R. F.; Elmore, S. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 16206-16212.
72. The geometry of the intramolecular hydrogen bond in the closed conformation of the benzoylurea core is not optimal (NH⋯O nonlinear, see: Peters, D.; Peters, J. J. Mol. Struct. 1980, 68, 255-270) and comprises a donor and acceptor of different pKa's (carbonyl C=O and amide NH). It is clear from these two factors that we are not in presence of the strongest type of hydrogen bond, which is linear and comprises a donor and acceptor of equivalent pKa's (e.g., FHF). The terms "strong" or "weak" are employed as relative characterizations and not in their absolute meaning.
73. Note that it has been stated that firm conclusions on hydrogen bond strength cannot be drawn from spectral and crystallographic data. See: Guthrie, J. P. Chem. Biol. 1996, 3, 163-170.
74. Perrin, C. L.; Nielson, J. B. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 1997, 48, 511-544.
75. See the Supporting Information.
76. Gilli, G.; Bertolasi, V.; Bellucci, F.; Ferretti, V. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1986, 108, 2420-2424.
77. The extent of torsional distortion alone, in the absence of bond length data, has been shown to be an unreliable gauge of the extent of conjugation (see, for example: Chattopadhyay, D.; Mazumdar, S. K. Z. Kristallogr. 1986, 177, 103-106).
78. 2 bond lengths of 1.41 Å, only marginally shorter than those of a single bond. We are not aware of this phenomenon having previously been reported.
79. 2 distances are remarkably longer and shorter, respectively, for benzoylureas in the current study than in a comparable amide bond. A full investigation into why this is so is beyond the scope of this paper.
80. Bharatam, P. V.; Moudgil, R.; Kaur, D. J. Phys. Chem. A 2003, 107, 1627-1634.
81. Interestingly, benzoylureas do not appear in Gilli's survey of crystallographic data, although papers by Smith (see ref 23) and Kohmoto (see ref 16) containing the X-ray structure of compound 10 were published before Gilli's study.
82. Bilton, C.; Allen, F. H.; Shields, G. P.; Howard, J. A. K. Acta Crystallogr. B 2000, 56, 849-856.
83. Lin, W. O.; Altoe, A. P. Monatsh. Chem. 1982, 113, 101-109.
84. Yogo, M.; Hirota, K.; Senda, S. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1982, 30, 1333-1337.
85. The influence of increased rigidity on theNHchemical shift is why 1, for example, is a better model than constrained compounds 12 or 11b for the closed conformation of 3 in our analysis of conformational equilibria in 3 using the NH chemical shift value.
86. L and have disclosed this to researchers in a variety of formats (see ref 13).