Synthesis and Enantioselectivity of the Antiviral Effects of (R,Z)-,(S,Z)-methylenecyclopropane Analogues of Purine Nucleosides and Phosphoralaninate Prodrugs: Influence of Heterocyclic Base, Type of Virus and Host Cells

Abstract

A series of R and S enantiomers of 2-aminopurine methylenecyclopropane analogues of nucleosides was synthesized. Two diastereoisomeric lipophilic phosphate prodrugs derived from R and S enantiomers of 2,6-diaminopurine analogue were also prepared. Enantioselectivity (diastereoselectivity in case of prodrugs) of in vitro antiviral effects was investigated with human and murine cytomegalovirus (HCMV and MCMV, respectively), herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2 (HSV-1 and HSV-2, respectively), human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), hepatitis B virus (HBV), Epstein—Barr virus (EBV) and varicella zoster virus (VZV). Strong differences in enantioselectivity were found between the R and S enantiomers of adenine analogue and enantiomeric 2-aminopurine analogues. Thus, the enantiomers of adenine analogue were equipotent against HCMV but not MCMV, where the S enantiomer is strongly preferred. The same S preference was found throughout the 2-aminopurine series for both HCMV and MCMV. In contrast, R-synadenol in HIV-1 assays was the best agent, whereas the S enantiomers of moderately effective 2-amino-6-cyclo-propylamino and 2-amino-6-methoxypurine analogues were preferred. Little enantiomeric preference was found for R and S enantiomers of synadenol and the corresponding enantiomers of 2,6-diaminopurine analogue against HBV. A mixed pattern of enantioselectivity was observed for EBV depending on the type of host cells and assay. Against VZV, the R and S enantiomers of adenine analogue were equipotent or almost equipotent, but throughout the series of 2-aminopurine analogues a distinct preference for the S enantiomers was found. The stereoselectivity pattern of both diastereoisomeric prodrugs mostly followed enantioselectivity of the parent analogues. The varying enantioselectivities in the series of purine methylenecyclopropane analogues are probably a consequence of differences in the mechanisms of action in different virus/host cell systems.