Nitric oxide (NO) is frequently used to probe the substrate-binding site of "spectroscopically silent" non-heme Fe(2+) sites of metalloenzymes, such as superoxide reductase (SOR). Herein we use NO to probe the superoxide binding site of our thiolate-ligated biomimetic SOR model [Fe(II)(S(Me(2))N(4)(tren))](+) (1). Like NO-bound trans-cysteinate-ligated SOR (SOR-NO), the rhombic S = 3/2 EPR signal of NO-bound cis-thiolate-ligated [Fe(S(Me(2))N(4)(tren)(NO)](+) (2; g = 4.44, 3.54, 1.97), the isotopically sensitive ν(NO)(ν((15)NO)) stretching frequency (1685(1640) cm(-1)), and the 0.05 Å decrease in Fe-S bond length are shown to be consistent with the oxidative addition of NO to Fe(II) to afford an Fe(III)-NO(-) {FeNO}(7) species containing high-spin (S = 5/2) Fe(III) antiferromagnetically coupled to NO(-) (S = 1). The cis versus trans positioning of the thiolate does not appear to influence these properties. Although it has yet to be crystallographically characterized, SOR-NO is presumed to possess a bent Fe-NO similar to that of 2 (Fe-N-O = 151.7(4)°). The N-O bond is shown to be more activated in 2 relative to N- and O-ligated {FeNO}(7) complexes, and this is attributed to the electron-donating properties of the thiolate ligand. Hydrogen-bonding to the cysteinate sulfur attenuates N-O bond activation in SOR, as shown by its higher ν(NO) frequency (1721 cm(-1)). In contrast, the ν(O-O) frequency of the SOR peroxo intermediate and its analogues is not affected by H-bonds to the cysteinate sulfur or other factors influencing the Fe-SR bond strength; these only influence the ν(Fe-O) frequency. Reactions between 1 and NO(2)(-) are shown to result in the proton-dependent heterolytic cleavage of an N-O bond. The mechanism of this reaction is proposed to involve both Fe(II)-NO(2)(-) and {FeNO}(6) intermediates similar to those implicated in the mechanism of NiR-promoted NO(2)(-) reduction.
Nitric oxide (NO) is frequently used to probe the substrate-binding site of "spectroscopically silent" non-n class="Chemical">hemeFe(2+) sites of metalloenzymes, such as superoxide reductase (SOR). Herein we use NO to probe the superoxide binding site of our thiolate-ligated biomimetic SOR model [Fe(II)(S(Me(2))N(4)(tren))](+) (1). Like NO-bound trans-cysteinate-ligated SOR (SOR-NO), the rhombic S = 3/2 EPR signal of NO-bound cis-thiolate-ligated [Fe(S(Me(2))N(4)(tren)(NO)](+) (2; g = 4.44, 3.54, 1.97), the isotopically sensitive ν(NO)(ν((15)NO)) stretching frequency (1685(1640) cm(-1)), and the 0.05 Å decrease in Fe-S bond length are shown to be consistent with the oxidative addition of NO to Fe(II) to afford an Fe(III)-NO(-) {FeNO}(7) species containing high-spin (S = 5/2) Fe(III) antiferromagnetically coupled to NO(-) (S = 1). The cis versus trans positioning of the thiolate does not appear to influence these properties. Although it has yet to be crystallographically characterized, SOR-NO is presumed to possess a bent Fe-NO similar to that of 2 (Fe-N-O = 151.7(4)°). The N-O bond is shown to be more activated in 2 relative to N- and O-ligated {FeNO}(7) complexes, and this is attributed to the electron-donating properties of the thiolate ligand. Hydrogen-bonding to the cysteinate sulfur attenuates N-O bond activation in SOR, as shown by its higher ν(NO) frequency (1721 cm(-1)). In contrast, the ν(O-O) frequency of the SOR peroxo intermediate and its analogues is not affected by H-bonds to the cysteinate sulfur or other factors influencing the Fe-SR bond strength; these only influence the ν(Fe-O) frequency. Reactions between 1 and NO(2)(-) are shown to result in the proton-dependent heterolytic cleavage of an N-O bond. The mechanism of this reaction is proposed to involve both Fe(II)-NO(2)(-) and {FeNO}(6) intermediates similar to those implicated in the mechanism of NiR-promoted NO(2)(-) reduction.
Authors: Divya Krishnamurthy; Gary D Kasper; Frances Namuswe; William D Kerber; Amy A Narducci Sarjeant; Pierre Moënne-Loccoz; David P Goldberg Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2006-11-08 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Ricardo García Serres; Craig A Grapperhaus; Eberhard Bothe; Eckhard Bill; Thomas Weyhermüller; Frank Neese; Karl Wieghardt Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2004-04-28 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Michael D Clay; Christopher A Cosper; Francis E Jenney; Michael W W Adams; Michael K Johnson Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-03-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Christina D Brown; Michael L Neidig; Matthew B Neibergall; John D Lipscomb; Edward I Solomon Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2007-05-17 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Michael K Coggins; Santiago Toledo; Erika Shaffer; Werner Kaminsky; Jason Shearer; Julie A Kovacs Journal: Inorg Chem Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 5.165
Authors: Alison C McQuilken; Hirotoshi Matsumura; Maximilian Dürr; Alex M Confer; John P Sheckelton; Maxime A Siegler; Tyrel M McQueen; Ivana Ivanović-Burmazović; Pierre Moënne-Loccoz; David P Goldberg Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Takahiro Hayashi; Jonathan D Caranto; Hirotoshi Matsumura; Donald M Kurtz; Pierre Moënne-Loccoz Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2012-04-09 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Gloria Villar-Acevedo; Priscilla Lugo-Mas; Maike N Blakely; Julian A Rees; Abbie S Ganas; Erin M Hanada; Werner Kaminsky; Julie A Kovacs Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Aniruddha Dey; Jesse B Gordon; Therese Albert; Sinan Sabuncu; Maxime A Siegler; Samantha N MacMillan; Kyle M Lancaster; Pierre Moënne-Loccoz; David P Goldberg Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2021-08-20 Impact factor: 16.823
Authors: Alison C McQuilken; Yang Ha; Kyle D Sutherlin; Maxime A Siegler; Keith O Hodgson; Britt Hedman; Edward I Solomon; Guy N L Jameson; David P Goldberg Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Danushka M Ekanayake; Anne A Fischer; Maya E Elwood; Alexandra M Guzek; Sergey V Lindeman; Codrina V Popescu; Adam T Fiedler Journal: Dalton Trans Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 4.390