Jacqueline M McGrath1, Michael D Pluth. 1. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Materials Science Institute, University of Oregon , Eugene, Oregon 97403-1253, United States.
Abstract
Hydrogen bond strength in host-guest systems is modulated by many factors including preorganization, steric effects, and electronic effects. To investigate how electronic effects impact barbiturate binding in bifurcated Hamilton receptors, a library of receptors with differing electronic substituents was synthesized and (1)H NMR titrations were performed with diethyl barbital. The Hammett plot revealed a clear break between the different electronic substituents suggesting a change in binding conformation. The titration data were complimented with computational studies confirming the change in structure.
Hydrogen bond strength in host-guest systems is modulated by many factors including preorganization, steric effects, and electronic effects. To investigate how electronic effects impact barbiturate binding in bifurcated Hamilton receptors, a library of receptors with differing electronic substituents was synthesized and (1)H NMR titrations were performed with diethyl barbital. The Hammett plot revealed a clear break between the different electronic substituents suggesting a change in binding conformation. The titration data were complimented with computational studies confirming the change in structure.
Host–guest
binding plays
a key role in many types of chemistry, ranging from molecular recognition
to catalysis.[1−6] Understanding how structural changes influence such interactions
enables control over guest binding and facilitates the molecular design
of synthetic supramolecular complexes. Various factors, including
steric and electronic effects as well as host–guest preorganization,
can all affect host–guest complex stability and guest exchange
rates.[5,7,8] To better understand
the interplay of these forces in hydrogen-bonded systems, we recently
investigated barbiturate binding to 2,6-diamidopyridines, a bifurcated
form of macrocyclic Hamilton receptors to determine the differential
effects of steric interactions and host preorganization on guest binding
affinities.[9] Toward understanding the impacts
of electronic substitution on guest binding in hydrogen-bonded systems,
we report here binding studies on 2,6-diaminopyridines with barbital
that reveal changes in host–guest structure as a function of
electronic substitution.Because 2,6-diamidopyridines bind barbiturates
through complementary
hydrogen bonding, we chose to use a system in which one of the amides
contained a phenyl substituent with an electron withdrawing or donating
group in the para position. This design allowed for
electronic changes in the phenyl substituent to modulate the acidity
of the amideN–H as well as the basicity of the pyridinenitrogen
(Figure 1).[10,11] Inclusion
of electron withdrawing groups should acidify the amide, making it
a better hydrogen bond donor, whereas electron donating groups should
not only decrease the amide acidity but also increase the electron
density of the pyridinenitrogen, making it a better hydrogen bond
acceptor. Although these two effects are opposing, the acidification
of the amideNH is expected to be a larger effect due to the closer
proximity to the substituted phenyl group.
Figure 1
Effects of electron donating
and withdrawing on the electron density
of the 2,6-diamidopyridine receptors.
Effects of electron donating
and withdrawing on the electron density
of the 2,6-diamidopyridine receptors.To prepare
the desired compounds, precursor 1a was
prepared by coupling 3,3-dimethylbutyryl chloride with 2,6-diaminopyridine
using excess diaminopyridine as the base in THF. Compounds 2a–f were prepared by treatment of the corresponding
acid chlorides with 1a (Scheme 1). To prepare the p-dimethylamino substituted compound,
the pyridinenitrogen of 1a was first oxidized with mCPBA to afford 1b, which was then coupled
to p-dimethylamino benzoic acid using EDC and HOBT.[12] The resultant N-oxide product
(1c) was then reduced with (Bpin)2 to afford 2g.[13]
Scheme 1
Synthesis of 2,6-Diamidopyridines 2a–g
To measure the binding affinity of the differently substituted 2a–g with diethyl barbital, 1HNMR titrations were performed for each host–guest system
in CDCl3. Because the binding involves hydrogen bonding
between the receptor and barbital, the N-H1HNMR resonances of the amides on both the host and the guest change
during the course of the titration (Figure 2). Using the tabulated chemical shift data of the barbital N-H, the resultant binding isotherms were fit to a 1:1 model,
based on previous studies investigating the binding stoichiometry
of compounds such as 2a–g with diethyl
barbital.[9] All measurements were repeated
at least in triplicate to ensure reproducibility of the binding affinities.
Figure 2
Representative 1H NMR (500 MHz, 25 °C, CDCl3) titration of
diethyl barbital with 2c. The
stacked 1H NMR titration spectra and tabulated plot of
the N-H chemical shift data from the 1H NMR titration are shown.
Representative 1HNMR (500 MHz, 25 °C, CDCl3) titration of
diethyl barbital with 2c. The
stacked 1HNMR titration spectra and tabulated plot of
the N-H chemical shift data from the 1HNMR titration are shown.Measurement of the binding constants of 2a–g with diethyl barbital revealed that electron withdrawing
groups result in the highest binding affinity, whereas electron donating
groups weakened guest binding. Binding affinities for 2g, which contained the most electron donating group, were too low
to measure reproducibly. These results suggest that acidification
of the amideN-H plays a larger role in guest binding
than increasing the basicity of the pyridinenitrogen, which is consistent
with the closer proximity of the amide group to the electronically
substituted phenyl group. To quantitatively compare the impacts of
electronic effects on barbiturate binding, we used the experimentally
determined binding affinities to construct a Hammett plot using the
corresponding σp values for each substituent (Figure 3).[14,15] The resultant Hammett plot has
a positive slope, which confirms that negative charge buildup is stabilized
during the guest binding process, an effect that is consistent with
both increased amide acidity and increased electron density on the
pyridinenitrogen.[16,17] The slope of the Hammett plot,
however, shows a clear break between the electron donating and withdrawing
groups, with ρ values of 1.08 ± 0.08 and 0.37 ± 0.02,
respectively.[18] This bimodal (or curved)
Hammett plot suggests a change in binding conformation between the
hosts with electron withdrawing and donating groups, respectively.[19−21] Such a change could be due to the shorter hydrogen bonds formed
between the host and guest upon acidification of the amides with inclusion
of electron withdrawing groups.[10,11,22−25]
Figure 3
Hammett
plot of hosts 2a–f binding
diethyl barbital. Binding constants were obtained by following the
barbital N–H resonance using 1H
NMR spectroscopy (500 MHz, 25 °C, CDCl3).
Hammett
plot of hosts 2a–f binding
diethyl barbital. Binding constants were obtained by following the
barbital N–H resonance using 1HNMR spectroscopy (500 MHz, 25 °C, CDCl3).To further investigate this nonlinear Hammett plot, we used computational
studies to determine whether the break in the Hammett plot was related
to changes in host–guest structure. Structures for 2a–f coordinated to diethyl barbital were optimized
at the B3LYP/6-31+G(d,p) level of theory and the IEF-PCM solvation
model for CHCl3, which has been shown to correlate well
with experimental binding affinities in similar systems.[9] Calculations using dispersion-corrected functionals
were also performed and provided similar results. For each optimized
geometry, the NH–O(barbital) and N–HN(barbital) hydrogen
bond lengths were measured and compared to that of 2a ligated to barbital (Figure 4). As expected,
the distal N−H of the alkyl amide did not
change upon electronic substitution to the phenyl ring because the
alkyl N−H is too far away from the electronic
modulation to expect a significant contribution. By contrast, the
amideN−H proximal to the benzene ring changes
linearly with electronic substitution. Similarly, the hydrogen bond
to the pyridyl nitrogen changes, although not linearly, with electronic
substitution. Taken together, the structural difference upon electronic
substation are consistent with a change in equilibrium geometry, which
would correspond to a bimodal (or curved) Hammett plot, and is consistent
with the observed experimental results.
Figure 4
Comparison of the NH–O(barbital)
and N–HN(barbital)
hydrogen bonding distances for 2a–f hydrogen bonded to diethylbarbital. Calculations were performed
in Gaussian using the B3LYP/6-31+G(d,p) level of theory and the IEF-PCM
solvation model for CHCl3.
Comparison of the NH–O(barbital)
and N–HN(barbital)
hydrogen bonding distances for 2a–f hydrogen bonded to diethylbarbital. Calculations were performed
in Gaussian using the B3LYP/6-31+G(d,p) level of theory and the IEF-PCM
solvation model for CHCl3.In conclusion, we have shown that binding of barbiturates
to 2,6-diamidopyridines
with different electronic structures produces a nonlinear Hammett
plot, which is characteristic of changes in host–guest structure
upon modulation of electronic structure. These results were supported
both experimentally, using determined binding affinities, and computationally,
using structural comparisons of optimized host–guest geometries.
Taken together, these studies highlight how changes in electronic
structure in hydrogen bonding assemblies can result not only in changes
in binding affinities but also in changes in the assembled structure,
thus providing insight into the factors controlling structural changes
in the hydrogen-bonded complexes between the receptors and barbiturate
guest.
Experimental Section
Materials and Methods
All commercially available reagents
were used as received. Deuterated solvents were used as received.
Anhydrous solvents used for syntheses were collected from a solvent
purification system. Reactions were monitored by TLC on Silicagel
60 F254 plates, and the products were purified on an automated
chromatography instrument using SiliaFlash F60 SiO2. NMR
spectra were recorded at the indicated frequencies on either a 300
or 500 MHz spectrometer. Chemical shifts are reported in parts per
million (δ) and are referenced to residual protic solvent resonances.
The following abbreviations are used in describing NMR couplings:
(s) singlet, (d) doublet, (t) triplet, (m) multiplet, and (b) broad;
coupling constants are reported in hertz (Hz).
General Procedure Binding
Constant Determination
Binding
studies were performed in CDCl3 for host molecules 2a–g and were monitored by 1HNMR spectroscopy. In a typical CDCl3 titration, 2.00
mL of 1.0 mM barbital was prepared. The guest solution was then divided
such that 1.00 mL was placed into an NMR tube and the other 1.00 mL
was used to create a second solution containing 50–75 mM host.
An initial spectrum of the guest was recorded, after which aliquots
(5–100 μL) of the host solution were added until the
N–H resonance of barbital no longer shifted.
The resultant curves were fit using a 1:1 model, and the Kassoc was obtained.[26]
Computational
Details
Calculations were performed using
the Gaussian 09[27] software package using
the GaussView[28] 5.0 graphical user interface.
Geometry optimizations and unscaled frequency calculations were performed
at the B3LYP/6-31+G(d,p) level of theory using the IEF-PCM solvation
model for chloroform. Frequency calculations were performed on all
converged structures confirming that they corresponded to local minima.
In all cases, the lowest energy conformer was used to compare the
relative energetics of the calculated species.
A round-bottom flask was charged with dry
THF (100 mL) and 2,6-diaminopyridine (1.04 g, 9.5 mmol). The flask
was then lowered into an ice bath and deoxygenated by sparging with
N2. 3,3-Dimethylbutyryl chloride (0.60 mL, 4.3 mmol) was
added to an addition funnel containing dry THF (25 mL), and the resultant
solution was then added slowly to the diaminopyridine solution over
the course of 1 h while stirring at 0 °C under N2.
Once the addition of the acid chloride was complete, the ice bath
was removed and the reaction was allowed to warm to room temperature
overnight while stirring under N2. The precipitate from
the reaction was filtered, and the resultant filtrate was concentrated
by rotary evaporation. The crude product was purified by column chromatography
(SiO2, EtOAc) to afford a solid (0.61 g, 69%). Mp = 113–114
°C. 1HNMR (300 MHz, CDCl3) δ: 7.77
(s, 1H), 7.59 (d, J = 8.0, 1H), 7.48 (t, J = 8.0, 1H), 6.28 (d, J = 7.5, 1H), 4.43
(s, 2H), 2.24 (s, 2H), 1.11 (s, 9H). 13C{1H}
NMR (125 MHz, CDCl3) δ: 170.3, 156.7, 149.4, 140.5,
104.2, 103.2, 51.7, 31.3, 29.9. HRMS (ESI-TOF) m/z: [M]+ calcd for [C11H17N3ONa]+, 230.1269; found 230.1275.
1a (0.20 g, 0.97 mmol) was
added to a round-bottom flask containing THF (75 mL). mCPBA (0.22, 1.3 mmol) was then added to the flask, and the reaction
was allowed to stir overnight at room temperature. The reaction mixture
was concentrated, and the residue was taken up in EtOAc and washed
3× with 75 mL of saturated K2CO3. The organic
layer was concentrated using a rotary evaporator to yield the product
as a yellow solid (0.18 g, 84%). Mp = 119–120 °C. 1HNMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ: 9.95 (s, 1H), 7.78
(d, J = 8.5, 1H), 7.19 (t, J = 8.5,
1H), 6.48 (d, J = 8.0, 1H), 5.77 (s, 2H), 2.40 (s,
2H), 1.12 (s, 9H). 13C{1H} NMR (125 MHz, CDCl3) δ: 170.7, 148.6, 142.5, 130.1, 102.7, 102.1, 51.6,
31.3, 29.8. HRMS (ESI-TOF) m/z:
[M]+ calcd for [C11H18N3O2]+, 224.1399; found 224.1401.
A round-bottom flask was charged with dry
THF (30 mL), 1a (114.5 mg, 0.55 mmol), and NEt3 (0.12 mL, 0.83 mmol). The flask was then lowered into an ice bath
and deoxygenated by sparging with N2. Benzoyl chloride
(70 μL, 0.61 mmol) was added to an addition funnel containing
dry THF (10 mL), and the resultant acid chloride solution was then
slowly added to the diaminopyridine solution while stirring in the
ice bath under N2. Once the addition of the acid chloride
was complete, the ice bath was removed and the reaction was allowed
to warm to room temperature overnight while stirring under N2. The reaction was concentrated by rotary evaporation, and the crude
product was taken up in EtOAc and washed 3× with 1 M NaOH. The
organic layer was kept and concentrated under vacuum to afford the
product as a white solid (0.15 g, 87%). Mp = 140–141 °C. 1HNMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ: 8.34 (s, 1H), 8.08
(d, J = 8.0, 1H), 7.99 (d, J = 8.0,
1H), 7.90 (d, J = 7.5, 2H), 7.78–7.73 (m,
2H), 7.58 (t, J = 7.5, 1H), 7.51 (d, J = 8.0, 2H), 2.26 (s, 2H), 1.12 (s, 9H). 13C{1H} NMR (125 MHz, CDCl3) δ: 170.3, 165.4, 149.6,
140.9, 134.2, 132.3, 128.9, 127.1, 109.7, 109.6, 51.8, 31.4, 29.8.
HRMS (ESI-TOF) m/z: [M]+ calcd for [C18H21N3O2Na]+, 334.1531; found 334.1532.
Disubstituted diaminopyridine 2c was prepared according to the general procedure outlined for 2a with the following quantities: 4-cyanobenzoyl chloride
(228 mg, 1.38 mmol) in THF (10 mL) was added slowly to 1a (238 mg, 1.15 mmol) and triethylamine (0.32 mL, 2.29 mmol) in THF
(40 mL). The solvent was removed, and the residue was purified by
column chromatography (SiO2, 1:1 EtOAc/hexanes) to afford
a white crystalline solid (0.31 g, 80%). Mp = 202–203 °C. 1HNMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ: 8.27 (s, 1H), 8.07–8.02
(m, 4H), 7.85–7.79 (m, 3H), 7.55 (s, 1H), 2.28 (s, 2H), 1.13
(s, 9H). 13C{1H} NMR (125 MHz, CDCl3) δ: 170.3, 163.6, 149.6, 148.9, 141.2, 138.1, 132.7, 127.8,
117.8, 115.9, 110.3, 109.7, 51.8, 31.4, 29.8. HRMS (ESI-TOF) m/z: [M]+ calcd for [C19H20N4O2Na]+, 359.1484;
found 359.1499.
The disubstituted diaminopyridine 2d was prepared according to the general procedure outlined
for 2a with the following quantities: 4-nitrobenzoic
acid was stirred in thionyl chloride (3 mL) overnight at 65 °C.
The thionyl chloride was removed, and the residue was taken up in
THF (10 mL) and was then added slowly to 1a (126.6 mg,
0.61 mmol) and NEt3 (0.17 mL, 1.22 mmol) in THF (30 mL).
The solvent was removed, and the residue was purified by column chromatography
(SiO2, 1:1 EtOAc/hexanes) to afford a white crystalline
solid (0.20 g, 84%). Mp = 162–163 °C. 1HNMR
(500 MHz, CDCl3) δ: 8.38 (d, J =
9.0, 2H), 8.10 (d, J = 8.5, 2H), 8.07–8.02
(m, 2H), 7.81 (t, J = 8.0, 1H), 7.61 (s, 2H), 2.29
(s, 2H), 1.14 (s, 9H). 13C{1H} NMR (125 MHz,
CDCl3) δ: 170.4, 163.5, 150.0, 149.6, 148.9, 141.2,
139.6, 128.4, 124.1, 110.3, 109.7, 51.8, 31.4, 29.8. HRMS (ESI-TOF) m/z: [M]+ calcd for [C20H27N4O2]+, 355.2134;
found 355.2123.
Disubstituted diaminopyridine 2e was prepared according to the general procedure outlined for 2a with the following quantities: p-tolulic
acid was stirred in thionyl chloride (3 mL) overnight at 65 °C.
The thionyl chloride was then removed under vacuum, and the residue
taken up in THF (10 mL) and was then added slowly to 1a (160.1 mg, 0.77 mmol) and triethylamine (0.22 mL, 1.54 mmol) in
THF (30 mL). The solvent was removed, and the residue was purified
by column chromatography (SiO2, 1:1 EtOAc/hexanes) to afford
a white crystalline solid (0.22 g, 81%). Mp = 159–161 °C. 1HNMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ: 8.28 (s, 1H), 8.09
(d, J = 8.5, 1H), 7.98 (d, J = 7.5,
1H), 7.83 (d, J = 8.0, 2H), 7.78 (t, J = 8.0, 1H), 7.60 (s, 1H), 7.32 (d, J = 8.0, 2H),
2.46 (s, 3H), 2.28 (s, 2H), 1.14 (s, 9H). 13C{1H} NMR (125 MHz, CDCl3) δ: 170.3, 165.5, 149.6,
149.3, 143.0, 141.1, 131.3, 129.6, 127.1, 109.6, 109.5, 51.8, 31.4,
29.8, 21.6. HRMS (ESI-TOF) m/z:
[M]+ calcd for [C19H24N3O2]+, 326.1869; found 326.1877.
Authors: Gary A Weisman; Jean M Camden; Troy S Peterson; Deepa Ajit; Lucas T Woods; Laurie Erb Journal: Mol Neurobiol Date: 2012-04-01 Impact factor: 5.590
Authors: Adam Gooch; Andrea M McGhee; Maria L Pellizzaro; Christopher I Lindsay; Andrew J Wilson Journal: Org Lett Date: 2010-12-14 Impact factor: 6.005
Authors: Hazel A Fargher; Nathanael Lau; H Camille Richardson; Paul Ha-Yeon Cheong; Michael M Haley; Michael D Pluth; Darren W Johnson Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Blakely W Tresca; Ryan J Hansen; Calvin V Chau; Benjamin P Hay; Lev N Zakharov; Michael M Haley; Darren W Johnson Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 15.419