The hydroxylation of aromatic substrates catalyzed by coupled binuclear copper enzymes has been observed with side-on-peroxo-dicopper(II) (P) and bis-μ-oxo-dicopper(III) (O) model complexes. The substrate-bound-O intermediate in [Cu(II)2(DBED)2(O)2](2+) (DBED = N,N'-di-tert-butyl-ethylenediamine) was shown to perform aromatic hydroxylation. For the [Cu(II)2(NO2-XYL)(O2)](2+) complex, only a P species was spectroscopically observed. However, it was not clear whether this O-O bond cleaves to proceed through an O-type structure along the reaction coordinate for hydroxylation of the aromatic xylyl linker. Accurate evaluation of these reaction coordinates requires reasonable quantitative descriptions of the electronic structures of the P and O species. We have performed Cu L-edge XAS on two well-characterized P and O species to experimentally quantify the Cu 3d character in their ground state wave functions. The lower per-hole Cu character (40 ± 6%) corresponding to higher covalency in the O species compared to the P species (52 ± 4%) reflects a stronger bonding interaction of the bis-μ-oxo core with the Cu(III) centers. DFT calculations show that 10-20% Hartree-Fock (HF) mixing for P and ~38% for O species are required to reproduce the Cu-O bonding; for the P species this HF mixing is also required for an antiferromagnetically coupled description of the two Cu(II) centers. B3LYP (with 20% HF) was, therefore, used to calculate the hydroxylation reaction coordinate of P in [Cu(II)2(NO2-XYL)(O2)](2+). These experimentally calibrated calculations indicate that the electrophilic attack on the aromatic ring does not involve formation of a Cu(III)2(O(2-))2 species. Rather, there is direct electron donation from the aromatic ring into the peroxo σ* orbital of the Cu(II)2(O2(2-)) species, leading to concerted C-O bond formation with O-O bond cleavage. Thus, species P is capable of direct hydroxylation of aromatic substrates without the intermediacy of an O-type species.
The hydroxylation of aromatin>an class="Chemical">c substrates catalyzed by coupled binuclear copper enzymes has been observed with side-on-peroxo-dicopper(II) (P) and bis-μ-oxo-dicopper(III) (O) model complexes. The substrate-bound-O intermediate in [Cu(II)2(DBED)2(O)2](2+) (DBED = N,N'-di-tert-butyl-ethylenediamine) was shown to perform aromatic hydroxylation. For the[Cu(II)2(NO2-XYL)(O2)](2+)complex, only a P species was spectroscopically observed. However, it was not clear whether this O-O bond cleaves to proceed through an O-type structure along the reaction coordinate for hydroxylation of the aromatic xylyl linker. Accurate evaluation of these reaction coordinates requires reasonable quantitative descriptions of the electronic structures of the P and O species. We have performed Cu L-edge XAS on two well-characterized P and O species to experimentally quantify theCu 3d character in their ground state wave functions. The lower per-hole Cucharacter (40 ± 6%) corresponding to higher covalency in the O species compared to the P species (52 ± 4%) reflects a stronger bonding interaction of the bis-μ-oxo core with theCu(III)centers. DFT calculations show that 10-20% Hartree-Fock (HF) mixing for P and ~38% for O species are required to reproduce theCu-O bonding; for the P species this HF mixing is also required for an antiferromagnetically coupled description of the two Cu(II)centers. B3LYP (with 20% HF) was, therefore, used to calculate the hydroxylation reaction coordinate of P in [Cu(II)2(NO2-XYL)(O2)](2+). These experimentally calibrated calculations indicate that the electrophilic attack on the aromatic ring does not involve formation of a Cu(III)2(O(2-))2 species. Rather, there is direct electron donation from the aromatic ring into theperoxo σ* orbital of theCu(II)2(O2(2-)) species, leading to concerted C-O bond formation with O-O bond cleavage. Thus, species P is capable of direct hydroxylation of aromatic substrates without the intermediacy of an O-type species.
Authors: Adam P Cole; Viswanath Mahadevan; Liviu M Mirica; Xavier Ottenwaelder; T Daniel P Stack Journal: Inorg Chem Date: 2005-10-17 Impact factor: 5.165
Authors: B M Lam; J A Halfen; V G Young; J R Hagadorn; P L Holland; A Lledós; L Cucurull-Sánchez; J J Novoa; S Alvarez; W B Tolman Journal: Inorg Chem Date: 2000-09-04 Impact factor: 5.165
Authors: Peng Chen; David E Root; Cecelia Campochiaro; Kiyoshi Fujisawa; Edward I Solomon Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2003-01-15 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Ga Young Park; Munzarin F Qayyum; Julia Woertink; Keith O Hodgson; Britt Hedman; Amy A Narducci Sarjeant; Edward I Solomon; Kenneth D Karlin Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Andrew W Schaefer; Matthew T Kieber-Emmons; Suzanne M Adam; Kenneth D Karlin; Edward I Solomon Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Edward I Solomon; David E Heppner; Esther M Johnston; Jake W Ginsbach; Jordi Cirera; Munzarin Qayyum; Matthew T Kieber-Emmons; Christian H Kjaergaard; Ryan G Hadt; Li Tian Journal: Chem Rev Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 60.622
Authors: Matthew T Kieber-Emmons; Jake W Ginsbach; Patrick K Wick; Heather R Lucas; Matthew E Helton; Baldo Lucchese; Masatatsu Suzuki; Andreas D Zuberbühler; Kenneth D Karlin; Edward I Solomon Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Courtney E Elwell; Nicole L Gagnon; Benjamin D Neisen; Debanjan Dhar; Andrew D Spaeth; Gereon M Yee; William B Tolman Journal: Chem Rev Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 60.622
Authors: Ioannis Kipouros; Agnieszka Stańczak; Martin Culka; Erik Andris; Timothy R Machonkin; Lubomír Rulíšek; Edward I Solomon Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Ida M DiMucci; James T Lukens; Sudipta Chatterjee; Kurtis M Carsch; Charles J Titus; Sang Jun Lee; Dennis Nordlund; Theodore A Betley; Samantha N MacMillan; Kyle M Lancaster Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 15.419