ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Elucidation of the Interaction Mechanism between Organic Chiral Cages with Biomolecules through Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and Theoretical Studies
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
Article

Elucidation of the Interaction Mechanism between Organic Chiral Cages with Biomolecules through Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and Theoretical Studies
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Sara Sáez-Ferre
    Sara Sáez-Ferre
    Instituto de Tecnología Química, Universitat Politècnica de València-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (UPV-CSIC), Avda. de los Naranjos s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
  • Mercedes Boronat
    Mercedes Boronat
    Instituto de Tecnología Química, Universitat Politècnica de València-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (UPV-CSIC), Avda. de los Naranjos s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
  • Ángel Cantín
    Ángel Cantín
    Instituto de Tecnología Química, Universitat Politècnica de València-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (UPV-CSIC), Avda. de los Naranjos s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
  • Fernando Rey*
    Fernando Rey
    Instituto de Tecnología Química, Universitat Politècnica de València-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (UPV-CSIC), Avda. de los Naranjos s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
    *E-mail: [email protected] (F.R.).
    More by Fernando Rey
  • Pascual Oña-Burgos*
    Pascual Oña-Burgos
    Instituto de Tecnología Química, Universitat Politècnica de València-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (UPV-CSIC), Avda. de los Naranjos s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
    *E-mail: [email protected] (P.O.-B.).
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

The Journal of Physical Chemistry C

Cite this: J. Phys. Chem. C 2018, 122, 29, 16821–16829
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b05069
Published July 2, 2018

Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

A multinuclear NMR has been carried out to elucidate the mechanism of action of CC3-R box-type chiral materials for the separation of enantiomers, supported by theoretical calculations. The potential of these materials to be used as chiral resolution agents through NMR is evidence in this study.

Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Enantiomers have physical and chemical identical properties except for optical rotation; and they also have different biological and pharmacological properties. Therefore, chiral discrimination has become more important in several fields, as in the pharmaceutical industry, in stereospecific synthesis, in the food industry, environmental science, and development of optical devices. (1,2) However, the separation of enantiomers is still a challenge because of their physical and chemical identical properties.
Microporous small pore size crystalline materials have been of great scientific and technological interest because of their potential applications in gas storage, heterogeneous catalysis, and molecular separation. Most microporous solids are formed by extended three-directional networks such as, zeolites, (3−5) metal–organic frameworks, (6−11) covalent–organic frameworks (COFs), (12−14) or organic polymer networks. (15,16)
Contrary to extended networks, porous organic molecular solids (POMs) can be soluble in organic solvents. The solubility of POMs offers some advantages in comparison to insoluble networks materials. Their monomers retain the same structural porosity as the original POMs after dissolution in common organic solvents and are easily recrystallized. These POMs seem to open new avenues for promising further applications.
On this regard, the Cooper research’s group synthesized a new class of porous organic cages (POCs) with permanent and available cavities formed via condensation reaction of 1,3,5-triformylbenzene or tris(4-formylphenyl)amine and various diamines and evidenced the cage–cage self-assemble into crystalline materials with permanent void space. (17−24) Cooper and co-workers first reported the synthesis of POC (CC3) and its use for chiral separation. (19,23)
CC3 is an imine-linked POC, which is synthesized by the one-step [4 + 6] condensation of 1,3,5-triformylbenzene with (R,R)-1,2-diaminocyclohexane or (S,S)-1,2-diaminocyclohexane. This cage has tetrahedral symmetry, and each cage has four windows, the cage molecules pack in a window-to-window arrangement that self-assemble into perfectly ordered materials. Porous organic molecular cages defined as shape-persistent three-dimensional organic molecules have been explored for gas adsorption, separation, molecular recognition, and sensing. More recently, CC3-R has been used in gas-chromatographic (GC) separation. Particularly, CC3-R has been successfully used in the enantiomeric resolution of a wide variety of racemates belonging to different classes without derivatization. (25,26)
However, these relevant results are based on trial and error experiments and so far for being trivial, in which racemates can be successfully resolved by a given chiral solid. Therefore, the development of physico-chemical techniques that can be used as screening for the mentioned separations could be of interest for many researchers working in pharmacy, separation, NMR, modeling, and so forth. For instance, there is little insight into the detailed interaction between the host CC3-R entity and the guest molecule. To the best of our knowledge, there is just one report applying to a chiral molecule (1-phenyl-1-ethanol), where racemic mixture of 1-phenyl-1-ethanol is eluted through the chiral material and 30% ee of the opposite configuration is obtained in the solution.
Within this study, we provide information related to the interaction of the material CC3-R with several small chiral organic molecules, many of them biomolecules. Furthermore, we determined the preference of this material to some functional group, and then we have found the application to separate racemic mixture of amino acids (aa) and alpha hydroxyl-acids (ha). In addition, we suggest that these materials are also likely to be used as resolution agents of enantiomers.

Experimental Section

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

General Considerations

CC3-R and CC3-S were prepared according to literature procedures (or modified procedures) using solvothermal strategy. (21) The employed guests were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and used without further purification. The samples for liquid NMR analysis were prepared as follows. CC3-R is dissolved in CD2Cl2 at 2.5 mM. Then, the guest was added to this solution to achieve a final concentration of 1, 3, and 10 mM for each sample.

Solution NMR Spectroscopy

Solution NMR spectra were recorded with Bruker AVANCE instruments operating at 1H Larmor frequency of 300 MHz. Chemical shifts are given in ppm and relative to tetramethylsilane for 1H and 13C and relative to NH3 (liquid) for 15N nuclei. Coupling constants (J) are given in hertz as positive values, regardless of their real individual signs. Pulsed gradient spin-echo (PGSE) NMR diffusion measurements were carried out by using the stimulated echo pulse sequence. (27) A rectangular shape was used for the gradient pulses, and their strengths changed automatically during the course of the experiments. The D values were determined from the slope of the regression line ln(I/I0) versus G2, according to eq 1. I/I0 = observed spin echo intensity/intensity without gradients, G = gradient strength, Δ = delay between the midpoints of the gradients, D = diffusion coefficient, and δ = gradient length. The measurements were performed without spinning. The calibration of the gradients was carried out by means of a diffusion measurement of HDO in D2O (DHDO = 1.902 109 m2 s–1). (28) The experimental error in D values was estimated to be smaller than ±2% (three standard deviations). All of the data that led to the reported D values afforded lines with correlation coefficients above 0.999. The gradient strength was incremented in 8% steps from 10 to 98%, so that, depending on the signal/noise ratio, 10–12 points could be used for regression analysis. Afterward, the Einstein–Stokes formula (eq 2) correlates D with the hydrodynamic radius rH.
(1)
Einstein–Stokes formula
(2)

X-ray Diffraction

The crystallinity of the materials was investigated by powder X-ray diffraction. The measurements were performed using a PANalytical X’Pert PRO diffractometer in a Bragg–Brentano geometry and Cu Kα1 radiation (λ = 1.5406 Å).

Other Techniques

The morphology of the cages was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). SEM micrographs were recorded on a SU8230 field emission SEM instrument working at 5–10 kV, using beam deceleration mode. The samples were prepared by placing a small amount of powder on a carbon tape on SEM stubs. C, N, and H contents of isolated catalysts were determined with a Carlo Erba 1106 elemental analyzer. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) was carried out using a Mettler Toledo TGA/SDTA851e with an automated vertical overhead thermobalance.

Density Functional Theory Studies

All calculations in this work are based on density functional theory (DFT) and were carried out using the M062X functional (29) and the 6-311g(d,p) basis set, (30) as implemented in the Gaussian 09 software. (31) The geometry of all structures was fully optimized without restrictions. Host–guest interaction energies were calculated as
where E(host–guest) is the total energy of the complexes shown in Figures 5 and S83, and E(host) and E(guest) are the total energies of the isolated host model and guest molecules, respectively.

Results

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The CC3-R material was synthesized using solvothermal conditions. First of all, it was fully characterized by NMR. In fact, diffusion NMR spectroscopy was employed with the aim of measuring diffusion coefficients and estimating hydrodynamic radii of molecules in isotropic media. (32,33) This technique is mostly used to study organometallic complexes, as well as supramolecular systems such as host–guest systems, helicates, grids, supramolecular polymers, and more. Diffusion NMR has also found applications in studies of biosystems, pharmaceutical ones, and those of the structure of nanoparticles. (34−40) It is accepted that the diffusion decrease and the hydrodynamic radius of any species increases as the interaction with the host molecule increase. Therefore, this technique is especially well suited for studying host–guest interactions such as those occurring during adsorption and separation processes.
PGSE NMR diffusion measurements were used to determine the diffusion coefficients (D) of the material CC3-R studied here in solution (more details of these experiments are provided in the Supporting Information). The experiments were performed in CD2Cl2 from 0.25 to 2.5 mM concentrations of material to determine if agglomeration takes place. In Table 1, the diffusion data and hydrodynamic radius for CC3-R are summarized and compared with the radius obtained from X-ray. The results shown in Table 1 indicate that diffusion (D) and hydrodynamic radius of CC3-R remain constant along the whole range of concentration, indicating that there is no agglomeration of the monomers for further experiments.
Table 1. Diffusion Data for CC3-R
entry[CC3-R] [mM]D [10–10 m2 s–1]arH [Å]brX [Å]c
10.25 mM R6.68.18.5
20.75 mM R6.68.1 
32.5 mM R6.68.1 
a

Experimental error in the D values was (±2)%.

b

The viscosity (η) used in the Stokes–Einstein equation was 0.410 × 10–3 kg m–1 s–1. Values of η were taken from http://www.knovel.com.

c

It is an estimation, deduced from the X-ray structure described in the ref (8).

NMR Spectroscopy Study of Host–Guest Interactions

Intrigued by the way of action of materials in exerting the separation of organic molecules and racemates shown above, we propose a full study based on solution NMR that provide a direct and detailed view on the underlying interactions at the molecular level. Solution NMR spectroscopy could provide such a view because intermolecular interactions can be studied through their effect on the chemical shift, relaxation times, and translational diffusion coefficients of the various species. In the case of protein receptors and ligand binding, specific NMR approaches are routinely applied to provide information about the binding process and conformations. Taking advantage of the presence of the permanent porosity of CC3-R material, its high organic content, and its solubility in dichloromethane, we propose NMR-based approaches in host–guest heterogeneous related system for the in situ characterization of the molecular interactions.
First of all, we carried out 1H NMR measurements of the POCs and the different guests at 298 K with concentrations between 1 and 10 mM in CD2Cl2. The solvent chosen is CD2Cl2 because the CC3 materials are fully soluble in this solvent. A number of guests have been employed to carry out this study including, 1-phenyl-ethylamine which Cooper used in his work, other biomolecules derived from protected amino acids in the amino group (Figure 1). For this study, free amino acids were not directly used because of their insolubility in CD2Cl2. Then, the corresponding commercially available BOC-derivated chiral systems in their two enantiomeric forms have been selected, as shown in Figure 1. Then, the measurement of the different samples constituted by the host, CC3-R, and each guest at different concentrations was carried out.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Illustration of the selected guests (L/S red and D/R blue).

First of all, both the host and the series of guests were studies at 298 K as solution of pure compounds at 10 mM concentration in CD2Cl2. Then, the mixture of each guest (concentrations range from 1 to 10 mM) and the host (concentration of 2.5 mM) was also measured at 298 K in CD2Cl2. In Table 2, the data of these measurements are collected through proton NMR, where the three signals of the COF H1 (imine), H2 (aromatic), and H3 (α-NCH) are analyzed, with the purpose of studying the effect that the presence of different guests used at different concentrations has on the selected 1H NMR resonances of the host CC3-R, which is at a fixed concentration of 2.5 mM (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Illustration of the three selected signals of CC3-R.

Table 2. 1H NMR Data for the 3 Selected Signals of the Host
  δ 1H NMR [ppm] 
entry[guest] [mM]H1H2H3Δδ H1/H2/H3
1 8.1657.8913.38 
21 mM l-18.1657.8913.3810.000/0.000/0.001
33 mM l-18.1687.9073.3970.003/0.016/0.017
410 mM l-18.1767.9353.4280.011/0.044/0.048
51 mM d-18.1657.8933.3820.000/0.002/0.002
63 mM d-18.1667.9003.3900.001/0.011/0.010
710 mM d-18.1737.9263.4160.008/0.035/0.036
81 mM l-28.1677.8943.3850.002/0.003/0.005
93 mM l-28.1687.8993.3910.003/0.008/0.011
1010 mM l-28.1677.9043.4000.002/0.013/0.020
111 mM d-28.1657.8903.3790.000/0.001/0.001
123 mM d-28.1657.8953.3850.000/0.004/0.005
1310 mM d-28.1657.9023.3960.000/0.011/0.016
141 mM l-38.1657.8903.3790.000/–0.001/0.001
153 mM l-38.1657.8963.3860.000/0.005/0.006
1610 mM l-38.1717.9183.4090.006/0.027/0.029
171 mM d-38.1657.8913.3810.000/0.000/0.001
183 mM d-38.1667.8943.3850.001/0.003/0.005
1910 mM d-38.1687.9103.4000.003/0.019/0.020
201 mM l-48.1677.8943.3840.002/0.003/0.004
213 mM l-48.1677.8973.3890.002/0.006/0.009
2210 mM l-48.1677.8993.3920.002/0.008/0.012
231 mM d-48.1667.8913.3800.001/0.000/0.000
243 mM d-48.1677.8953.3860.002/0.004/0.004
2510 mM d-48.1657.8973.3880.000/0.006/0.008
261 mM l-58.1657.8903.3790.000/–0.001/0.001
273 mM l-58.1657.8913.3800.000/0.000/0.000
2810 mM l-58.1667.8943.3860.001/0.003/0.006
291 mM d-58.1667.8913.3800.001/0.000/0.000
303 mM d-58.1667.8923.3820.001/0.001/0.002
3110 mM d-58.1657.8933.3850.000/0.002/0.005
3210 mM S-68.1627.8893.3780.003/0.003/0.002
3310 mM R-68.1627.8893.3770.003/0.003/0.003
The observed changes in chemical shifts for the three selected COF signals are shown in the right column (guest@COF–COF). There, it is observed that the coupling of lactic acid (compound 1 in Figure 1 with CC3-R material (entries 2–7)) produces a deshielding of the three characteristic resonances of the COF, as evidenced by the displacement toward higher δ of the 1H NMR signal. The deshielding effect is more pronounced as the concentration of lactic acid increases. However more importantly, there is a stronger interaction between the CC3-R and S enantiomers than CC3-R. This phenomenon is clearly illustrated in the Figure 3.

Figure 3

Figure 3. 1H NMR data for H2 signal of the host with both enantiomers of ligand 1 at several concentrations.

The guests 2 (N-Boc-alanine, inputs 8–13), 3 (N-Boc-valine, inputs 14–19), and 4 (N-Boc-leucine, inputs 20–25) have a similar behavior as described for ligand 1. However, it is less import when the steric effect of the hydrophobic chain is enhanced. In this sense, this effect is slight for guest 5 (N-Boc-proline, inputs 26–31), where only few little changes in the signals of interest are detected for concentrations of 10 mM, and the greatest effect is shown for the L series. Furthermore, as the size of the amino acid aliphatic chain increases, the effect on the host fades. Finally, guest 6 (1-phenylethanol, inputs 32 and 33) has no effect on guest signals in the range of 1–10 mM.
Moreover, if we analyze the data according to the absolute configuration of the host CC3-R used, we can observe how the L series (S absolute configuration) produces a greater effect than the D series (R absolute configuration). However, the shift of 1H NMR signal for experiments of guests 5@CC3-R (entries 26–31) is only observed for the highest guest concentration (10 mM, entries 28 and 31), whilst no significant changes in the NMR signals are observed at lower concentration. Therefore, we can conclude that the CC3-R material has a stronger affinity for carboxylic acid group than the S enantiomer. In addition, this affinity can be nicely modulated by controlling the steric volume of the aliphatic substituent.
A deep study for assessing the binding of guest molecules and the host CC3-R was performed by applying 1H,15N gHMQC and 1H,13C gHSQC NMR experiments. These spectroscopic techniques have been used for understanding the structure–activity relationships (SAR) in biomolecules and proteins. In this sense, NMR spectroscopy is employed to detect binding of drugs to receptor proteins and more important to identify the unit of the protein involved in the process. For instance, 1H,15N gHSQC or HMQC experiments were known to provide an effective method to investigate interactions of the guanidinium groups of arginine units with charged groups on the ligand. (41−47) Another experimental setup to detect binding of ligands to receptor proteins involves the acquisition of 1H,13C gHMQC spectra of probes with and without ligands present. Generally, labeling of proteins with 13C is more expensive than with 15N. Furthermore, 1H,13C gHSQC spectra are more complex than 1H,15N gHSQC spectra. Hence, 1H,13C gHSQC experiments have not been widely employed to test for binding. Nevertheless, in our case, it is not a problem because our host–guest spectra have less signals. Therefore, both experiments were used to demonstrate the interaction between the CC3-R host and the selected molecules. One 1H,15N gHMQC experiment and other of 1H,13C gHSQC of the organic cage CC3-R are acquired as the reference spectra. Then, samples that contain one of the selected molecules (16) are prepared. If the resonance position of a cross-peak is significantly shifted compared with the reference spectra, this is an indication of binding (SAR by NMR).
Table 3 shows the carbon-13 NMR data of two signals of the CC3-R C1 (imine), C2 (aromatic), and the nitrogen-15 data for the N1 signal (imine) with the presence of the different guests used at different concentrations, keeping the concentration of the host at 2.5 mM. In addition, in the column on the right, the observed changes in the chemical shifts are shown for the three signals, two of carbon and one of nitrogen, of the host-isolated relative to the corresponding guest–host mix. The close analysis of the data collected in Table 3 indicates that the change in C1 and C2 are very small, suggesting that the interaction between CC3-R and selected guests does not take place through the carbon atoms of the host, and therefore nitrogen atoms must be involved.
Table 3. 13C and 15N NMR Data for the Selected Nuclei of the Host
  δ 13C NMR [ppm]δ 15N NMR [ppm] 
entry[guest] [mM]C1C2N3Δδ C1/C2/N3
1 158.65129.03341.3 
23 mM l-1159.10129.20338.70.45/0.17/2.60
310 mM l-1159.10129.40337.30.45/0.37/4.00
43 mM d-1159.00129.13339.40.35/0.10/1.90
510 mM d-1159.18129.48337.60.53/0.45/3.70
63 mM l-2158.8129.20339.50.15/0.17/1.80
710 mM l-2158.9129.30338.60.25/0.27/2.70
83 mM d-2158.65129.09340.00.00/0.06/1.30
910 mM d-2158.94129.33339.30.29/0.30/2.00
103 mM l-3158.80129.15339.80.15/0.12/1.50
1110 mM l-3159.00129.30338.20.35/0.27/3.10
123 mM d-3158.78129.11340.40.13/0.08/0.90
1310 mM d-3159.80129.13339.10.15/0.10/2.20
143 mM l-4158.94129.13340.90.29/0.10/0.40
2510 mM l-4159.00129.32339.60.34/0.29/1.70
163 mM d-4158.86129.06341.20.21/0.03/0.10
1710 mM d-4158.96129.27340.30.31/0.24/1.00
183 mM l-5158.65129.09341.00.00/0.06/0.30
1910 mM l-5158.80129.20340.40.15/0.17/0.90
203 mM d-5158.74129.03341.60.09/0.00/0.30
2110 mM d-5158.80129.11340.60.15/0.08/0.70
2210 mM S-6158.69129.06341.00.04/0.03/0.30
2310 mM R-6158.67129.04341.10.02/0.01/0.20
Indeed, the changes in the chemical shift of nitrogen are quite significant with the presence of the guests 1–5 indicating that a strong interaction host–guest occurs in good agreement with the observed shifts in 1H NMR signals. Meanwhile, there is practically no effect in the NMR signals when molecule 6 is adsorbed. In addition, the observed changes for 1–4 are in line with what is observed for the proton, where at 3 and 10 mM guest concentrations changes are detected in host signals. Moreover, the effect is higher for L series. However, at guest 5, this is only observed at concentrations of 10 mM, and in all cases slightly higher for the L. This behavior evidences the interactions between both systems through the carboxylic group and the steric effect of the hydrophobic chain decrease this interaction.
After that, it was decided to study the effect that the presence of the host has on guest signals. Table 4 summarizes the proton data between the guest-free and the guest–CC3-R, maintaining the concentration of CC3-R at 2.5 mM and that of the guest at 3 and 10 mM. The associated changes are in line with those observed in the CC3-R. The major changes are those associated with ligand 1 (entries 1–5), and especially the L series, in all cases the signals are shielded. Ligand 2 (entries 6–10) also presents more significant changes for the L than for the D series, this change being of shielding toward the methynic proton and deshielding toward the methyl group. However, for ligands 35 (entries 11–23) deshielding happens in all of them, and these deshieldings are greater for the L than for the D series. All these data can be summed up as (1) large steric effect of the guest enhances the deshielding of its 1H NMR signalsand (2) large affinity of the guest to the host minimized the deshielding of guest 1H NMR signals. Therefore, this supports why this effect is lower in the D series. On the other hand, the proton signals corresponding to ligand 6 (entries 24–26) do not show any significant changes, so neither the guest nor the host are affected. This reinforces the finding that the interaction takes place through the carboxylic acid.
Table 4. 1H NMR Data for the Selected Signals of the Ligands 1–6 at Several Concentrations and the Host at 2.5 mM Concentration
   δ 1H NMR (ppm) 
entry[guest] [mM]CC3-R mMH1H2Δδ H1/H2
1l-1 4.3881.488 
23 mM l-12.54.35121.48630.0365/0.0017
310 mM l-12.54.3111.44280.077/0.0452
43 mM d-12.54.36221.48650.0258/0.0015
510 mM d-12.54.3511.47180.037/0.0165
6l-2 4.29141.44 
73 mM l-22.54.28611.44130.0053/–0.0013
810 mM l-22.54.28081.44740.0106/–0.074
93 mM d-22.54.29051.44200.0009/–0.0020
1010 mM d-22.54.28661.44150.0048/–0.0015
11l-3 4.20861.0246/0.96 
123 mM l-32.54.2081.0375/0.97090.0006/–0.0129/–0.0109
1310 mM l-32.54.18151.0235/0.96040.0271/0.0011/–0.0004
143 mM d-32.54.20801.0369/0.96490.0006/–0.0123/–0.0049
1510 mM d-32.54.17651.0148/0.94610.0321/0.0098/0.0139
16l-4 4.2640.9836/0.9757 
173 mM l-42.54.2781.004/0.9917–0.014/–0.0204/–0.016
1810 mM l-42.54.2781.0098/0.9966–0.014/–0.0262/–0.0209
193 mM d-42.54.2780.9962–0.014/–0.0126/–0.0205
2010 mM d-42.54.2781.0036–0.014/–0.02/–0.0279
21l-5 4.352  
2210 mM l-52.54.344 0.008
2310 mM d-52.54.350 0.002
2410 mM S-6 4.9021.490 
2510 mM S-62.54.9111.491–0.007/–0.001
2610 mM R-62.54.9111.490–0.007/0.000
Figure 4 shows the 1H NMR spectra of the CC3-R in the presence of guest 1 in its L, R and racemic forms. There, we can observe that the material CC3-R is not only a good support of chiral column for gas and liquid chromatography for the separation of enantiomeric mixtures as has been shown in previous studies, but it could also act as a chiral solvating agent (CSA) for poorly impeded N-BOC-amino acids and α-hydroxy acids. Therefore, this material would have an even wider application than that reported so far.

Figure 4

Figure 4. 1H NMR region for the corresponding methyl group signal of ligand 1 at 3 mM and the host at 2.5 mM; (a) rac-1; (b) S-1; (c) R-1; and (d) isolated S-1.

A variety of NMR pulse sequences that allow the investigation of diffusion constants in solution have been applied to understand the host–guest interaction and diffusion in CC3-R. On the basis of such experiments, it is possible to discriminate compounds in mixtures according to their diffusion properties. This diffusion experiment has been previously successfully applied to deconvolute compound mixtures and to detect molecular association processes. (48−53) Although the main difficulty is that for the detection of changes in the diffusion constant of a ligand that binds to a protein, it is necessary that a significant amount of the ligand is bound to the protein on the time average. Diffusion experiments have been proven to be a valuable tool for characterizing molecular interactions between small and intermediate size molecules. Therefore, PGSE diffusion NMR has been also applied to the several samples. Then, the preparation of different samples of the selected guests with and without CC3-R present was carried out and then the comparison of the corresponding diffusion constant should give information about the binding affinity.
Table 5 shows the data obtained from the diffusion measurements on all guests in the samples at a concentration of 2.5 and 3 mM for the host and guest, respectively. As in previous studies, the case of lactic acid has been the most relevant, confirming that the enantiomer L has a slightly higher affinity than the D enantiomer toward the guest CC3-R. The changes in the diffusion coefficients and hydrodynamic radius are very clear between free host and host–guest. In fact, more than 50% of l-lactic acid is interacting with the host material. On the other hand, changes in the values of the diffusion coefficients and hydrodynamic radii for the other guests 26 are not very significant, being at best 21% host, l-2, which interacts with the guest very far from the values determined for l-1.
Table 5. Diffusion Data for the Selected Guests 17 with and without the Host
entry[guest] [3 mM]COF [2.5 mM]D [10–10 m2 s–1]rH [Å]guest free/guest inside
1 X6.68.1 
2l-1 22.32.4 
3l-1X13.53.951.6/48.4
4d-1X14.23.756.1/43.9
5l-2 143.8 
6l-2X12.44.378.2/21.8
7d-2X12.84.283.8/16.2
8l-3 13.14.1 
9l-3X12.34.387.7/12.3
10d-3X12.84.291.4/8.6
11l-4 13.14.1 
12l-4X12.24.486.2/13.8
13d-4X12.44.389.2/10.8
14l-5 153.5 
15l-5X14.53.794/6
16d-5X14.93.698.8/1.2
17S-6 22.32.4 
18S-6X21.12.595.5/4.5
19R-6X21.62.594.9/5.1
Finally, saturation-transfer NMR spectroscopy, STD, has been used for many years to characterize binding in tightly bound ligand–receptor complexes. At the same time, it was also shown that STD NMR is an excellent technique for determining the binding epitope of the ligand, information that is of prime importance for the directed development of drugs. (54) On the basis of that, STD experiments were carried out over several samples because it is a suitable experiment to probe SAR by NMR spectroscopy and also to determine association/dissociation contacts. However, STD experiments were not successful because the size of the host is too small for applying these experiments being applicable for systems larger than 15 000 kDa.

DFT Study of Host–Guest Interactions

The interaction of guest molecules 1 and 2 and benzoic acid with a POC of composition N12C72H84 as a model of the CC3-R material were theoretically investigated by means of DFT calculations. After full geometry optimization without any restriction, the organic cage maintains its tetrahedral symmetry as well as its window size and shape. The interaction of lactic acid 1 with the CC3-R model involves a strong hydrogen bond between the proton of the carboxylic group of the guest molecule and the imine N atom of the host POC and, in some cases, an additional weaker interaction between the C═O oxygen atom of lactic acid and a neighboring imine H1 atom (see Figure 5). In addition, the same type of adsorption is found for the guest molecule alanine 2. For both molecules, different adsorption complexes can be obtained depending on the relative orientation of the methyl group of the guest with respect to the organic skeleton of the host COF. All calculated interaction energies range from −60 to −80 kJ/mol, and the relative stability of the two most stable orientations for each enantiomer (labeled as a or b in Figure 5 and Table 6) differ by 15 kJ/mol at most. It is also important to remark that the interaction of the CC3-R model with the L enantiomer is in both systems slightly stronger than that with the D enantiomer, in agreement with the results from the NMR study.

Figure 5

Figure 5. DFT structures for the interaction CC3-R–guest; l-1 and d-1; l-2 and d-2.

Table 6. DFT Data for the Host–Guest Systems Depicted in the Figure 5
entryguestEint [kJ/mol]rH–H1 [Å]rH–H2 [Å]rH–H3 [Å]
1l-1a–76.92.5193.5402.838
2l-1b–61.63.9334.1914.669
3d-1a–74.82.9233.6333.414
4d-1b–69.32.4643.7642.671
5l-2a–78.92.5483.4512.837
6l-2b–73.02.4503.5492.836
7d-2a–72.72.2653.6312.512
8d-2b–63.72.5523.7882.654
Finally, the interaction of benzoic acid with the CC3-R model by π interaction between aromatic rings was also considered and compared with the previously described carboxylic group-imine bonding (see Figure S83 of the Supporting Information). The calculated interaction energies, −44.6 and −77.4 kJ/mol for the π and imine bonding, respectively, confirm the preferential interaction through the carboxylic group.
Changes in the chemical shifts and an increase in signal line widths are observed in the 1H NMR spectrum of the host for N-BOC-amino acids and especially with the α-hydroxy acid. This effect implies a greater deshielding of signals of CC3-R toward those hosts with more affinity. When the alcohol 6 was studied, no change in the chemical shift of the signals with respect to the isolated species was observed. This behavior evidences the interactions between both systems through the carboxylic group. Likewise, the 1H NMR signals of the hosts in the presence of the guest also suffer displacements of the signals with respect to the free compound. Further shielding of such signals is related to a greater affinity toward the guest by the host. Other functional groups, such as free amino acids, were not able to be studied because CC3-R is only slightly soluble in CD2Cl2 while free amino acids are only soluble in D2O or polar organic solvent. In the study carried out by means of carbon NMR on the signals of the CC3-R imine and aromatic, it has been shown that this nucleus undergoes very small changes of magnitude and therefore does not provide great information as sensor of the interaction process. However, the nitrogen NMR provides a great deal of information and could be considered an indicator of the degree of host–guest interaction.
In addition, NMR diffusion can also be established as a very useful tool to identify that molecules interact more strongly with these chiral boxes. All these results were supported with theoretical calculations. Finally, the possibility of using these materials as chiral resolution agents by NMR has been opened.

Conclusion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In summary, the study carried out on the CC3-R systems, through NMR and supported by theoretical calculations, has allowed to elucidate and to understand the interactions of these systems with different hosts. In addition, it becomes clear that NMR is a very useful technique to identify such mechanism of action, guest–host interaction, in enantiomeric separation processes, just as it has been in biology. Finally, it has been determined that such materials can be used as enantiomeric resolution agents by NMR. Currently, we are working to develop chiral materials that act on CSA but with a greater capacity for the determination of enantiomeric excesses.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b05069.

  • Experimental procedures; spectral and computational details; and cartesian coordinates for all optimized structures (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Authors
  • Authors
    • Sara Sáez-Ferre - Instituto de Tecnología Química, Universitat Politècnica de València-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (UPV-CSIC), Avda. de los Naranjos s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
    • Mercedes Boronat - Instituto de Tecnología Química, Universitat Politècnica de València-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (UPV-CSIC), Avda. de los Naranjos s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
    • Ángel Cantín - Instituto de Tecnología Química, Universitat Politècnica de València-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (UPV-CSIC), Avda. de los Naranjos s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Program Severo Ochoa SEV-2016-0683 is gratefully acknowledged. S.S-F. thanks MEC for his Severo Ochoa Grant SPV-2013-067884, P.O.-B. thanks MEC for his Ramón y Cajal contract RYC-2014-16620. M.B. and F.R. thank the financial support by the Spanish Government (MAT2017-82288-C2-1-P and MAT2015-71842-P). The authors thank the MULTY2HYCAT (EU-Horizon 2020 funded project under grant agreement no. 720783). The Electron Microscopy Service of the UPV is acknowledged for their help in sample characterization.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 54 other publications.

  1. 1
    Pu, L. Enantioselective fluorescent sensors: a tale of BINOL. Acc. Chem. Res. 2012, 45, 150163,  DOI: 10.1021/ar200048d
  2. 2
    Zhang, X.; Yin, J.; Yoon, J. Recent advances in development of chiral fluorescent and colorimetric sensors. Chem. Rev. 2014, 114, 49184959,  DOI: 10.1021/cr400568b
  3. 3
    Simancas, R.; Dari, D.; Velamazan, N.; Navarro, M. T.; Cantin, A.; Jorda, J. L.; Sastre, G.; Corma, A.; Rey, F. Modular organic structure-directing agents for the synthesis of zeolites. Science 2010, 330, 12191222,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1196240
  4. 4
    Moliner, M.; Martínez, C.; Corma, A. Synthesis strategies for preparing useful small pore zeolites and zeotypes for gas separations and catalysis. Chem. Mater. 2014, 26, 246258,  DOI: 10.1021/cm4015095
  5. 5
    Moliner, M.; Martínez, C.; Corma, A. Multipore zeolites: synthesis and catalytic applications. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 35603579,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201406344
  6. 6
    Corma, A.; García, H.; Llabrés i Xamena, F. X. Engineering metal organic frameworks for heterogeneous catalysis. Chem. Rev. 2010, 110, 46064655,  DOI: 10.1021/cr9003924
  7. 7
    Dhakshinamoorthy, A.; Opanasenko, M.; Čejka, J.; Garcia, H. Metal organic frameworks as heterogeneous catalysts for the production of fine chemicals. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2013, 3, 25092540,  DOI: 10.1039/c3cy00350g
  8. 8
    Valvekens, P.; Vermoortele, F.; De Vos, D. Metal-organic frameworks as catalysts: the role of metal active sites. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2013, 3, 14351445,  DOI: 10.1039/c3cy20813c
  9. 9
    Jiang, J.; Yaghi, O. M. Brønsted Acidity in Metal-Organic Frameworks. Chem. Rev. 2015, 115, 69666997,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00221
  10. 10
    Seoane, B.; Castellanos, S.; Dikhtiarenko, A.; Kapteijn, F.; Gascon, J. Multi-scale crystal engineering of metal organic frameworks. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2016, 307, 147187,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2015.06.008
  11. 11
    Chen, L.; Luque, R.; Li, Y. Controllable design of tunable nanostructures inside metal-organic frameworks. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46, 46144630,  DOI: 10.1039/c6cs00537c
  12. 12
    Zhang, Y.-B.; Su, J.; Furukawa, H.; Yun, Y.; Gándara, F.; Duong, A.; Zou, X.; Yaghi, O. M. Single-crystal structure of a covalent organic framework. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 1633616339,  DOI: 10.1021/ja409033p
  13. 13
    Díaz, U.; Corma, A. Ordered covalent organic frameworks, COFs and PAFs. From preparation to application. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2016, 311, 85124,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2015.12.010
  14. 14
    Das, S.; Heasman, P.; Ben, T.; Qiu, S. Porous Organic Materials: Strategic Design and Structure-Function Correlation. Chem. Rev. 2017, 117, 15151563,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00439
  15. 15
    Dawson, R.; Cooper, A. I.; Adams, D. J. Nanoporous organic polymer networks. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2012, 37, 530563,  DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.09.002
  16. 16
    Tan, L.; Tan, B. Hypercrosslinked porous polymer materials: design, synthesis, and applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46, 33223356,  DOI: 10.1039/c6cs00851h
  17. 17
    Bojdys, M. J.; Hasell, T.; Severin, N.; Jelfs, K. E.; Rabe, J. P.; Cooper, A. I. Porous organic cage crystals: characterising the porous crystal surface. Chem. Commun. 2012, 48, 1194811950,  DOI: 10.1039/c2cc36602a
  18. 18
    Tozawa, T.; Jones, J. T. A.; Swamy, S. I.; Jiang, S.; Adams, D. J.; Shakespeare, S.; Clowes, R.; Bradshaw, D.; Hasell, T.; Chong, S. Y.; Tang, C.; Thompson, S.; Parker, J.; Trewin, A.; Bacsa, J.; Slawin, A. M. Z.; Steiner, A.; Cooper, A. I. Porous organic cages. Nat. Mater. 2009, 8, 973978,  DOI: 10.1038/nmat2545
  19. 19
    Chen, L.; Reiss, P. S.; Chong, S. Y.; Holden, D.; Jelfs, K. E.; Hasell, T.; Little, M. A.; Kewley, A.; Briggs, M. E.; Stephenson, A.; Thomas, K. M.; Armstrong, J. A.; Bell, J.; Busto, J.; Noel, R.; Liu, J.; Strachan, D. M.; Thallapally, P. K.; Cooper, A. I. Separation of rare gases and chiral molecules by selective binding in porous organic cages. Nat. Mater. 2014, 13, 954960,  DOI: 10.1038/nmat4035
  20. 20
    Briggs, M. E.; Slater, A. G.; Lunt, N.; Jiang, S.; Little, M. A.; Greenaway, R. L.; Hasell, T.; Battilocchio, C.; Ley, S. V.; Cooper, A. I. Dynamic flow synthesis of porous organic cages. Chem. Commun. 2015, 51, 1739017393,  DOI: 10.1039/c5cc07447a
  21. 21
    Jiang, S.; Jones, J. T. A.; Hasell, T.; Blythe, C. E.; Adams, D. J.; Trewin, A.; Cooper, A. I. Porous organic molecular solids by dynamic covalent scrambling. Nat. Commun. 2011, 2, 207,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1207
  22. 22
    Little, M. A.; Chong, S. Y.; Schmidtmann, M.; Hasell, T.; Cooper, A. I. Guest control of structure in porous organic cages. Chem. Commun. 2014, 50, 94659468,  DOI: 10.1039/c4cc04158e
  23. 23
    Kewley, A.; Stephenson, A.; Chen, L.; Briggs, M. E.; Hasell, T.; Cooper, A. I. Porous organic cages for gas chromatography separations. Chem. Mater. 2015, 27, 32073210,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.5b01112
  24. 24
    Briggs, M. E.; Cooper, A. I. A perspective on the synthesis, purification, and characterization of porous organic cages. Chem. Mater. 2017, 29, 149157,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b02903
  25. 25
    Xie, S.-M.; Zhang, J.-H.; Fu, N.; Wang, B.-J.; Chen, L.; Yuan, L.-M. A chiral porous organic cage for molecular recognition using gas chromatography. Anal. Chim. Acta 2016, 903, 156163,  DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2015.11.030
  26. 26
    Zhang, J.-H.; Xie, S.-M.; Chen, L.; Wang, B.-J.; He, P.-G.; Yuan, L.-M. Homochiral porous organic cage with high selectivity for the separation of racemates in gas chromatography. Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 78177824,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b01512
  27. 27
    Stilbs, P. Fourier transform pulsed-gradient spin-echo studies of molecular diffusion. Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 1987, 19, 145,  DOI: 10.1016/0079-6565(87)80007-9
  28. 28
    Tyrrell, H. J. V.; Harris, R. K. Diffusion in Liquids; Butterworths: London, 1984.
  29. 29
    Zhao, Y.; Truhlar, D. G. The M06 suite of density functionals for main group thermochemistry, thermochemical kinetics, noncovalent interactions, excited states, and transition elements: two new functionals and systematic testing of four M06-class functionals and 12 other functionals. Theor. Chem. Acc. 2008, 120, 215241,  DOI: 10.1007/s00214-007-0310-x
  30. 30
    Krishnan, R.; Binkley, J. S.; Seeger, R.; Pople, J. A. Self-consistent molecular orbital methods. XX. A basis set for correlated wave functions. J. Chem. Phys. 1980, 72, 650654,  DOI: 10.1063/1.438955
  31. 31
    Frisch, M. J.; Trucks, G. W.; Schlegel, H. B.; Scuseria, G. E.; Robb, M. A.; Cheeseman, J. R.; Scalmani, G.; Barone, V.; Petersson, G. A.; Nakatsuji, H.; Gaussian 09, Revision C.01; Gaussian, Inc.: Wallingford CT, 2009.
  32. 32
    Stejskal, E. O.; Tanner, J. E. Spin Diffusion Measurements: Spin Echoes in the Presence of a Time-Dependent Field Gradient. J. Chem. Phys. 1965, 42, 288292,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1695690
  33. 33
    Tanner, J. E. Use of the stimulated echo in NMR diffusion studies. J. Chem. Phys. 1970, 52, 25232526,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1673336
  34. 34
    Johnson, C. S. Diffusion ordered nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy: principles and applications. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 1999, 34, 203256,  DOI: 10.1016/s0079-6565(99)00003-5
  35. 35
    Chen, A.; Wu, D.; Johnson, C. S. Determination of molecular weight distributions for polymers by diffusion-ordered NMR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 79657970,  DOI: 10.1021/ja00135a015
  36. 36
    Avram, L.; Cohen, Y. Diffusion NMR of molecular cages and capsules. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2015, 44, 586602,  DOI: 10.1039/c4cs00197d
  37. 37
    Åslund, I.; Nowacka, A.; Nilsson, M.; Topgaard, D. Filter-exchange PGSE NMR determination of cell membrane permeability. J. Magn. Reson. 2009, 200, 291295,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmr.2009.07.015
  38. 38
    Occhipinti, P.; Griffiths, P. C. Quantifying diffusion in mucosal systems by pulsed-gradient spin-echo NMR. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2008, 60, 15701582,  DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2008.08.006
  39. 39
    Marega, R.; Aroulmoji, V.; Dinon, F.; Vaccari, L.; Giordani, S.; Bianco, A.; Murano, E.; Prato, M. Diffusion-ordered NMR spectroscopy in the structural characterization of functionalized carbon nanotubes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 90869093,  DOI: 10.1021/ja902728w
  40. 40
    Canzi, G.; Mrse, A. A.; Kubiak, C. P. Diffusion-ordered NMR spectroscopy as a reliable alternative to TEM for determining the size of gold nanoparticles in organic solutions. J. Phys. Chem. C 2011, 115, 79727978,  DOI: 10.1021/jp2008557
  41. 41
    Pascal, S. M.; Yamazaki, T.; Singer, A. U.; Kay, L. E.; Forman-Kay, J. D. Structural and dynamic characterization of the phosphotyrosine binding region of an Src homology 2 domain-phosphopeptide complex by NMR relaxation, proton exchange, and chemical shift approaches. Biochemistry 1995, 34, 1135311362,  DOI: 10.1021/bi00036a008
  42. 42
    Yamazaki, T.; Pascal, S. M.; Singer, A. U.; Forman-Kay, J. D.; Kay, L. E. NMR pulse schemes for the sequence-specific assignment of arginine guanidino 15N and 1H chemical shifts in proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 35563564,  DOI: 10.1021/ja00117a025
  43. 43
    Feng, M.-H.; Philippopoulos, M.; MacKerell, A. D.; Lim, C. Structural Characterization of the Phosphotyrosine Binding Region of a High-Affinity SH2 Domain–Phosphopeptide Complex by Molecular Dynamics Simulation and Chemical Shift Calculations. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 1126511277,  DOI: 10.1021/ja961530r
  44. 44
    Gargaro, A. R.; Frenkiel, T. A.; Nieto, P. M.; Birdsall, B.; Polshakov, V. I.; Morgan, W. D.; Feeney, J. NMR Detection of arginine-ligand interactions in complexes of lactobacillus casei dihydrofolate reductase. Eur. J. Biochem. 1996, 238, 435439,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1996.0435z.x
  45. 45
    Nieto, P. M.; Birdsall, B.; Morgan, W. D.; Frenkiel, T. A.; Gargaro, A. R.; Feeney, J. Correlated bond rotations in interactions of arginine residues with ligand carboxylate groups in protein ligand complexes. FEBS Lett. 1997, 405, 1620,  DOI: 10.1016/s0014-5793(97)00147-6
  46. 46
    Morgan, W. D.; Birdsall, B.; Nieto, P. M.; Gargaro, A. R.; Feeney, J. 1H/15N HSQC NMR Studies of Ligand Carboxylate Group Interactions with Arginine Residues in Complexes of Brodimoprim Analogues andLactobacilluscaseiDihydrofolate Reductase. Biochemistry 1999, 38, 21272134,  DOI: 10.1021/bi982359u
  47. 47
    Polshakov, V. I.; Morgan, W. D.; Birdsall, B.; Feeney, J. Validation of a new restraint docking method for solution structure determinations of protein–ligand complexes. J. Biomol. NMR 1999, 14, 115122,  DOI: 10.1023/a:1008379225053
  48. 48
    Hajduk, P. J.; Olejniczak, E. T.; Fesik, S. W. One-dimensional relaxation- and diffusion-edited NMR methods for screening compounds that bind to macromolecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 1225712261,  DOI: 10.1021/ja9715962
  49. 49
    Lin, M.; Shapiro, M. J. mixture analysis in combinatorial chemistry. Application of diffusion-resolved NMR spectroscopy. J. Org. Chem. 1996, 61, 76177619,  DOI: 10.1021/jo961315t
  50. 50
    Lin, M.; Shapiro, M. J.; Wareing, J. R. Screening mixtures by affinity NMR. J. Org. Chem. 1997, 62, 89308931,  DOI: 10.1021/jo971183j
  51. 51
    Lin, M.; Shapiro, M. J.; Wareing, J. R. Diffusion-Edited NMR–Affinity NMR for Direct Observation of Molecular Interactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 52495250,  DOI: 10.1021/ja963654+
  52. 52
    Bleicher, K.; Lin, M.; Shapiro, M. J.; Wareing, J. R. Diffusion Edited NMR: Screening Compound Mixtures by Affinity NMR to Detect Binding Ligands to Vancomycin. J. Org. Chem. 1998, 63, 84868490,  DOI: 10.1021/jo9817366
  53. 53
    Anderson, R. C.; Lin, M.; Shapiro, M. J. Affinity NMR: Decoding DNA Binding. J. Comb. Chem. 1999, 1, 6972,  DOI: 10.1021/cc980004o
  54. 54
    Mayer, M.; Meyer, B. Characterization of ligand binding by saturation transfer difference NMR spectroscopy. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 17841788,  DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1521-3773(19990614)38:12<1784::aid-anie1784>3.0.co;2-q

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 2 publications.

  1. Giovanni Montà-González, Félix Sancenón, Ramón Martínez-Máñez, Vicente Martí-Centelles. Purely Covalent Molecular Cages and Containers for Guest Encapsulation. Chemical Reviews 2022, 122 (16) , 13636-13708. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00198
  2. Daohui Zhao, Yuqing Wang, Qianwen Su, Libo Li, Jian Zhou. Lysozyme Adsorption on Porous Organic Cages: A Molecular Simulation Study. Langmuir 2020, 36 (41) , 12299-12308. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.0c02233

The Journal of Physical Chemistry C

Cite this: J. Phys. Chem. C 2018, 122, 29, 16821–16829
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b05069
Published July 2, 2018

Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

609

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Illustration of the selected guests (L/S red and D/R blue).

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Illustration of the three selected signals of CC3-R.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. 1H NMR data for H2 signal of the host with both enantiomers of ligand 1 at several concentrations.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. 1H NMR region for the corresponding methyl group signal of ligand 1 at 3 mM and the host at 2.5 mM; (a) rac-1; (b) S-1; (c) R-1; and (d) isolated S-1.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. DFT structures for the interaction CC3-R–guest; l-1 and d-1; l-2 and d-2.

  • References


    This article references 54 other publications.

    1. 1
      Pu, L. Enantioselective fluorescent sensors: a tale of BINOL. Acc. Chem. Res. 2012, 45, 150163,  DOI: 10.1021/ar200048d
    2. 2
      Zhang, X.; Yin, J.; Yoon, J. Recent advances in development of chiral fluorescent and colorimetric sensors. Chem. Rev. 2014, 114, 49184959,  DOI: 10.1021/cr400568b
    3. 3
      Simancas, R.; Dari, D.; Velamazan, N.; Navarro, M. T.; Cantin, A.; Jorda, J. L.; Sastre, G.; Corma, A.; Rey, F. Modular organic structure-directing agents for the synthesis of zeolites. Science 2010, 330, 12191222,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1196240
    4. 4
      Moliner, M.; Martínez, C.; Corma, A. Synthesis strategies for preparing useful small pore zeolites and zeotypes for gas separations and catalysis. Chem. Mater. 2014, 26, 246258,  DOI: 10.1021/cm4015095
    5. 5
      Moliner, M.; Martínez, C.; Corma, A. Multipore zeolites: synthesis and catalytic applications. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 35603579,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201406344
    6. 6
      Corma, A.; García, H.; Llabrés i Xamena, F. X. Engineering metal organic frameworks for heterogeneous catalysis. Chem. Rev. 2010, 110, 46064655,  DOI: 10.1021/cr9003924
    7. 7
      Dhakshinamoorthy, A.; Opanasenko, M.; Čejka, J.; Garcia, H. Metal organic frameworks as heterogeneous catalysts for the production of fine chemicals. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2013, 3, 25092540,  DOI: 10.1039/c3cy00350g
    8. 8
      Valvekens, P.; Vermoortele, F.; De Vos, D. Metal-organic frameworks as catalysts: the role of metal active sites. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2013, 3, 14351445,  DOI: 10.1039/c3cy20813c
    9. 9
      Jiang, J.; Yaghi, O. M. Brønsted Acidity in Metal-Organic Frameworks. Chem. Rev. 2015, 115, 69666997,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00221
    10. 10
      Seoane, B.; Castellanos, S.; Dikhtiarenko, A.; Kapteijn, F.; Gascon, J. Multi-scale crystal engineering of metal organic frameworks. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2016, 307, 147187,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2015.06.008
    11. 11
      Chen, L.; Luque, R.; Li, Y. Controllable design of tunable nanostructures inside metal-organic frameworks. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46, 46144630,  DOI: 10.1039/c6cs00537c
    12. 12
      Zhang, Y.-B.; Su, J.; Furukawa, H.; Yun, Y.; Gándara, F.; Duong, A.; Zou, X.; Yaghi, O. M. Single-crystal structure of a covalent organic framework. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 1633616339,  DOI: 10.1021/ja409033p
    13. 13
      Díaz, U.; Corma, A. Ordered covalent organic frameworks, COFs and PAFs. From preparation to application. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2016, 311, 85124,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2015.12.010
    14. 14
      Das, S.; Heasman, P.; Ben, T.; Qiu, S. Porous Organic Materials: Strategic Design and Structure-Function Correlation. Chem. Rev. 2017, 117, 15151563,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00439
    15. 15
      Dawson, R.; Cooper, A. I.; Adams, D. J. Nanoporous organic polymer networks. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2012, 37, 530563,  DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.09.002
    16. 16
      Tan, L.; Tan, B. Hypercrosslinked porous polymer materials: design, synthesis, and applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46, 33223356,  DOI: 10.1039/c6cs00851h
    17. 17
      Bojdys, M. J.; Hasell, T.; Severin, N.; Jelfs, K. E.; Rabe, J. P.; Cooper, A. I. Porous organic cage crystals: characterising the porous crystal surface. Chem. Commun. 2012, 48, 1194811950,  DOI: 10.1039/c2cc36602a
    18. 18
      Tozawa, T.; Jones, J. T. A.; Swamy, S. I.; Jiang, S.; Adams, D. J.; Shakespeare, S.; Clowes, R.; Bradshaw, D.; Hasell, T.; Chong, S. Y.; Tang, C.; Thompson, S.; Parker, J.; Trewin, A.; Bacsa, J.; Slawin, A. M. Z.; Steiner, A.; Cooper, A. I. Porous organic cages. Nat. Mater. 2009, 8, 973978,  DOI: 10.1038/nmat2545
    19. 19
      Chen, L.; Reiss, P. S.; Chong, S. Y.; Holden, D.; Jelfs, K. E.; Hasell, T.; Little, M. A.; Kewley, A.; Briggs, M. E.; Stephenson, A.; Thomas, K. M.; Armstrong, J. A.; Bell, J.; Busto, J.; Noel, R.; Liu, J.; Strachan, D. M.; Thallapally, P. K.; Cooper, A. I. Separation of rare gases and chiral molecules by selective binding in porous organic cages. Nat. Mater. 2014, 13, 954960,  DOI: 10.1038/nmat4035
    20. 20
      Briggs, M. E.; Slater, A. G.; Lunt, N.; Jiang, S.; Little, M. A.; Greenaway, R. L.; Hasell, T.; Battilocchio, C.; Ley, S. V.; Cooper, A. I. Dynamic flow synthesis of porous organic cages. Chem. Commun. 2015, 51, 1739017393,  DOI: 10.1039/c5cc07447a
    21. 21
      Jiang, S.; Jones, J. T. A.; Hasell, T.; Blythe, C. E.; Adams, D. J.; Trewin, A.; Cooper, A. I. Porous organic molecular solids by dynamic covalent scrambling. Nat. Commun. 2011, 2, 207,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1207
    22. 22
      Little, M. A.; Chong, S. Y.; Schmidtmann, M.; Hasell, T.; Cooper, A. I. Guest control of structure in porous organic cages. Chem. Commun. 2014, 50, 94659468,  DOI: 10.1039/c4cc04158e
    23. 23
      Kewley, A.; Stephenson, A.; Chen, L.; Briggs, M. E.; Hasell, T.; Cooper, A. I. Porous organic cages for gas chromatography separations. Chem. Mater. 2015, 27, 32073210,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.5b01112
    24. 24
      Briggs, M. E.; Cooper, A. I. A perspective on the synthesis, purification, and characterization of porous organic cages. Chem. Mater. 2017, 29, 149157,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b02903
    25. 25
      Xie, S.-M.; Zhang, J.-H.; Fu, N.; Wang, B.-J.; Chen, L.; Yuan, L.-M. A chiral porous organic cage for molecular recognition using gas chromatography. Anal. Chim. Acta 2016, 903, 156163,  DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2015.11.030
    26. 26
      Zhang, J.-H.; Xie, S.-M.; Chen, L.; Wang, B.-J.; He, P.-G.; Yuan, L.-M. Homochiral porous organic cage with high selectivity for the separation of racemates in gas chromatography. Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 78177824,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b01512
    27. 27
      Stilbs, P. Fourier transform pulsed-gradient spin-echo studies of molecular diffusion. Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 1987, 19, 145,  DOI: 10.1016/0079-6565(87)80007-9
    28. 28
      Tyrrell, H. J. V.; Harris, R. K. Diffusion in Liquids; Butterworths: London, 1984.
    29. 29
      Zhao, Y.; Truhlar, D. G. The M06 suite of density functionals for main group thermochemistry, thermochemical kinetics, noncovalent interactions, excited states, and transition elements: two new functionals and systematic testing of four M06-class functionals and 12 other functionals. Theor. Chem. Acc. 2008, 120, 215241,  DOI: 10.1007/s00214-007-0310-x
    30. 30
      Krishnan, R.; Binkley, J. S.; Seeger, R.; Pople, J. A. Self-consistent molecular orbital methods. XX. A basis set for correlated wave functions. J. Chem. Phys. 1980, 72, 650654,  DOI: 10.1063/1.438955
    31. 31
      Frisch, M. J.; Trucks, G. W.; Schlegel, H. B.; Scuseria, G. E.; Robb, M. A.; Cheeseman, J. R.; Scalmani, G.; Barone, V.; Petersson, G. A.; Nakatsuji, H.; Gaussian 09, Revision C.01; Gaussian, Inc.: Wallingford CT, 2009.
    32. 32
      Stejskal, E. O.; Tanner, J. E. Spin Diffusion Measurements: Spin Echoes in the Presence of a Time-Dependent Field Gradient. J. Chem. Phys. 1965, 42, 288292,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1695690
    33. 33
      Tanner, J. E. Use of the stimulated echo in NMR diffusion studies. J. Chem. Phys. 1970, 52, 25232526,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1673336
    34. 34
      Johnson, C. S. Diffusion ordered nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy: principles and applications. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 1999, 34, 203256,  DOI: 10.1016/s0079-6565(99)00003-5
    35. 35
      Chen, A.; Wu, D.; Johnson, C. S. Determination of molecular weight distributions for polymers by diffusion-ordered NMR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 79657970,  DOI: 10.1021/ja00135a015
    36. 36
      Avram, L.; Cohen, Y. Diffusion NMR of molecular cages and capsules. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2015, 44, 586602,  DOI: 10.1039/c4cs00197d
    37. 37
      Åslund, I.; Nowacka, A.; Nilsson, M.; Topgaard, D. Filter-exchange PGSE NMR determination of cell membrane permeability. J. Magn. Reson. 2009, 200, 291295,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmr.2009.07.015
    38. 38
      Occhipinti, P.; Griffiths, P. C. Quantifying diffusion in mucosal systems by pulsed-gradient spin-echo NMR. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2008, 60, 15701582,  DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2008.08.006
    39. 39
      Marega, R.; Aroulmoji, V.; Dinon, F.; Vaccari, L.; Giordani, S.; Bianco, A.; Murano, E.; Prato, M. Diffusion-ordered NMR spectroscopy in the structural characterization of functionalized carbon nanotubes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 90869093,  DOI: 10.1021/ja902728w
    40. 40
      Canzi, G.; Mrse, A. A.; Kubiak, C. P. Diffusion-ordered NMR spectroscopy as a reliable alternative to TEM for determining the size of gold nanoparticles in organic solutions. J. Phys. Chem. C 2011, 115, 79727978,  DOI: 10.1021/jp2008557
    41. 41
      Pascal, S. M.; Yamazaki, T.; Singer, A. U.; Kay, L. E.; Forman-Kay, J. D. Structural and dynamic characterization of the phosphotyrosine binding region of an Src homology 2 domain-phosphopeptide complex by NMR relaxation, proton exchange, and chemical shift approaches. Biochemistry 1995, 34, 1135311362,  DOI: 10.1021/bi00036a008
    42. 42
      Yamazaki, T.; Pascal, S. M.; Singer, A. U.; Forman-Kay, J. D.; Kay, L. E. NMR pulse schemes for the sequence-specific assignment of arginine guanidino 15N and 1H chemical shifts in proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 35563564,  DOI: 10.1021/ja00117a025
    43. 43
      Feng, M.-H.; Philippopoulos, M.; MacKerell, A. D.; Lim, C. Structural Characterization of the Phosphotyrosine Binding Region of a High-Affinity SH2 Domain–Phosphopeptide Complex by Molecular Dynamics Simulation and Chemical Shift Calculations. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 1126511277,  DOI: 10.1021/ja961530r
    44. 44
      Gargaro, A. R.; Frenkiel, T. A.; Nieto, P. M.; Birdsall, B.; Polshakov, V. I.; Morgan, W. D.; Feeney, J. NMR Detection of arginine-ligand interactions in complexes of lactobacillus casei dihydrofolate reductase. Eur. J. Biochem. 1996, 238, 435439,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1996.0435z.x
    45. 45
      Nieto, P. M.; Birdsall, B.; Morgan, W. D.; Frenkiel, T. A.; Gargaro, A. R.; Feeney, J. Correlated bond rotations in interactions of arginine residues with ligand carboxylate groups in protein ligand complexes. FEBS Lett. 1997, 405, 1620,  DOI: 10.1016/s0014-5793(97)00147-6
    46. 46
      Morgan, W. D.; Birdsall, B.; Nieto, P. M.; Gargaro, A. R.; Feeney, J. 1H/15N HSQC NMR Studies of Ligand Carboxylate Group Interactions with Arginine Residues in Complexes of Brodimoprim Analogues andLactobacilluscaseiDihydrofolate Reductase. Biochemistry 1999, 38, 21272134,  DOI: 10.1021/bi982359u
    47. 47
      Polshakov, V. I.; Morgan, W. D.; Birdsall, B.; Feeney, J. Validation of a new restraint docking method for solution structure determinations of protein–ligand complexes. J. Biomol. NMR 1999, 14, 115122,  DOI: 10.1023/a:1008379225053
    48. 48
      Hajduk, P. J.; Olejniczak, E. T.; Fesik, S. W. One-dimensional relaxation- and diffusion-edited NMR methods for screening compounds that bind to macromolecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 1225712261,  DOI: 10.1021/ja9715962
    49. 49
      Lin, M.; Shapiro, M. J. mixture analysis in combinatorial chemistry. Application of diffusion-resolved NMR spectroscopy. J. Org. Chem. 1996, 61, 76177619,  DOI: 10.1021/jo961315t
    50. 50
      Lin, M.; Shapiro, M. J.; Wareing, J. R. Screening mixtures by affinity NMR. J. Org. Chem. 1997, 62, 89308931,  DOI: 10.1021/jo971183j
    51. 51
      Lin, M.; Shapiro, M. J.; Wareing, J. R. Diffusion-Edited NMR–Affinity NMR for Direct Observation of Molecular Interactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 52495250,  DOI: 10.1021/ja963654+
    52. 52
      Bleicher, K.; Lin, M.; Shapiro, M. J.; Wareing, J. R. Diffusion Edited NMR: Screening Compound Mixtures by Affinity NMR to Detect Binding Ligands to Vancomycin. J. Org. Chem. 1998, 63, 84868490,  DOI: 10.1021/jo9817366
    53. 53
      Anderson, R. C.; Lin, M.; Shapiro, M. J. Affinity NMR: Decoding DNA Binding. J. Comb. Chem. 1999, 1, 6972,  DOI: 10.1021/cc980004o
    54. 54
      Mayer, M.; Meyer, B. Characterization of ligand binding by saturation transfer difference NMR spectroscopy. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 17841788,  DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1521-3773(19990614)38:12<1784::aid-anie1784>3.0.co;2-q
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b05069.

    • Experimental procedures; spectral and computational details; and cartesian coordinates for all optimized structures (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.