Abstract

A de novo asymmetric synthesis of (R)- and (S)-fridamycin E has been achieved. The entirely linear route required only nine steps from commercially available starting materials (16% overall yield). Key transformations included a Claisen rearrangement, a Sharpless dihydroxylation and a cobalt-catalyzed epoxide carbonylation to give a β-lactone intermediate. Antibacterial activities were determined for both enantiomers using two strains of E. coli, with the natural (R)-enantiomer showing significant inhibition against a Gram-(+)-like imp strain (MIC = 8 μM).
The anthraquinone containing vineomycin members of the angucycline family of antibiotics have been of particular interest to both the synthetic and biological communities due to their unique structures and potent antitumor and antibacterial activities. 1 With the notable exception of fridamycin E (1), all other members of this class of natural products are mono- or bis-glycosylated with rare deoxysugars (Figure 1). When mono-glycosylated the mono-, di- and tri-saccharide fragments are attached via a β-C-aryl glycoside linkage to the anthraquinone ring system. When bis-glycosylated the additional sugar fragment is attached via an α-O-glycoside to the tertiary alcohol of the β-hydroxy carboxylic acid side chain.
Figure 1.

Sample Angucyclines with a (R)-Fridamycin E Nucleus
Previously, we have described the synthesis and anticancer activity of the PMB-trisaccharide (α-L-aculose-α-L-rhodinose-β-D-olivose) portion of vineomycin C. 2 As part of a larger effort aimed at the development of a generalizable late stage glycosylation strategy for the synthesis and biological testing of this class of C-glycoside natural products, we required access to both enantiomers of fridamycin E (1). 3 This simplest member of the angucycline family of antibiotics was isolated from a mutant of Streptomyces parvulus (strain Tu 1989)4 and shown to possess antibacterial activity.3 Biosynthetically fridamycin E can be regarded as the aglycon core and biosynthetic precursor of the more complex O- and C-glycosides of angucycline antibiotics (2-9).1,2,3,5,6,7,8 Its existence also suggests the existence of a biosynthetic C-glycosylation and the potential for a synthetic variant.4
The total syntheses of fridamycin E, as well as its unnatural (S)-enantiomer, have been achieved by several groups.3b,c, 9 While these approaches vary in terms of overall efficiency, the routes all suffered in how asymmetry was introduced into the molecule. These methods varied from the use of chiral starting materials ((S)-lactic acid)3b and auxiliaries (menthol based titanium enolate)9a,b to the use of enzymatic (lipase and hydrolase)3c,9c catalyzed kinetic resolutions. The most recent and arguably most successful of these routes was the one developed by Faber, who utilized a resolution of a rac-2,2-disubstituted epoxide to install the asymmetry of (R)-fridamycin E (84% ee).9c Despite the success of these previous approaches, we felt a catalytic asymmetric approach had the potential for making the synthesis more efficient as well as providing access to either enantiomer for future synthetic and biological studies (vide infra). Herein, we describe our development of a new enantio-divergent route to natural (R)-fridamycin E and unnatural (S)-fridamycin E that uses the Sharpless dihydroxylation to install asymmetry and our initial evaluation of these enantiomers and antimicrobial agents. This route and structural complexity (e.g., the easily reduced anthraquinone substrates) also provided us an excellent opportunity to test the functional group compatibility of the cobalt-catalyzed epoxide to β-lactone carbonylation reaction.10
Our approach to fridamycin E (1) is depicted in Scheme 1. We envisioned that 1 could be accessed from β-lactone 10. The β-lactone in turn could be prepared from epoxide 11 via a cobalt-catalyzed carbonylation of epoxide 11. An asymmetric epoxidation of a disubstituted alkene 12 could be used to install the desired asymmetry. Finally, alkenes like 12 could be prepared by a two-step ortho-C-methallylation sequence of commercially available anthrarufin 13.11
Scheme 1.

De Novo Retrosynthesis of (R)-Fridamycin E
Our synthesis of fridamycin E began with the monomethallylation of anthrarufin (methallylCl, KI/K2CO3) to give 14 in 42% yield (Scheme 2). In situ dithionate reduction of 14 to an anthraquinol intermediate was followed by thermally promoted Claisen rearrangement to give C-methallylated anthrarufin 15. Finally the two phenol hydroxyl groups were protected as benzyl ethers (BnBr/K2CO3, 89%).11
Scheme 2.

De Novo Asymmetric Synthesis of Epoxide 17
With the desired alkene 16 in hand, we then focused on its direct asymmetric epoxidation, which proved problematic. For instance, when alkene 16 was subjected to the typical Jacobsen epoxidation conditions (5 mol % of (S,S)-Mn-salen catalyst and buffered NaOCl(aq) in CH2Cl2 at 0 °C)12 only trace amounts of epoxide 17 were detected. Improved yields of epoxide 17 were found for the Shi epoxidation of 16 (30% yield at ~33% conversion), however the relatively low levels of asymmetric induction dampened our enthusiasm for this direct approach (~15% ee).13
We eventually resorted to the Sharpless dihydroxylation of 16 to install asymmetry (Table 1).14 This was done begrudgingly because of the recognition of the additional steps required and the precedent from Rutledge and Woodgate, which suggested the dihydroxylation would occur with less than ideal enantioexcesses (< 70% ee).15 For instance, when (DHQD)2PHAL was used as the ligand for the dihydroxylation (entry 1), diol 18 (S) was produced in excellent yield but only moderate enantiopurity (70% ee). Using the pseudo-enantiomeric ligand system (entry 6, (DHQ)2PHAL), the (R)-diol 18 was obtained (98%, 75% ee). To our surprise, the configuration of diols obtained using these PHAL-ligands were the opposite from what is predicted by the Sharpless mnemonic.14 This reversal in facial selectivity suggested to us that other linkers might give different and/or improved facial selectivities. Several ligand systems and conditions were screened (entries 2–5 and 7–10) and various selectivities were found. To our delight, we found that when alkene 16 was dihydroxylated with the Sharpless DPP-linker ligand systems, diols with more than satisfactory enantiopurity were afforded. For instance, asymmetric dihydroxylation of 16 with (DHQD)2DPP formed (S)-diol (ent)-18 in 98% yield with 90% ee (entry 5). Similarly, the (DHQ)2DPP ligand gave the (R)-diol 18 in 98% yield with 88% ee (entry 10).16
Table 1.
Optimization of Asymmetric Dihydroxylation of 16a
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| entry | ligand | yieldb | [α]Dc | ee %d | conf. |
| 1 | (DHQD)2PHAL | 98% | -5.0 | 70 | S |
| 2 | (DHQD)2AQN | 96% | -5.2 | 66e | S |
| 3 | (DHQD)2PYR | 96% | +2.4 | 30e | R |
| 4 | (DHQD)PHN | 94% | +4.6 | 59e | R |
| 5 | (DHQD)2DPP | 98% | -7.2 | 90 | S |
| 6 | (DHQ)2PHAL | 98% | +5.9 | 75e | R |
| 7 | (DHQ)2PYDZ | 94% | +2.1 | 27e | R |
| 8 | DHQ-4-Me-2-Quin | 94% | -1.1 | 14e | S |
| 9 | (DHQ)2DPP | 98% | +6.5 | 83e | R |
| 10f | (DHQ)2DPP | 98% | +6.9 | 88 | R |
Reaction conditions: 16 (0.1 mmol), OsO4 (0.004 mmol), ligand (0.02 mmol), K3Fe(CN)6 (0.3 mmol), K2CO3 (0.3 mmol), MeSO2NH2 (0.11 mmol), t-BuOH/H2O (1 mL/1 mL), 0 °C to room temperature.
Isolated yield based on 16.
All rotations were taken in CH2Cl2.
The ee values were determined by the use of Mosher’s reagent.
The ee values were determined by comparison of their optical rotations.
No MeSO2NH2 was used.
With the desired stereochemistry installed, we then turned our attention to the conversion of diol 18 into the desired epoxide 17 for a subsequent cobalt-catalyzed epoxide to β-lactone carbonylation reaction (17 to 20, Scheme 3). While we had a high degree of confidence in the outcome of this transformation, we were concerned with the possibility of catalyst oxidation by the anthraquinone functional group or competing Lewis acid catalyzed isomerization of the epoxide substrate to an allylic alcohol.
Scheme 3.

Synthesis of β-Lactone 20
Treatment of (R)-diol 18 with TsCl in the presence of Bu2SnO and Et3N in CH2Cl2 afforded tosylate 19 in 91% yield. Subsequent deprotonation of 19 with NaH smoothly converted it into epoxide 17 in 92%. To our delight, similar success was found when we turned to the proposed Co(−I)-catalyzed carbonylation. 17 Thus, when epoxide 17 was treated with 10 mol % of [ClTPPAl]+[Co(CO)4]− (ClTPP = meso-tetra(4-chlorophenyl)porphyrinato) in THF under a carbon monoxide atmosphere (900 psi) at 40 °C, the desired β-lactone 20 was obtained in 70% yield. Despite our concerns to the contrary, we found this Co(−I)-catalyzed carbonylation at 40 °C proceeded cleanly without any signs of competing reaction pathways. However, when the reaction was carried at higher temperature (60 °C) a significant amount (~20%) of alkene 16 was also detected.
The synthesis of fridamycin E was completed by a two sequence as outlined in Scheme 4. This began with hydrolysis of β-lactone 20 (NaOH(aq)/THF) to afford β-hydroxyl carboxylic acid 21 in 97% yield. Finally, debenzylation with 1,4-cyclohexadiene and Pd/C in ethanol gave (R)-fridamycin E in 88% yield.18 This synthetic (R)-fridamycin E material had physical and spectroscopic data in good agreement with literature values (e.g., (c = 1.0, dioxane) ( )).3c
Scheme 4.

Synthesis of (R)-Fridamycin E (1)
With the success of the (R)-fridamycin E synthesis, we then turned to synthesize its enantiomer (Scheme 5). Following a nearly identical procedure (switching (DHQ)2DPP to (DHQD)2DPP), (S)-fridamycin E (ent)-1 was enantioselectively prepared in 47% overall yield (6 steps) from alkene 16.
Scheme 5.

Synthesis of (S)-Fridamycin E (ent)-1
With adequate supplies of both enantiomers of fridamycin E in hand, we began our analysis of the antibacterial Structure Activity Relationship (SAR) using the two different strains of E. coli. The first is a wild-type E. coli (K-12 MG1655) which served as a Gram-(−) model organism and the second a genetically modified E. coli imp (K-12 BAS901) which served as a Gram-(+)-like model organism. E. coli imp has a mutation (imp-4213) that increases the permeability of the outer membrane. 19 Minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were determined for both fridamycin E enantiomers (Table 2). Interestingly, while both enantiomers showed no activity (>64 μM) against the wild-type E. coli (Gram-(−)), the natural enantiomer 1 was significantly more active (8 μM) than the unnatural enantiomer (ent)-1 (64 μM) against the Gram-(+)-like E. coli imp mutant. The lack of antibacterial activity against the wild type E. coli suggests poor cell wall permeability of the natural product. In contrast, the 8-fold difference in activity for the two enantiomeric forms suggests the importance of the tertiary alcohol on the mechanism of action against the Gram-(+)-like E. coli imp mutant.
Table 2.
MIC Values for (R/S)-Fridamycin Ea
| MIC (μM)
|
||
|---|---|---|
| imp | MG1655 | |
| (R)-Fridamycin E | 8 | >64 |
| (S)-Fridamycin E | 64 | >64 |
Overnight bacterial cultures were diluted 10-fold into fresh LB medium and grown to the desired OD600 value (depending on strain used). The cell cultures were again diluted by 1000-fold into fresh LB medium containing serial dilutions (2-fold) of the fridamycin E, then grown at 37 °C in agitated 96-well microtiter plates and incubated for 20 h (100 μL/well). Cell densities (OD600) were recorded on an automated plate reader. MG1655 and BAS901 (imp-4213) were gifts from Prof. Kim Lewis (NEU). Data are reported for the average of at least three independent sets of experiments.
In conclusion, the de novo asymmetric synthesis of both the natural (R)- and the unnatural (S)-fridamycin E was accomplished in 9 steps and 16% overall yield. This stereodivergent strategy shows the importance of ligand choice in the Sharpless asymmetric dihydroxylation for control of absolute stereochemistry. The route also shows the efficiency and functional group compatibility of the cobalt-catalyzed epoxide to β-lactone carbonylation for the synthesis of tertiary β-hydroxyl carboxylic acids. The antibacterial activity of both enantiomers of fridamycin E showed the importance of stereochemistry to its antibacterial structure activity relationship. Further synthetic/biological investigations along these lines are ongoing and will be reported in due course.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to NIH (GAO, GM090259 and GM088839), NSF (GAO, CHE-0749451; PJB MCB-0845033) and DOE (GWC, DE-FG02- 05ER15687) for their financial support of this research. PJB is a Cottrell Scholar of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement.
Footnotes
Supporting Information Available: Experimental procedures and spectral data for all new compounds (1 and 14–21), as well as biological assay protocols and data are provided. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
References
- 1.(a) Rohr J, Thiericke R. Nat Prod Rep. 1992;9:103–137. doi: 10.1039/np9920900103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Krohn K, Rohr J. Top Curr Chem. 1997;188:127–195. [Google Scholar]; (c) Andriy L, Andreas V, Andreas B. Mol BioSyst. 2005;1:117–126. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Yu X, O’Doherty GA. Org Lett. 2008;10:4529–4532. doi: 10.1021/ol801817f.. For related approaches, see: Yu X, Li M, O’Doherty GA. Heterocycles. 2011;82:1577–1584. doi: 10.3987/COM-10-S(E)114.Sobti A, Kyungjin Kim K, Sulikowski G. A J Org Chem. 1996;61:6–7.Sasaki K, Matsumura S, Toshima K. Tetrahedron Lett. 2007;48:6982–6986.Zhou M, O’Doherty GA. Org Lett. 2008;10:2283–2286. doi: 10.1021/ol800697k.Zhou M, O’Doherty GA. J Org Chem. 2007;72:2485–2493. doi: 10.1021/jo062534+.Zhou M, O’Doherty GA. Org Lett. 2006;8:4339–4342. doi: 10.1021/ol061683b.
- 3.(a) Kricke P. Ph D Thesis. University Göttingen; 1984. [Google Scholar]; (b) Krohn K, Baltus W. Tetrahedron. 1988;44:49–54. [Google Scholar]; (c) Matsumoto T, Jona H, Katsuki M, Suzuki K. Tetrahedron Lett. 1991;32:5103–5106. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Künzel E, Faust B, Oelkers C, Weissbach U, Bearden DW, Weitnauer G, Westrich L, Bechthold A, Rohr J. J Am Chem Soc. 1999;121:11058–11062. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Maskey RP, Helmke E, Laatsch H. J Antibiot. 2003;56:942–949. doi: 10.7164/antibiotics.56.942. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.(a) Ōmura S, Tanaka H, Ōiwa R, Awaya L, Masuma R, Tanaka K. J Antibiot. 1977;30:908–916. doi: 10.7164/antibiotics.30.908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Imamura N, Nakinuma K, Ikekawa N, Tanaka H, Ōmura S. J Antibiot. 1981;34:1517–1518. doi: 10.7164/antibiotics.34.1517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Aivi KA, Baker DD, Stienecker V, Hosken M, Nair BJ. J Antibiot. 2000;53:496–501. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kawamura N, Sawa R, Takahashi Y, Sawa T, Kinoshita N, Naganawa H, Hamada M, Takeuchi T. J Antibiot. 1995;48:1521–1524. doi: 10.7164/antibiotics.48.1521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.(a) Pausler GM, Rutledge PS. Tetrahedron Lett. 1994;35:3345–3348. [Google Scholar]; (b) Pausler MG, Rutledge PS. Aust J Chem. 1994;47:2135–2147. [Google Scholar]; (c) Ueberbacher BJ, Osprian I, Mayer SF, Faber K. Eur J Org Chem. 2005:1266–1270. [Google Scholar]
- 10.For a review, see: Church TL, Getzler YDYL, Byrne CM, Coates GW. Chem Commun. 2007:657–674. doi: 10.1039/b613476a.
- 11.(a) Beauregard DA, Cambie RC, Higgs KC, Rutledge PS, Woodgate PD. Aust J Chem. 1994;47:1321–1333. [Google Scholar]; (b) Bercich MD, Cambie RC, Howe TA, Rutledge PS, Thomson SD, Woodgate PD. Aust J Chem. 1995;48:531–549. [Google Scholar]
- 12.(a) Jacobsen EN, Zhang W, Muci AR, Ecker JR, Deng L. J Am Chem Soc. 1991;113:7063–7064. [Google Scholar]; (b) Brandes BD, Jacobsen EN. J Org Chem. 1994;59:4378–4380. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wang Z-X, Tu Y, Frohn M, Zhang J-R, Shi Y. J Am Chem Soc. 1997;119:11224–11235. [Google Scholar]
- 14.For a review, see: Kolb HC, VanNieuwenhze MS, Sharpless KB. Chem Rev. 1994;94:2483–2547.
- 15.Related substrates to 16 gave diols with moderate %ees (< 70%), see: Beauregard DA, Cambie RC, Dansted PC, Rutledge PS, Woodgate PD. Aust J Chem. 1995;48:669–676.
- 16.While not perfect, the crystalline nature of this class of compounds provided ideal opportunities to improve the product enantioexcess.
- 17.(a) Getzler YDYL, Mahadevan V, Lobkovsky EB, Coates GW. J Am Chem Soc. 2002;124:1174–1175. doi: 10.1021/ja017434u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Rowley JM, Lobkovsky EB, Coates GW. J Am Chem Soc. 2007;129:4948–4960. doi: 10.1021/ja066901a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Evidence of the anthraquinone sensitivity to reducing conditions can be seen by the fact that when 21 is reduced under typical hydrogenolysis conditions (Pd/C, H2 (1atm), EtOH, rt) products with B-ring reduction were produced.
- 19.Sampson BA, Misr R, Benson SA. Genetics. 1989;122:491–501. doi: 10.1093/genetics/122.3.491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
