Doris E Braun1, Maria Orlova2, Ulrich J Griesser1. 1. Institute of Pharmacy, University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52c, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria. 2. Institute of Mineralogy and Petrography, University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52f, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Abstract
Hydrate and anhydrate crystal structure prediction (CSP) of creatine (CTN), a heavily used, badly water soluble, zwitterionic compound, has enabled the finding and characterization of its anhydrate polymorphs, including the thermodynamic room temperature form. Crystal structures of the novel forms were determined by combining laboratory powder X-ray diffraction data and ab initio generated structures. The computational method not only revealed all experimental forms but predicted the correct stability order, which was experimentally confirmed by measurements of the heat of hydration.
Hydrate and anhydrate crystal structure prediction (CSP) of creatine (CTN), a heavily used, badly water soluble, zwitterionic compound, has enabled the finding and characterization of its anhydrate polymorphs, including the thermodynamic room temperature form. Crystal structures of the novel forms were determined by combining laboratory powder X-ray diffraction data and ab initio generated structures. The computational method not only revealed all experimental forms but predicted the correct stability order, which was experimentally confirmed by measurements of the heat of hydration.
Identifying and understanding
the polymorphic behavior, including hydrate and solvate formation,
is a key concern in the pharmaceutical and any other fine-chemical
industries. This is because different solid forms can show variations
in their physical properties, such as density, solubility, dissolution
rate, hardness, melting point, mechanical strengths, chemical stability,
and so forth, and thus influence manufacturing, long-term stability,
and performance of the product.[1] Therefore,
it is essential to search for practically relevant solid forms by
varying the critical parameters that influence the occurrence of different
forms, such as temperature, pressure, moisture, and the solvent of
crystallization (including water activity). Moreover, it is important
to examine the kinetics and thermodynamic stabilities of the crystal
forms and to establish the most important transformation pathways.
The knowledge of the crystal structures is often the key to a better
understanding of the solid state phenomena.CTN (N-(aminoiminomethyl)-N-methyl
glycine) occurs naturally in vertebrates and is one of the most popular
dietary supplements with estimated $2.7 billion in annual (2009) sales
in the United States alone.[2a] The compound
is widely consumed by athletes of many sports disciplines since it
increases the formation of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and improves
the energy balance in muscles and also in the central nervous system.[2b] Though CTN was discovered already in 1832, clear
evidence for the existence of only two solid state forms, an anhydrate
(AH-A) and a monohydrate (MH), can be found
in the literature until 2013.[3] The crystal
structure of MH has been repeatedly determined either
from powder[4] or single crystal data (CSD
refcode[5] family: CREATH[6]). The AH-A structure was recently solved from
powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) data, supported by full ab initio
predictions.[7] During the finalization of
this manuscript, a report was published[8] which confirms that CTN is trimorphic and reports the structure
of one new anhydrate and the formic acid monosolvate.The insolubility
of CTN in most solvents other than water, the
fact that crystallization of CTN from aqueous solutions exclusively
yields MH,[7] and the thermal
decomposition to creatinine at a temperature above 230 °C[3a] drastically limit state of the art screens for
alternative solid state forms.[9] This may
be the main reason it took nearly 80 years to clearly confirm anhydrate
polymorphism.[10,11] These limitations restricted
our experimental options to slurry and dehydration studies, which
were complemented with a computational search methodology (crystal
structure prediction, CSP). Possible Z′ = 1 crystal structures
of CTN anhydrates and monohydrates were generated by searches for
low energy local minima on the lattice energy surface,[12] and the lattice energies were evaluated accurately
using dispersion corrected DFT calculations.[13] The structure of the known AH-A emerged as the third
in energy on the anhydrate crystal energy landscape (Figure 1a). The findings of the anhydrate crystal energy
landscape are in contrast to previously reported results,[7] which identified AH-A as the most
stable structure, but no alternative polymorphs within 11.8 kJ mol–1 of AH-A. However, our CSP results indicated
the existence of two additional anhydrates (Figure 1a).
Figure 1
CTN crystal energy landscape for (a) anhydrates and (b) monohydrates.
Each point denotes a computationally generated crystal structure.
Experimental structures are encircled and selected structures labeled
by their rank.
CTN crystal energy landscape for (a) anhydrates and (b) monohydrates.
Each point denotes a computationally generated crystal structure.
Experimental structures are encircled and selected structures labeled
by their rank.The limited, but tailored,
experimental solid form screen lead
to two novel CTN anhydrates, AH-B and AH-C°, which were also found in an automated parallel crystallization/slurry
screen published very recently.[8] AH-B (corresponding to form III in ref (8)) is obtained as the dominating
phase by fast dehydration of MH above the peritectic
temperature (>126 °C) and AH-C° (corresponding
to form I[8]) by slurring CTN in solvents
(mixtures) at a water activity ≤0.26 at 25 ± 5 °C.
These slurry experiments prove that AH-C° is the
thermodynamically stable form at room temperature (denoted with “°”).[14] Unfortunately, attempts to obtain single crystals
of AH-B and AH-C° failed. However,
the experimental PXRD patterns of the new forms indicate high crystallinity
and were compared to the simulated PXRD patterns of the calculated
low energy structures. The simulated patterns of the two lowest energy
structures are in excellent agreement with the experimental patterns
of the two novel anhydrates. Indexing[15] of the laboratory PXRD data resulted in comparable lattice parameters
and space group agreement. This allowed us to determine the AH-B and AH-C° structures using PXRD data and
the computationally generated structures as starting models for Rietveld
refinements (Figure S14 of the Supporting Information).[16] The global minimum structure in Figure 1a corresponds to AH-C° (I[8]). The second-lowest energy structure corresponds
to AH-B (III[8]).The
CTN molecule of AH-B (P21/n, Z′ = 1)[17a] and AH-C° (Pna21,
Z′ = 1)[17b] adopts a conformation
which is similar to those observed in AH-A and MH (see Section 8 of the Supporting Information). As the three CTN anhydrates differ solely in their packing arrangements,
they may be classified as “packing polymorphs”.[1c,18] The guanidinium C atom is essentially coplanar with the three N
atoms. Extensive hydrogen bonding of the amino groups results in nonplanar
NH2 groups, as confirmed by the PBE-D calculations. Each
of the four N–H groups acts as an H-bond donor and each of
the oxygen atoms as an H-bond acceptor for two N–H groups.
The packing analysis of the three lowest energy structures (Figure 2a–c) resulted in four distinct types of layers
with strongly N–H···O bound chain motifs (Figure 2d–f). Each of the chains involves either
a R22(8) or R22(14) ring motif.[19] The R22(14) chains show a 21 symmetry in AH-C° and inversion symmetry in AH-A and AH-B, whereas the R22(8) ring chain is generated by c-glide operation in AH-A and AH-C° and 21 operation in AH-B. PIXEL calculations
of pairwise energies[20] estimate the R22(14) motif as more stable than the R22(8) motif (−91.5
to −97 kJ mol–1 and −72 to −73.5
kJ mol–1, respectively). All three anhydrates share
the same 1D stacks of CTN molecules (Figure 2h); the polymorphic pair AH-A/AH-B shares
layer (iii) (Figure 2f), and AH-A/AH- layer (ii) (Figure 2e).[21] Alternative stacking
of the experimental layers, alternative chain motifs, or CTN conformations
would be geometrically possible, but result in high energy structures
as obtained in Figure 1a.
Figure 2
Structural comparisons
of CTN anhydrates: (a–c) Packing
diagrams of AH-A, AH-B, and AH-C°. (d–g) Layers (i–iv): layer (i) present in AH-C°, layer (ii) in AH-C° and AH-A, layer (iii) in AH-A and AH-B,
and layer (iv) in AH-B. (h) Stacking motif of CTN molecules
present in all structures. (j) CTN molecule. Selected symmetry operations
and graph sets are indicated in (d–g). Hydrogen atoms are omitted
for clarity.
Structural comparisons
of CTN anhydrates: (a–c) Packing
diagrams of AH-A, AH-B, and AH-C°. (d–g) Layers (i–iv): layer (i) present in AH-C°, layer (ii) in AH-C° and AH-A, layer (iii) in AH-A and AH-B,
and layer (iv) in AH-B. (h) Stacking motif of CTN molecules
present in all structures. (j) CTN molecule. Selected symmetry operations
and graph sets are indicated in (d–g). Hydrogen atoms are omitted
for clarity.The MH structure
was found to be the most stable structure
in the corresponding crystal energy landscape (Figure 1b). The calculations show that three hypothetical structures
(cMH2-cMH4) are thermodynamically
plausible polymorphs when the effects of thermal motion are neglected,
but structures cMH2 and cMH4 show
sufficient structural similarity to the known monohydrate, making
them unlikely to be observed (Section 5 of the Supporting Information). However, the structure of cMH3 is clearly different to MH, cMH2, and cMH4. The water molecules are part of a R22(8) dimer, and therefore it cannot be ruled out that this metastable
form may be found one day. Its existence has not been established,
neither in the present study nor in that of ref (8), and it remains a challenge
to find suitable crystallization conditions and proof of the existence
of this form.The dehydration of MH below its peritectic
temperature
(Tdiss = 125.8 ± 0.5 °C) leads
exclusively to AH-A, which can be explained by the packing
similarity of MH and AH-A (Figure 3). The water in the structure leads to a widening
of the gap between every alternate layer (ii) construct from 2.22
to3.96 Å (planes formed by −CH3 carbons) and
causes a shift of adjacent double (ii) layers. The water molecules
form four strong hydrogen bonds, two to water and two to CTN molecules.
They are located in channels parallel to the b-axis
and adsorption/desorption can occur while maintaining the structural
layers of CTN molecules. The computationally generated hypothetical
isomorphic dehydrate structure (cMHdehy, Figure 3b) differs only slightly from AH-A in the stacking of double layer (ii) fragments, but by 11.6
kJ mol–1 in lattice energy due to long and less
favorable N–H···O interlayer distances. The
transformation from cMHdehy to MH-A is facile, making this intermediate unlikely to be experimentally
accessible. This may explain why MH dehydrates to a distinct
phase and not to an isomorphic desolvate (cMHdey).[22]
Figure 3
Packing comparison of
(a) MH,[6d] (b) cMHdehy, and (c) AH-A. Arrows and numbers
in Å are interlayer distances (planes formed
by −CH3 carbons). Hydrogen atoms are omitted for
clarity.
Packing comparison of
(a) MH,[6d] (b) cMHdehy, and (c) AH-A. Arrows and numbers
in Å are interlayer distances (planes formed
by −CH3 carbons). Hydrogen atoms are omitted for
clarity.A lower degree of similarity is
observed between MH/AH-B and MH/AH-C°. MH and AH-C° share a single layer (ii) construct,
and MH and AH-B layer (iii), but in the
case of MH, they are interspersed with water. Transformation
of MH to AH-B has been observed, but only
at temperatures higher than Tdiss of the MH, i.e., only by melting and recrystallization. Dehydration
to AH-C° has not been observed yet.Thermal
analysis of the three anhydrates did not indicate any thermal
event (e.g., a transformation) below 230 °C where the intramolecular
cyclization to creatinine occurs. Furthermore, no transformation of
the metastable AH-A and AH-B occurred during
storage of the samples at a relative humidity (RH) < 30% at 25,
40, and 60 °C for 8 months. However, all three anhydrates transform
to MH at elevated moisture conditions. The AH-A to MH transition occurs at RH > 35%, whereas AH-B and AH-C° transform at RH > 60%. The
back-transformation
of MH to AH-A occurs at RH < 20% RH (Figure 4a–d). Thus, only MH and AH-B and AH-C° are kinetically stable between
25% and 60% RH at 25 ± 5 °C, which is within the most common
room climate conditions. Water activity (aw) measurements in methanol/water mixtures (Figure S13 of the Supporting Information) revealed that the equilibrium
between AH-C° and MH is at aw = 0.27 (25 °C). Thus, anhydrous CTN only
crystallizes from solvents exhibiting aw < 0.27. At higher water activities MH will form.
Figure 4
Moisture
dependent hydration and dehydration reactions of CTN solid
forms. (a–d) Gravimetric moisture sorption/desorption isotherms
of CTN at 25 °C starting with (a) MH, (b) AH-A, (c) AH-B, and (d) AH-C°.
The gray circles represent data points recorded at equilibrium conditions,
and crosses mark measurements where equilibrium conditions have not
been reached within the set time limit of 48 h. The arrows indicate
the direction of the moisture changes, i.e., a sorption (increasing
RH) or desorption cycle (decreasing RH). Encircled arrows correspond
to the transformations measured with moisture dependent PXRD. Guinier
plots: (e) MH to AH-A, (f) AH-A to MH, (g) AH-B to MH, and
(h) AH-C° to MH. Red arrows mark the
starting point. Isothermal calorimetry: (i) MH to AH-A (80% to 0% RH in one step), (j) AH-A to MH, (k) AH-B to MH, and (l) AH-C° to MH (all 0% to 25% RH in one step and
25% to 80% in one step).
Moisture
dependent hydration and dehydration reactions of CTN solid
forms. (a–d) Gravimetric moisture sorption/desorption isotherms
of CTN at 25 °C starting with (a) MH, (b) AH-A, (c) AH-B, and (d) AH-C°.
The gray circles represent data points recorded at equilibrium conditions,
and crosses mark measurements where equilibrium conditions have not
been reached within the set time limit of 48 h. The arrows indicate
the direction of the moisture changes, i.e., a sorption (increasing
RH) or desorption cycle (decreasing RH). Encircled arrows correspond
to the transformations measured with moisture dependent PXRD. Guinier
plots: (e) MH to AH-A, (f) AH-A to MH, (g) AH-B to MH, and
(h) AH-C° to MH. Red arrows mark the
starting point. Isothermal calorimetry: (i) MH to AH-A (80% to 0% RH in one step), (j) AH-A to MH, (k) AH-B to MH, and (l) AH-C° to MH (all 0% to 25% RH in one step and
25% to 80% in one step).Due to the thermal decomposition it was not possible to measure
the heat of fusion of the three anhydrates with differential scanning
calorimetry (DSC) and consequently to derive their thermodynamic stability
order from these phase transition enthalpies. However, by measuring
the heat of hydration of the anhydrous state to MH, ΔhyHAH-MH with isothermal
calorimetry using the RH perfusion technique (Figure 4i–l, Table 1) we were able to
experimentally determine the enthalpy differences between the three
anhydrates to be −1.8 kJ mol–1 (AH-A → AH-C°) and −0.9 (AH-B→ AH-C°) kJ mol–1 (see Section 9 of the Supporting Information). Hydration to a specific hydrate is more energetic (exothermic)
for a less stable form,[23] resulting in
the stability order AH-C° (most stable) > AH-B > AH-A (least stable) for the CTN polymorphs.
The calculated lattice energy differences corroborate this stability
order and reinforce that the energy differences between the polymorphs
are fairly small, and finally confirm that hydrate formation is driven
by greater potential energy.
Table 1
Thermodynamic Data
and Lattice Energies
Based on Periodic PBE-D Calculations for CTN Anhydrates and Monohydrate
Energya
AH-A
AH-B
AH-C°
MH
Isothermal Calorimetry,
25 °C
ΔhyH/kJ mol–1
–53.5 ± 0.1 (A→MH)
–52.6 ± 0.1 (B→MH)
–51.7 ± 0.1 (C°→MH)
–
ΔdehyH/kJ mol–1
–
–
–
53.4 ± 0.1 (MH→A)
Differential Scanning
Calorimetry, 95 °C
ΔdehyH/kJ mol–1
–
–
–
51.1 ± 0.5 (MH→A)
Lattice Energy
Calculations, −273.15 °C
Elatt/kJ mol–1
–266.6
–266.9
–267.9
–340.5
ΔhyH – enthalpy of hydration, ΔdehyH – enthalpy of dehydration, Elatt – lattice energy.
ΔhyH – enthalpy of hydration, ΔdehyH – enthalpy of dehydration, Elatt – lattice energy.Over 180 years after the discovery of CTN its thermodynamically
stable polymorph at room temperature has been predicted and experimentally
verified (independently by two groups[8]).
The new anhydrates (AH-B, AH-C°) can
be expected to show a higher solubility than the hydrate and it was
found that they exhibit a higher hydration stability than the known
anhydrous form (AH-A). These advantages could be beneficial
for increasing the dissolution rate and may also lead toward a potential
strategy to improve the limited bioavailability of CTN. However, the
problem with compounds forming a very stable hydrate may be a fast
transformation kinetics of the anhydrous form/s to this hydrate. If
the hydrate formation is much faster than the dissolution process
of the anhydrate, there is no benefit in using a more soluble anhydrate.
For CTN anhydrates we observed a fast transformation to the hydrate
in water, and we therefore suspect that the liberation from a tablet
or capsule formulation is not considerably improved by using any of
the anhydrous forms instead of the stable hydrate. A combined CSP/laboratory
PXRD approach[7,24] allowed us to determine the crystal
structures of the two new anhydrates. CSP complemented the experimental
understanding of the system by giving valuable insight into the likely
packing possibilities and energies by providing the set of low energy
structures.[25] The measurement of the heat
of hydration with RH-perfusion calorimetry has been proven a successful
method for deriving energy differences between polymorphs. This approach
is particularly valuable for a hydrate forming system for which no
fusion data can be determined with DSC because of thermal decomposition.
Hence, this combination of analytical and theoretical methods can
help us overcome the problems encountered in solid form screening,
processing, handling, and storage of (polymorphic) fine-chemicals.
Authors: Sarah L Price; Maurice Leslie; Gareth W A Welch; Matthew Habgood; Louise S Price; Panagiotis G Karamertzanis; Graeme M Day Journal: Phys Chem Chem Phys Date: 2010-07-07 Impact factor: 3.676
Authors: Doris E Braun; Karol P Nartowski; Yaroslav Z Khimyak; Kenneth R Morris; Stephen R Byrn; Ulrich J Griesser Journal: Mol Pharm Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 4.939