We report on multicomponent self-sorting to form open circular helicates of different sizes from a primary monoamine, Fe(II) ions, and dialdehyde ligand strands that differ in length and structure by only two oxygen atoms. The corresponding closed circular helicates that are formed from a diamine--a molecular Solomon link and a pentafoil knot--also self-sort, but up to two of the Solomon-link-forming ligand strands can be accommodated within the pentafoil knot structure and are either incorporated or omitted depending on the stage that the components are mixed.
We report on multicomponent self-sorting to form open circular helicates of different sizes from a primary monoamine, Fe(II) ions, and dialdehyde ligand strands that differ in length and structure by only two oxygen atoms. The corresponding closed circular helicates that are formed from a diamine--a molecular Solomon link and a pentafoil knot--also self-sort, but up to two of the Solomon-link-forming ligand strands can be accommodated within the pentafoil knot structure and are either incorporated or omitted depending on the stage that the components are mixed.
The spontaneous segregation of molecular building blocks into discrete species within a mixture
is known as self-sorting,1 a phenomenon that helps to maintain
structural control over complex dynamic systems in nature.2
The use of orthogonal recognition elements is a convenient way to achieve sorting in artificial
systems,1, 3 but
other methods,4 including subtle differences in ligand
design,5–7 can
also be remarkably effective. A beautiful example is the classic experiment by Lehn and
co-workers5 in which a mixture of ligand strands containing
two to five 2,2′-bipyridine groups spontaneously self-sort into linear double helicates, each
containing two ligands with equal numbers of binding sites, in the presence of
CuI ions.We recently described the synthesis of a molecular Solomon link8 (a doubly entwined [2]catenane9) and a
molecular pentafoil knot,10 each formed through a combination
of metal–ligand coordination, an anion template, and geometric restrictions. These closely
related structures are derived from tetra-8 and
pentameric10 circular helicate scaffolds, respectively, and
are assembled from up to 20 common, or similar, components. Here we investigate the self-sorting
behavior of both the closed molecular topologies and the open circular helicate scaffolds on which
they are based (Figure 1). The study provides
insights into the self-assembly processes of the individual species and reveals a subtle interplay
between the driving forces and kinetic traps involved in their assembly.
Figure 1
The assembly of circular helicates of different sizes and topologies from a primary amine (3) or
diamine (6), FeII ions, and dialdehyde ligand strands (1 and 2).
The assembly of circular helicates of different sizes and topologies from a primary amine (3) or
diamine (6), FeII ions, and dialdehyde ligand strands (1 and 2).Despite their structural similarities (a difference of just two oxygen atoms in length),
dialdehydes 1 and 2 react individually with a suitable monoamine and
FeCl2 to generate different-sized circular helicates: tetrameric8 with 1 and pentameric10 with
2. To investigate the self-sorting potential of the ligands, a 1:1 mixture of aldehydes
1 and 2 was allowed to react with FeCl2 and
n-hexylamine (3) in [D6]DMSO at
60 °C for 18 h, followed by anion exchange through the addition of an aqueous
solution of potassium hexafluorophosphate (Scheme 1). 1H NMR spectroscopy (Figure 2 a, i) indicated the formation of both tetramer 4 and pentamer
5, the spectrum of the reaction outcome being a superimposition of the spectra from the
reaction of the individual aldehydes under similar experimental conditions (Figure 2 a, ii and iii). Electrospray mass spectrometry (ESIMS)
confirmed perfect self-sorting, with no detectable formation of mixed-ligand species
(Figure 2 b). Such fidelity is remarkable for
such complex multicomponent systems made up from building blocks that vary only by a one-atom
difference in the spacing of identical binding sites. The dynamics of this self-sorting system were
further probed through experiments in which dialdehydes 1 and 2 were mixed
at different points during the course of the reaction and monitored for up to four days at different
concentrations (see the Supporting Information), which established that under these conditions the
open circular helicates self-assemble and self-sort under thermodynamic control (see
Section S2.1.4 in the Supporting Information for details).
Scheme 1
Perfect self-sorting of remarkably similar ligand strands in the formation of circular helicates
of different sizes. A 1:1 ratio of aldehydes 1 and 2 was treated with two equivalents of
FeCl2 and four equivalents of n-hexylamine (3) in
[D6]DMSO at 60 °C for 18 h, followed by anion exchange
with aqueous KPF6, thereby generating a mixture of circular helicates 4 and 5.
Figure 2
Spectroscopic analysis of the self-sorting reaction shown in Scheme 1. a) 1H NMR spectra (500 MHz,
CD3CN, 298 K). i) The self-sorted mixture of open cyclic helicates 4
(orange) and 5 (blue), ii) pentameric cyclic helicate 5, and iii) tetrameric cyclic
helicate 4. The broadness of the Ha signal is a function of chloride ion
concentration.8 b) ESI mass spectrum of the self-sorted
species shown in Scheme 1. Signals corresponding
to helicates 4 and 5 with sequential loss of PF6 counterions are indicated.
Perfect self-sorting of remarkably similar ligand strands in the formation of circular helicates
of different sizes. A 1:1 ratio of aldehydes 1 and 2 was treated with two equivalents of
FeCl2 and four equivalents of n-hexylamine (3) in
[D6]DMSO at 60 °C for 18 h, followed by anion exchange
with aqueous KPF6, thereby generating a mixture of circular helicates 4 and 5.Spectroscopic analysis of the self-sorting reaction shown in Scheme 1. a) 1H NMR spectra (500 MHz,
CD3CN, 298 K). i) The self-sorted mixture of open cyclic helicates 4
(orange) and 5 (blue), ii) pentameric cyclic helicate 5, and iii) tetrameric cyclic
helicate 4. The broadness of the Ha signal is a function of chloride ion
concentration.8 b) ESI mass spectrum of the self-sorted
species shown in Scheme 1. Signals corresponding
to helicates 4 and 5 with sequential loss of PF6 counterions are indicated.The reaction of either aldehyde 1 or 2 with diamine 6 in
the presence of FeII ions generates topological complex molecules:11 a Solomon link (four crossings arising from the tetrameric circular helicate
scaffold)8 and pentafoil knot (five crossings arising from the
pentameric circular helicate scaffold),10 respectively.
However, the behavior of these closed circular helicate systems upon mixing was found to differ from
that of the open analogues. The self-sorting experiment was conducted as previously, but with
n-hexylamine substituted for 0.5 equiv of
2,2′-(ethylenedioxy)bis(ethylamine) (6) and the reaction times increased to four
days (Scheme 2). After work up, the
1H NMR spectrum (Figure 3 a)
showed two sets of signals corresponding to the formation of Solomon link 7 and
pentafoil knot 8 accompanied by a series of low-intensity signals (shown in red in
Figure 3 a). ESIMS analysis confirmed that the
Solomon link is assembled almost exclusively from ligand 1.12 However, in addition to pentafoil knot 8 (formed from five strands
of ligand 2), significant amounts of two other pentafoil knots, 9 and
10, were present which arise from the incorporation of one or two strands of
1 into the pentafoil knot structure (see Figure S9 in the Supporting
Information). The mixed-ligand-strand species pentafoil knot 9, in which one strand of
ligand 2 had been replaced with 1, could be fully characterized by COSY
and ROESY correlation experiments (see Figures S12–S14 in the Supporting Information)
and is the main contributor to the low-intensity signals shown in red in Figure 3 a.13
Interestingly, the yield of Solomon link 7 in Scheme 2 remained unchanged relative to reactions in which only 2 was used
(see Figure S15 in the Supporting Information), thus indicating that the mixed pentafoil knot
species 9 and 10 arise principally at the expense of polymeric/oligomeric
by-products rather than at the expense of the homoligand-strand pentafoil knot 8. The
product distribution was maintained over a range of concentrations (2–6 mm),
with the relative yields of 7, 8, 9, and 10
remaining constant throughout (see Figures S16–18 in the Supporting Information).
Scheme 2
The assembly of knots and links using diamine 6. A 1:1 ratio of dialdehydes 1 and 2 was treated
with two equivalents of FeCl2 and two equivalents of diamine 6 in
[D6]DMSO at 60 °C for four days, followed by anion exchange
with aqueous KPF6, to give Solomon link 7 and a mixture of pentafoil knots 8–10.
Only one of the two isomers of 10 is shown (see Figure 4).
Figure 3
1H NMR spectra (500 MHz, CD3CN, 298 K). a) The
mixture of Solomon link 7 (orange), pentafoil knot 8 (blue), mixed pentafoil knots 9 (red), and 10
(too small an amount to be visible by 1H NMR spectroscopy but observed using
ESIMS; see Figure S10 in the Supporting Information) obtained by reaction of diamine 6 with
dialdehydes 1 and 2. Products formed using only one dialdehyde: b) pentafoil knot 8 (from 2)
and c) Solomon link 7 (from 1) prior to purification. The * marks small signals
corresponding to aldehyde-containing ligand strands (products of imine hydrolysis) in (b)
and (c).
The assembly of knots and links using diamine 6. A 1:1 ratio of dialdehydes 1 and 2 was treated
with two equivalents of FeCl2 and two equivalents of diamine 6 in
[D6]DMSO at 60 °C for four days, followed by anion exchange
with aqueous KPF6, to give Solomon link 7 and a mixture of pentafoil knots 8–10.
Only one of the two isomers of 10 is shown (see Figure 4).
Figure 4
Assembly of molecular Solomon link 7 and pentafoil knots 8–10 using different experimental
procedures. The product distribution of the closed topologies is dependent on when the reaction
mixtures are combined.
1H NMR spectra (500 MHz, CD3CN, 298 K). a) The
mixture of Solomon link 7 (orange), pentafoil knot 8 (blue), mixed pentafoil knots 9 (red), and 10
(too small an amount to be visible by 1H NMR spectroscopy but observed using
ESIMS; see Figure S10 in the Supporting Information) obtained by reaction of diamine 6 with
dialdehydes 1 and 2. Products formed using only one dialdehyde: b) pentafoil knot 8 (from 2)
and c) Solomon link 7 (from 1) prior to purification. The * marks small signals
corresponding to aldehyde-containing ligand strands (products of imine hydrolysis) in (b)
and (c).To probe whether the distribution observed under the conditions employed in Scheme 2 is formed under thermodynamic control, two experiments were
carried out that differed only in the time at which the dialdehydes were mixed (Figure 4). In the first experiment, dialdehydes 1 and
2 were mixed prior to the addition of amine 6 (Figure 4 a). In the second experiment, aldehydes 1
and 2 were allowed to react individually with diamine 6 (FeCl2,
[D6]DMSO, 60 °C) for 24 h prior to combining both
reactions (Figure 4 b). The resulting mixtures
were heated at 60 °C and the change in the product distribution monitored over seven
days. If compounds 7–10 are under thermodynamic control, then both
experimental procedures should equilibrate to the same distribution (as is observed with the
monoamine-derived circular helicates (Scheme 1)
and see Section S2.1.4 in the Supporting Information). However, the outcomes of the two
experiments involving the diamine are very different (Figure 5). When the dialdehydes are combined from the start, the mixed-ligand-strand pentafoil
knots 9 and 10 are formed (in addition to 7 and
8) as expected (Figure 5 a). In
contrast, when the aldehydes are allowed to react individually with diamine 6 and
FeCl2 for 24 h and then the reaction mixtures (which include not only some of the
closed cyclic helicates, but also oligomers and polymeric by-products) are heated further, there is
no evidence of mixed-ligand species even after seven days (Figure 5 b).
Figure 5
1H NMR spectra (500 MHz, CD3CN, 298 K).
a) Reaction mixture from Figure 4 a
(after PF6− ion exchange), where aldehydes 1 and 2 are mixed prior to
the addition of diamine 6, showing significant amounts of mixed-ligand pentafoil knot 9 (red).
b) Reaction mixture from Figure 4 b
(after PF6− ion exchange), where preformed 7 (orange) and
8 (blue) were mixed, shows no indication of the presence of mixed-ligand pentafoil knots.
Assembly of molecular Solomon link 7 and pentafoil knots 8–10 using different experimental
procedures. The product distribution of the closed topologies is dependent on when the reaction
mixtures are combined.1H NMR spectra (500 MHz, CD3CN, 298 K).
a) Reaction mixture from Figure 4 a
(after PF6− ion exchange), where aldehydes 1 and 2 are mixed prior to
the addition of diamine 6, showing significant amounts of mixed-ligand pentafoil knot 9 (red).
b) Reaction mixture from Figure 4 b
(after PF6− ion exchange), where preformed 7 (orange) and
8 (blue) were mixed, shows no indication of the presence of mixed-ligand pentafoil knots.Clearly, under these conditions (60 °C, 7 days) this system is not under
thermodynamic control. The mixed-ligand-strand pentafoil knots 9 and 10
are kinetic products, similar in accessibility to 8. The rationale for the differing
behavior of the open helicates and the closed molecular topologies is the relative ease of
dissociation of the different types of ligands. In the open systems (4 and
5), the exchange of ligand units involves only metal–ligand dissociation of a
single tris(bidentate) strand, which is sufficiently rapid for equilibrium to be reached under the
reaction conditions. However, unless ligand exchange occurs by hydrolysis, then for a
tris(bidentate) strand to be replaced in the closed systems the two neighboring strands also have to
dissociate from iron centers for imine exchange of the diamine linker to occur. The energy cost of
this additional process is evidently too high to allow efficient rearrangement of 9 and
10, thereby preventing the closed systems from undergoing full
“error-checking” under thermodynamic control.16In conclusion, the reaction of 1 and 2 with
n-hexylamine (3) leads to a perfectly self-sorted and dynamic mixture
of open circular helicates of different sizes, 4 and 5. Although this
involves formation of imine bonds, it is effectively a cyclic version of the self-sorting experiment
with linear helicates pioneered by Lehn and co-workers,5 but
instead of using ligand strands that sort according to the number of bidentate binding sites and
overall length, 1 and 2 have the same number of binding sites and differ
only by a one atom spacing of those binding sites within the strand.14, 15 Nonetheless, each ligand is able to
effectively distinguish self from non-self in forming different-sized circular assemblies and the
components are able to exchange in-and-out of the circular helicates in a facile manner. Dialdehydes
1 and 2 also largely self-sort according to the size of the circular
helicate in their reaction with diamine 6, thereby generating Solomon link
7 and pentafoil knot 8, respectively. In this case, however, the
self-sorting is imperfect and mixed-ligand-strand pentafoil knots 9 and 10
are also formed. The fully closed circular helicates do not readily exchange their ligand strands
even over extended reaction times.These systems illustrate not only the exquisite fidelity that is possible in the self-sorting of
very similar building blocks within complex multicomponent assemblies, but also how the same modest
differences in structure can tip the balance between thermodynamic control and kinetic trapping.
Learning how to recognize, understand, and, ultimately, manipulate such processes will be an
important step towards mimicking nature’s mastery of molecular assembly with synthetic
systems.
Authors: Cari D Pentecost; Kelly S Chichak; Andrea J Peters; Gareth W V Cave; Stuart J Cantrill; J Fraser Stoddart Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2007 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Jonathon E Beves; Jonathan J Danon; David A Leigh; Jean-François Lemonnier; Iñigo J Vitorica-Yrezabal Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Christopher S Wood; Tanya K Ronson; Ana M Belenguer; Julian J Holstein; Jonathan R Nitschke Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 24.427
Authors: Zoe Ashbridge; Stephen D P Fielden; David A Leigh; Lucian Pirvu; Fredrik Schaufelberger; Liang Zhang Journal: Chem Soc Rev Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 60.615
Authors: Christopher J Campbell; David A Leigh; Inigo J Vitorica-Yrezabal; Steffen L Woltering Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 15.336