Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-2012-0232
A Novel Heterocyclic Xanthene-Analogous pH Probe for Quantitative Monitoring of Cell Surface pH by Fluorescence Lifetime Imaging
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 21901031, 22078047, 22174009, 22278059, and 82202861), the Dalian Science and Technology Innovation Fund (No. 2020JJ25CY014), Science and Technology Foundation of Liaoning Province (2020-YQ-08 and 2022-YQ-08), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Nos. DUT21YG131, DUT21YG126, DUT18RC(3)027, DUT20RC(5)024, LD202115, and DUT22LAB601).
Abstract
Rapidly capturing slight changes in cell surface pH is extremely important to evaluate the rapid diffusion of acidic metabolites into the extracellular environment caused by disease and physiological pH fluctuations of cells. In this work, we designed a membrane-targeted pH probe, Mem-COC18 , based on a novel heterocyclic xanthene-analogous backbone. Mem-COC18 shows specific and stable staining ability towards membrane. Importantly, the fluorescence lifetime of Mem-COC18 is highly sensitive against acidity within membrane, which is in favor of quantifying pH through fluorescence lifetime imaging. Using Mem-COC18 , we recorded pH changes of 0.61 units on the surface of human cervical cancer cells (Hela) during glycolysis. Further on, we observed a robust pH-regulating mechanism of the plasma membrane that the pH fluctuation range within membrane (5.32–6.85) is much smaller than the change in extracellular environment (4.00–8.00). Consequently, we demonstrate a pH probe for quantifying small pH fluctuations within cell membrane that merits further evaluation for biology applications.
#
Key words
FLIM - heterocyclic xanthene-analogous - plasma membrane targeted - cell surface pH - glycolysisCell surface pH is closely related to various pathological features, such as cellular inflammation and body pain in cancer.[1] In general, the surface pH of tumor cells is lower than that of normal cells, which is attributed to the production of more acidic metabolites, including carbonic acid from the pentose phosphate pathway and lactic acid from glycolysis.[2] In order to maintain intracellular homeostasis, tumor cells pump intracellular acid out of the cell through a series of regulatory mechanisms, such as Na–H+ exchangers and various transport enzymes.[3] In addition, metastatic cancer cells, which expend more energy, have higher surface acidity than nonmetastatic cancer cells.[4] Thus, cell surface pH levels can be used as a marker of disease remission and progression. Accurate measurement of pH changes on the surface of tumor cells is a prerequisite for in-depth understanding of tumor cell pathology and establishment of appropriate treatment strategies.
Due to the important role of the cell membrane in sensing microenvironmental fluctuations and making timely adjustments, monitoring of cell surface pH is of great physiological significance. At present, many reports of pH-sensitive small-molecule fluorescent probes are more inclined to detect the pH of subcellular organelles,[5] such as acidic organelle lysosome (pH = 4.5–5.5),[6] alkaline organelle mitochondria (pH ~8.0),[7] etc. However, detection of pH at the plasma membrane is rarely reported, due to the challenge to fabricate such probes.[8] To achieve this goal, fluorescent probes should firstly target membrane stably and specifically, and secondly quantify pH change accurately. Currently, fluorescence ratio imaging and FLIM are two widely used techniques for the quantification of microenvironmental factors.[9] From the perspective of molecular design, ratiometric imaging often involves complex and fine molecular pair construction and is difficult to further design targeting, while FLIM imaging is usually based on sensitive small molecules and is easy to design membrane targeting. Moreover, FLIM does not suffer from spectral crosstalk, fluorophore concentration, etc.[10] Therefore, FLIM is a preferable technique for targeting plus quantitative detection.
Herein, we present a pH-sensitive probe Mem-C0C18 for quantitative detection of plasma membrane pH with fluorescence lifetime imaging technique. Mem-C0C18 is based on a rigid xanthene-analogous ring composed of an electron-rich bisthiophene and electron-deficient ketocarbonyl and phosphoryl groups. The inclusion of methyl piperazine as a pH-responsive group ensures a high sensitivity of its fluorescence lifetime to environmental pH. The introduction of long carbon chain and the natural cation forms the amphiphilic lipid-like structure that allows specific, stable targeting in the plasma membrane. Notably, the suitable hydrophilic/lipophilic nature gives it the advantage of high signal-to-noise ratio even without washing. We quantitatively measured membrane pH by fluorescence lifetime imaging using this probe in several pathological and physiological processes, which discloses pH fluctuations and self-regulatory mechanism of cancer cells.
Molecular Design of Mem-C0C18
In order to achieve pH detection on plasma membranes, the molecular design considers
two main aspects: pH sensitivity and targeting stability. Firstly, a rigid framework
composed of electron-rich dithiophene structure and strong electron-withdrawing carbonyl
and phosphoryl groups is obtained. The introduction of quaternary ammonium piperazine
groups at both ends of this highly lipophilic fluorophore can effectively inhibit
the fluorescence quenching due to TICT.[11] By skillfully using symmetrical two piperazine rings, the pH response of the molecule
is ensured by retaining the sensitivity of the nitrogen atom to protons on one side;
the carbon chain is introduced on the other side to make the molecule self-charged,
constituting the amphiphilic phospholipid-like structure Mem-C0C18
to achieve membrane targeting (Scheme [1]). According to our previously reported polar probes, the installation of a single
long chain can generate a stable membrane targeting effect.[12] Furthermore, Mem-C0C18
shows almost no fluorescence due to aggregation in the aqueous phase but disperses
in the membrane to recover intense fluorescence, which means high signal-to-noise
ratio.


Spectral Properties in Solvents
We first assessed the pH response of Mem-C0C18
against different pH. Saturated cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) is used to
simulate membrane structure. We observed a significant increase in fluorescence intensity
peak at 624 nm as the decrease of pH from 8.50 to 3.00 (Figure [1]A). Importantly, the fluorescence lifetime of Mem-C0C18
increased from 2.03 ns to 4.65 ns in the same pH range, which can be used for quantifying
local pH (Figure [1]B, C). The above fluorescence response toward pH may ascribe to the protonation of
piperazine ‘N’ in acidic medium that decreases the electron giving ability of N and
therefore reduces the formation of TICT effect. Specifically, the pK
a (the acidity coefficient) value was calculated as 5.00.


In addition, we investigated the interference of environmental polarity on the fluorescence lifetime of Mem-C0C18 in order to exclude the interference on pH detection. We used THF–MeOH solvent system to measure the fluorescence lifetime and found that the fluorescence lifetime varied within 1.5 ns with MeOH composition from 0–100% (polarity parameter Δf from 0.210–0.309) (Figure [1]D). Compared with the polarity variation in the MeOH–THF system, the polarity fluctuations in the plasma membrane is much smaller. Taking the ferroptosis process of Hela cells as an example, the membrane polarity parameter Δf varied within 0.21–0.23 throughout the process even if there was obvious membrane damage.[12] This polarity fluctuation is equivalent to a fluorescence lifetime change less than 0.28 ns according to the working plot of Mem-C0C18 . Therefore, the effect of membrane polarity on fluorescence lifetime of Mem-C0C18 during the monitoring process was negligible.
Establishment of Standard Curves at the Cellular Level
In order to achieve quantitative detection of cell surface pH, we established a calibration
curve of the fluorescence lifetime of the probe Mem-C0C18
against environmental pH. To restore the real structure and substance composition
of the membrane, we used the membrane of fixed Hela cells to perform pH titration
assay. Hela cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde to disable their ability to
maintain intracellular pH homeostasis, thus keep the pH in membrane consistent with
the environmental pH. The pH of the medium MEM was adjusted in gradient from 4.00
to 8.00 every other 0.5 pH unit, and the corresponding fluorescence lifetime of Mem-C0C18
in membrane (average value from three imaging views, at least 10 cells in total)
was measured by fluorescence lifetime imaging. These data were used to obtain the
working plot between the fluorescence lifetime and pH in membrane (Figure [2]A, B). We found that the lifetime of the probe increased from 2.44 ns to 4.10 ns as
the pH increased from 8.00 to 4.00.


Effect of Extracellular Fluid Acidity on Cell Surface pH
We then utilized Mem-C0C18
to evaluate the pH in live Hela cells. Several integral proteins on the surface of
the plasma membrane are dedicated to the active transport of acids and bases across
the membrane, maintaining homeostasis by maintaining the appropriate intracellular
pH through, for example, proton exchange. We evaluated this buffering effect of the
cell membrane by switching the PBS buffer in culture dish with different pH and measured
the fluorescence lifetime by FLIM (Figure [3]A). As showed in Figure [3]B, the measured pH value is much smaller than the designed values. In the pH range
of 4.00–8.00 (extracellular PBS), Hela cells showed normal physiological activity
and self-regulation ability and keeps the actual pH in membrane within 5.32–6.85.
Even if the extracellular environment increases to pH 8.00, the pH in membrane is
maintained below 7.00.


Determination of the Effect of Glycolysis on Cell Surface pH
We further measured the pH in plasma membrane during glycolysis using our probe. Glycolysis
is the main energy supply mode in cancer cells,[13] and glucose and 2-deoxy-d-glucose (2-DG) promote/inhibit glycolysis by increasing/decreasing energy supply,
respectively.[14] The pH changes in the microenvironment of cancer cells triggered by monitoring the
degree of glycolysis are of physiological importance for studies such as the degree
of tumor malignancy and the proliferation status of cancer cells. We first measure
Hela cells cultured under standard culture condition as a control group, and pH in
their membrane was calculated to be 6.42 ± 0.1 (Figure [4]Aa). The cell surface pH of cancer cells (6.5–6.8) is reported to be lower than the
normal physiological level (pH 7.4), while the surface pH of metastatic cancer cells
such as Hela is somewhat lower compared to nonmetastatic cells.[15] Our detection results are consistent with those reported in the literature, which
further validates the reliability of our standard curve established on fixed cells
for pH calibration of live cells.


We next investigated the effects of glucose and 2-DG on the acidity of the plasma membrane of Hela cells. We incubated Hela cells with MEM medium containing 100 mM and 200 mM glucose solution for 12 h. As the glucose concentration increased, the amount of lactic acid produced by the cells increased, we found that the pH in the membrane of these two groups were 6.28 and 6.25, respectively, which is lower than control statistically significant (Figure [4]Ab,c). Further on, we cultured Hela cells with MEM medium containing 10 mM of the glycolysis inhibitor 2-DG for 4 h, which would inhibit proton production and reduce proton flux.[16] We found the pH in membrane of these cells was 6.86, which is 0.44 pH units higher than the control group (Figure [4]Ad, B, C). It is worth mentioning that this study showed high imaging quality without washing the stained cells in order to maintain the pH of the extracellular fluid.
In conclusion, we designed a pH-sensitive membrane-targeted probe Mem-C0C18 based on a novel heterocyclic xanthene-analogous backbone.[17] Its fluorescence lifetime shows high sensitivity against pH over a wide range. The amphiphilic structure of Mem-C0C18 enables its targeting in plasma membranes stably and rapidly. By using Mem-C0C18 we were able to measure pH in plasma membrane in live cells. We found the difference between extracellular fluid and cell surface pH due to tumor cell self-regulation and quantified fluctuations in membrane pH of HeLa cell triggered by aberrant glycolysis. In this study, we demonstrate a pH probe for quantifying pH fluctuations within cell membrane that can be a potential tool for biology study.
#
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Supporting Information
- Supporting information for this article is available online at https://doi-org.accesdistant.sorbonne-universite.fr/10.1055/a-2012-0232.
- Supporting Information
-
References and Notes
- 1a Huber V, Camisaschi C, Berzi A, Ferro S, Lugini L, Triulzi T, Tuccitto A, Tagliabue E, Castelli C, Rivoltini L. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2017; 43: 74
- 1b Wang S, Ren WX, Hou JT, Won M, An J, Chen XY, Shu J, Kim JS. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021; 50: 8887
- 2a Kato Y, Ozawa S, Miyamoto C, Maehata Y, Suzuki A, Maeda T, Baba Y. Cancer Cell Int. 2013; 13: 8
- 2b Boedtkjer E, Pedersen SF. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 2020; 82: 103
- 3 Brown TP, Ganapathy V. Pharmacol. Ther. 2020; 206: 17
- 4 Webb SD, Sherratt JA, Fish RG. Novartis Found. Symp. 2001; 240: 169 ; discussion 181 5
- 5 Zhang H, Fan JL, Wang JY, Zhang SZ, Dou BR, Peng XJ. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013; 135: 11663
- 6a Yin JL, Huang L, Wu LL, Li JF, James TD, Lin WY. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021; 50: 12098
- 6b Zhu H, Fan JL, Du JJ, Peng XJ. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016; 49: 2115
- 7a An J, Hu YG, Cheng K, Li C, Hou XL, Wang GL, Zhang XS, Liu B, Zhao YD, Zhang MZ. Biomaterials 2020; 234: 12
- 7b Wang X, Sun J, Zhang WH, Ma XX, Lv JZ, Tang B. Chem. Sci. 2013; 4: 2551
- 7c Lee MH, Park N, Yi C, Han JH, Hong JH, Kim KP, Kang DH, Sessler JL, Kang C, Kim JS. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014; 136: 14136
- 8 Zhang XF, Wang ZH, Wang L, Bian H, Huang ZL, Xiao Y. ACS Nano 2022; 11: 1936
- 9a Xia MC, Cai LS, Zhang SC, Zhang XR. Talanta 2018; 178: 355
- 9b Ryan LS, Gerberich J, Haris U, Nguyen D, Mason RP, Lippert AR. ACS Sens. 2020; 5: 2925
- 9c Gu KZ, Xu YS, Li H, Guo ZQ, Zhu SJ, Zhu SQ, Shi P, James TD, Tian H, Zhu WH. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016; 138: 5334
- 9d Dong BL, Song XZ, Wang C, Kong XQ, Tang YH, Lin WY. Anal. Chem. 2016; 88: 4085
- 9e Padilla-Parra S, Tramier M. BioEssays 2012; 34: 369
- 9f Becker W. J. Microsc. 2012; 247: 119
- 9g Borst JW, Visser A. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2010; 21: 21
- 9h Klymchenko AS. Acc. Chem. Res. 2017; 50: 366
- 10 Zhang XF, Wang L, Li N, Xiao Y. Chin. Chem. Lett. 2021; 32: 2395
- 11a Ye ZW, Yang W, Wang C, Zheng Y, Chi WJ, Liu XG, Huang ZL, Li XY, Xiao Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019; 141: 14491
- 11b Liu XG, Qiao QL, Tian WM, Liu WJ, Chen J, Lang MJ, Xu ZC. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016; 138: 6960
- 11c Li J, Zhang MM, Yang L, Han YB, Luo X, Qian XH, Yang YJ. Chin. Chem. Lett. 2021; 32: 3865
- 11d Wang N, Hao YM, Feng XW, Zhu HD, Zhang DZ, Wang T, Cui XY. Chin. Chem. Lett. 2022; 33: 133
- 11e Miao R, Li J, Wang C, Jiang XF, Gao Y, Liu XL, Wang D, Li X, Liu XG, Fang Y. Adv. Sci. 2022; 9: 2104609
- 11f Wang C, Chi WJ, Qiao QL, Tan DV, Xu ZC, Liu XG. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021; 50: 12656
- 12 Wu S, Yan Y, Hou H, Huang Z, Li D, Zhang X, Xiao Y. Anal. Chem. 2022; 94: 11238
- 13a Chang CH, Qiu J, O’Sullivan D, Buck MD, Noguchi T, Curtis JD, Chen QY, Gindin M, Gubin MM, van der Windt GJ. W, Tonc E, Schreiber RD, Pearce EJ, Pearce EL. Cell 2015; 162: 1229
- 13b Cascone T, McKenzie JA, Mbofung RM, Punt S, Wang Z, Xu CY, Williams LJ, Wang ZQ, Bristow CA, Carugo A, Peoples MD, Li LR, Karpinets T, Huang L, Malu S, Creasy C, Leahey SE, Chen J, Chen Y, Pelicano H, Bernatchez C, Gopal YN. V, Heffernan TP, Hu JH, Wang J, Amaria RN, Garraway LA, Huang P, Yang PY, Wistuba II, Woodman SE, Roszik J, Davis RE, Davies MA, Heymach JV, Hwu P, Peng WY. Cell Metab. 2018; 27: 977
- 14a Lu JR, Tan M, Cai QS. Cancer Lett. 2015; 356: 156
- 14b Zhang DS, Li J, Wang FZ, Hu J, Wang SW, Sun YM. Cancer Lett. 2014; 355: 176
- 14c Pajak B, Siwiak E, Soltyka M, Priebe A, Zielinski R, Fokt I, Ziemniak M, Jaskiewicz A, Borowski R, Domoradzki T, Priebe W. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020; 21: 19
- 15 Anderson M, Moshnikova A, Engelman DM, Reshetnyak YK, Andreev OA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2016; 113: 8177
- 16a Kang HT, Hwang ES. Life Sci. 2006; 78: 1392
- 16b Hong SY, Hagen T. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2015; 465: 838
- 17 1-Methyl-4-{6-(4-methylpiperazin-1-yl)-4-oxido-8-oxo-4-phenyl-8H-phosphinino[3,2-b:5,6-b′]dithiophen-2-yl}-1-octadecylpiperazin-1-ium (Mem-C0C18) Iododecane (757 mg, 1.99 mmol) was added to a solution of S6 (34 mg, 66.33 μmol) in DMF (3 mL), the reaction mixture was stirred at 110 ° for 3 d. Cooling to room temperature, added Et2O (50 mL) to precipitate solids and filtered, the residue was purified by column chromatography (silica gel, CH2Cl2/MeOH = 8/1) to afford Mem-C0C18 (23 mg, 60 %) as the red solid. 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO): δ = 7.71–7.57 (m, 3 H), 7.54 (dd, J = 7.4, 2.7 Hz, 2 H), 6.59 (dd, J = 34.9, 5.6 Hz, 2 H), 3.70 (dd, J = 14.2, 4.5 Hz, 4 H), 3.55 (d, J = 4.5 Hz, 4 H), 3.10 (s, 3 H), 2.62 (s, 4 H), 2.42–2.26 (m, 3 H), 1.68 (s, 2 H), 1.24 (s, 30 H), 0.86 (t, J = 6.8 Hz, 3 H).
Corresponding Authors
Publication History
Received: 08 December 2022
Accepted after revision: 12 January 2023
Accepted Manuscript online:
12 January 2023
Article published online:
14 March 2023
© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References and Notes
- 1a Huber V, Camisaschi C, Berzi A, Ferro S, Lugini L, Triulzi T, Tuccitto A, Tagliabue E, Castelli C, Rivoltini L. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2017; 43: 74
- 1b Wang S, Ren WX, Hou JT, Won M, An J, Chen XY, Shu J, Kim JS. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021; 50: 8887
- 2a Kato Y, Ozawa S, Miyamoto C, Maehata Y, Suzuki A, Maeda T, Baba Y. Cancer Cell Int. 2013; 13: 8
- 2b Boedtkjer E, Pedersen SF. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 2020; 82: 103
- 3 Brown TP, Ganapathy V. Pharmacol. Ther. 2020; 206: 17
- 4 Webb SD, Sherratt JA, Fish RG. Novartis Found. Symp. 2001; 240: 169 ; discussion 181 5
- 5 Zhang H, Fan JL, Wang JY, Zhang SZ, Dou BR, Peng XJ. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013; 135: 11663
- 6a Yin JL, Huang L, Wu LL, Li JF, James TD, Lin WY. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021; 50: 12098
- 6b Zhu H, Fan JL, Du JJ, Peng XJ. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016; 49: 2115
- 7a An J, Hu YG, Cheng K, Li C, Hou XL, Wang GL, Zhang XS, Liu B, Zhao YD, Zhang MZ. Biomaterials 2020; 234: 12
- 7b Wang X, Sun J, Zhang WH, Ma XX, Lv JZ, Tang B. Chem. Sci. 2013; 4: 2551
- 7c Lee MH, Park N, Yi C, Han JH, Hong JH, Kim KP, Kang DH, Sessler JL, Kang C, Kim JS. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014; 136: 14136
- 8 Zhang XF, Wang ZH, Wang L, Bian H, Huang ZL, Xiao Y. ACS Nano 2022; 11: 1936
- 9a Xia MC, Cai LS, Zhang SC, Zhang XR. Talanta 2018; 178: 355
- 9b Ryan LS, Gerberich J, Haris U, Nguyen D, Mason RP, Lippert AR. ACS Sens. 2020; 5: 2925
- 9c Gu KZ, Xu YS, Li H, Guo ZQ, Zhu SJ, Zhu SQ, Shi P, James TD, Tian H, Zhu WH. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016; 138: 5334
- 9d Dong BL, Song XZ, Wang C, Kong XQ, Tang YH, Lin WY. Anal. Chem. 2016; 88: 4085
- 9e Padilla-Parra S, Tramier M. BioEssays 2012; 34: 369
- 9f Becker W. J. Microsc. 2012; 247: 119
- 9g Borst JW, Visser A. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2010; 21: 21
- 9h Klymchenko AS. Acc. Chem. Res. 2017; 50: 366
- 10 Zhang XF, Wang L, Li N, Xiao Y. Chin. Chem. Lett. 2021; 32: 2395
- 11a Ye ZW, Yang W, Wang C, Zheng Y, Chi WJ, Liu XG, Huang ZL, Li XY, Xiao Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019; 141: 14491
- 11b Liu XG, Qiao QL, Tian WM, Liu WJ, Chen J, Lang MJ, Xu ZC. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016; 138: 6960
- 11c Li J, Zhang MM, Yang L, Han YB, Luo X, Qian XH, Yang YJ. Chin. Chem. Lett. 2021; 32: 3865
- 11d Wang N, Hao YM, Feng XW, Zhu HD, Zhang DZ, Wang T, Cui XY. Chin. Chem. Lett. 2022; 33: 133
- 11e Miao R, Li J, Wang C, Jiang XF, Gao Y, Liu XL, Wang D, Li X, Liu XG, Fang Y. Adv. Sci. 2022; 9: 2104609
- 11f Wang C, Chi WJ, Qiao QL, Tan DV, Xu ZC, Liu XG. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021; 50: 12656
- 12 Wu S, Yan Y, Hou H, Huang Z, Li D, Zhang X, Xiao Y. Anal. Chem. 2022; 94: 11238
- 13a Chang CH, Qiu J, O’Sullivan D, Buck MD, Noguchi T, Curtis JD, Chen QY, Gindin M, Gubin MM, van der Windt GJ. W, Tonc E, Schreiber RD, Pearce EJ, Pearce EL. Cell 2015; 162: 1229
- 13b Cascone T, McKenzie JA, Mbofung RM, Punt S, Wang Z, Xu CY, Williams LJ, Wang ZQ, Bristow CA, Carugo A, Peoples MD, Li LR, Karpinets T, Huang L, Malu S, Creasy C, Leahey SE, Chen J, Chen Y, Pelicano H, Bernatchez C, Gopal YN. V, Heffernan TP, Hu JH, Wang J, Amaria RN, Garraway LA, Huang P, Yang PY, Wistuba II, Woodman SE, Roszik J, Davis RE, Davies MA, Heymach JV, Hwu P, Peng WY. Cell Metab. 2018; 27: 977
- 14a Lu JR, Tan M, Cai QS. Cancer Lett. 2015; 356: 156
- 14b Zhang DS, Li J, Wang FZ, Hu J, Wang SW, Sun YM. Cancer Lett. 2014; 355: 176
- 14c Pajak B, Siwiak E, Soltyka M, Priebe A, Zielinski R, Fokt I, Ziemniak M, Jaskiewicz A, Borowski R, Domoradzki T, Priebe W. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020; 21: 19
- 15 Anderson M, Moshnikova A, Engelman DM, Reshetnyak YK, Andreev OA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2016; 113: 8177
- 16a Kang HT, Hwang ES. Life Sci. 2006; 78: 1392
- 16b Hong SY, Hagen T. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2015; 465: 838
- 17 1-Methyl-4-{6-(4-methylpiperazin-1-yl)-4-oxido-8-oxo-4-phenyl-8H-phosphinino[3,2-b:5,6-b′]dithiophen-2-yl}-1-octadecylpiperazin-1-ium (Mem-C0C18) Iododecane (757 mg, 1.99 mmol) was added to a solution of S6 (34 mg, 66.33 μmol) in DMF (3 mL), the reaction mixture was stirred at 110 ° for 3 d. Cooling to room temperature, added Et2O (50 mL) to precipitate solids and filtered, the residue was purified by column chromatography (silica gel, CH2Cl2/MeOH = 8/1) to afford Mem-C0C18 (23 mg, 60 %) as the red solid. 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO): δ = 7.71–7.57 (m, 3 H), 7.54 (dd, J = 7.4, 2.7 Hz, 2 H), 6.59 (dd, J = 34.9, 5.6 Hz, 2 H), 3.70 (dd, J = 14.2, 4.5 Hz, 4 H), 3.55 (d, J = 4.5 Hz, 4 H), 3.10 (s, 3 H), 2.62 (s, 4 H), 2.42–2.26 (m, 3 H), 1.68 (s, 2 H), 1.24 (s, 30 H), 0.86 (t, J = 6.8 Hz, 3 H).









