Enantioselective Synthesis of Protected <scp>l</scp>-4-[Sulfonamido(difluoromethyl)]phenylalanine and <scp>l</scp>-4-[Sulfonamido(methyl)]phenylalanine and an Examination of Hexa- and Tripeptide Platforms for Evaluating pTyr Mimics for PTP1B Inhibition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first enantioselective syntheses of L-4-(sulfonamidomethyl)phenylalanine and L-[sulfonamido(difluoromethyl)]phenylalanine suitably protected for peptide syntheses are described. A key step in the synthesis of L-(sulfonamidomethyl)phenylalanine was an oxidative chlorination on Ac-L-Phe(4-CH2SCOCH3)-OEt to give crude Ac-L-Phe(4-CH2SO2Cl)-OEt, which could be reacted with amines to give the corresponding sulfonamides. Key to the preparation of L-[sulfonamido(difluoromethyl)]phenylalanine was a highly enantioselective reaction involving William's auxiliary and a benzylic bromide intermediate. These amino acids were incorporated into two peptide sequences, DADE-X-LNH2 and FmocGlu(OBn)-X-LNH2, which have previously been employed as platforms for assessing pTyr mimics for inhibition of protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B (PTP1B). Inhibition studies with these and other peptides and PTP1B revealed that good inhibition could be obtained using the tripeptide platform, although the presence of a pTyr mimic was not required for good inhibition. These results suggest that the FmocGlu(OBn)-X-LNH2 tripeptide platform is not suitable for assessing pTyr mimics for PTP1B inhibition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".