Copyright © 1996, 1997, 2000, 2001 by Galen Daryl Knight and VitaleTherapeutics, Inc.

Proton NMR of Authentic Vitaletheine Modulators

Subtle adjustments to the shifts of these spectra may have occurred as the reference signals were aligned for TMS (0), DMSO (2.5), ethanol (3.59), water (4.75), and acetonitrile (1.98); assignment priorities were given to TMS, then DMSO, then water and ethanol. Note that, unlike the synthetic products of other's, water is present in all of the DMSO spectra of authentic vitaletheine modulators.

As observed by others, the "benzyl derivative" produces a different spectra in water than in DMSO. This indicates a potential for dehydrations which ironically might be water-catalyzed. Subtle differences in the proton NMR spectra (especially in the hydrogen-bonded moieties) between authentic vitaletheine V4 and other's preparations suggest rearrangements and decompositions, including decarboxylations, that also may be dependent upon DMSO, water, and hypobaric conditions.

Considering that the benzyl derivative is soluble in water and the CBZ-blocked starting material is not, these two compounds have remarkably similar proton NMR spectra.

The technical expertise of Dr. Cary J. Morrow, then chairman of the Department of Chemistry at UNM, in obtaining the following spectra is gratefully acknowledged.

Removal of the carbobenzoxyl moiety, such as in decarboxylated vitaletheine V4, produces some dramatic changes in both coupling and in the relative intensities of the peaks in the proton spectra for the resulting free amine; the integrated signal associated with the proton in the carbamate moiety nearly triples upon decarboxylation. Removal of the carboxyl moiety also causes changes in the coupling of the adjacent methylene at about 3 ppm (from a quartet to a broadened triplet) indicating coupled amino protons that are more rapidly exchangeable than those in the carbamate. The formation of a carbonimidic tautomer should have a similar effect upon this methylene's coupling, but an increase in protonation of the adjacent amine cannot be explained by this structure since the carbonimidic tautomer by definition has protons associated only with its oxygens and not with the nitrogen.

The fact that decarboxylation of vitaletheine V4 occurring in DMSO does not radically affect the positions of the methylenes in its spectra suggests that DMSO causes structural changes in vitaletheine V4 prior to decarboxylation, possibly by removing zinc ions and thereby destabilizing the zinc complex. Compared to aqueous solutions, dissolving the benzyl derivative in DMSO also causes an upfield shift in the methylenes thought to be coupled with the sulfur moieties. Since this solvent-dependent upfield shift is even more obvious with vitaletheine V4, removal of a deshielding influence (i.e., the stabilizing cation) by DMSO seems likely.

The proton spectra of the product from partially-reduced benzyl derivative is nearly identical with vitaletheine V4, possibly helping to explain some of the biological activities of the benzyl derivative.

The reduced benzyl derivative and vitaletheine V4, though similar, are clearly distinct from ß-aletheine prepared in a similar fashion. Also, since decarboxylated vitaletheine V4 differs from ß-aletheine only by its polymerization through the carbonyls of its amides, the spectra of these two compounds are very similar, yet distinct.

Considering these similarities in the spectra of reduced benzyl derivative, ß-aletheine, and vitaletheine V4, there is very little spectral evidence in these authentic preparations for the higher oxidation states alleged by others.

The spectral differences between ß-alethine and vitalethine are nearly imperceptible. The pattern of peak intensities is the most obvious of these differences, as the following overlay illustrates.


Home Overview People Journal Nutrition
WWW Links Outline e-mail us