Victor N Khrustalev1, Bhupinder Sandhu2, Samuel Bentum2, Alexandr Fonari2, Arcadius V Krivoshein3, Tatiana V Timofeeva2. 1. Department of Biology & Chemistry, New Mexico Highlands University, 803 University Avenue, Las Vegas, New Mexico 87701, United States; A. N. Nesmeyanov Institute of Organoelement Compounds, Russian Academy of Sciences, 28 Vavilov Street, B-334, Moscow 119991, Russian Federation. 2. Department of Biology & Chemistry, New Mexico Highlands University , 803 University Avenue, Las Vegas, New Mexico 87701, United States. 3. Department of Biology & Chemistry, New Mexico Highlands University, 803 University Avenue, Las Vegas, New Mexico 87701, United States; Department of Basic & Social Sciences, Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 106 New Scotland Avenue, Albany, New York 12208, United States.
Abstract
Crystal structures of racemic and homochiral forms of 2-phenylbutyramide (1) and 3-methyl-3-phenylpyrrolidine-2,5-dione (2) were investigated in detail by a single crystal X-ray diffraction study. Absolute configurations of the homochiral forms of 1 and 2, obtained by chromatographic separation of racemates, were determined. It was revealed that racemate and homochiral forms of 1 are very similar in terms of supramolecular organization (H-bonded ribbons) in crystal, infrared (IR) spectral characteristics, and melting points. The presence of two different molecular conformations in homochiral forms of 1 allowed mimicking of crystal packing of the H-bonded ribbons in racemate 1. Two polymorph modifications (monoclinic and orthorhombic) comprising very similar H-bonded zigzag-like chains were found for the homochiral forms of compound 2 that were significantly different in terms of crystal structure, IR spectra, and melting points from the racemic form of 2. Unlike compound 1, homochiral forms of compound 2 have a higher density than the corresponding racemate which contradicts the Wallach rule and indicates that, in this case, homochiral forms are more stable than racemate forms.
Crystal structures of racemic and homochiral forms of 2-phenylbutyramide (1) and 3-methyl-3-phenylpyrrolidine-2,5-dione (2) were investigated in detail by a single crystal X-ray diffraction study. Absolute configurations of the homochiral forms of 1 and 2, obtained by chromatographic separation of racemates, were determined. It was revealed that racemate and homochiral forms of 1 are very similar in terms of supramolecular organization (H-bonded ribbons) in crystal, infrared (IR) spectral characteristics, and melting points. The presence of two different molecular conformations in homochiral forms of 1 allowed mimicking of crystal packing of the H-bonded ribbons in racemate 1. Two polymorph modifications (monoclinic and orthorhombic) comprising very similar H-bonded zigzag-like chains were found for the homochiral forms of compound 2 that were significantly different in terms of crystal structure, IR spectra, and melting points from the racemic form of 2. Unlike compound 1, homochiral forms of compound 2 have a higher density than the corresponding racemate which contradicts the Wallach rule and indicates that, in this case, homochiral forms are more stable than racemate forms.
It is universally recognized
that shape of a molecule, or a molecule’s
spatial structure, plays a key role in determining its physiological
and pharmacological properties. The chiral nature of all living organisms
suggests that the most suitable forms of drugs for organisms might
be not the racemic form of an active compound (a mixture of equal
quantities of two molecules that are mirror images of one another)
but rather one of its chiral forms. Significant attention to this
problem was raised by the thalidomide tragedy in late 50s to early
60s of the 20th century, when the racemic form of thalidomide was
marketed as a sedative and antinausea treatment for pregnant women.
Soon after the beginning of thalidomide usage, it was found that this
drug produced embryotoxic and teratogenic effects.[1−3] At that time,
these effects were believed to be related to only one form of thalidomide,
its (S)-(−)-enantiomer.[4] However, since thalidomide undergoes fast racemization
under physiological conditions,[5] administration
of only the (R)-(+)-enantiomer most probably would
not help to avoid those tragic consequences. Nevertheless, these events
attracted significant attention to the separation of enantiomers,
testing of their bioactivity, and estimation of their absolute configuration
using X-ray diffraction method.[6,7]Recently, the attention of our research groups was aroused
toward
crystallographic studies of compounds with anticonvulsant activity.
The thalidomide story and examples of stereoselective pharmacological
activity clearly demonstrate that enantiomeric composition and relation
of molecular absolute configuration to its bioactivity need to be
taken into account for all established or prospective chiral pharmaceuticals.We have recently discovered that α-substituted lactams, succinimides,
and carboxamides inhibit the function of the neuronal acetylcholine
receptor (nAChR) in vitro with a potency that correlates
with their ability to prevent maximal electroshock (MES)-induced seizures in vivo.[8] One of the simplest
compounds that inhibit the receptor is 2-phenylbutyramide (1, Scheme 1). It shows promising antiepileptic
activity in several rodent models of epilepsy.[8] Another compound that inhibits the receptor is α-methyl-α-phenylsuccinimide
(2, Scheme 1), which is the pharmacologically
active, N-demethylated metabolite of a well-known antiepileptic drug
methsuximide.[9] Methsuximide marketed under
the trade name of Celontin by Pfizer and is considered to be a safe
and effective antiepileptic drug.[10,11] Both 1 and 2 are chiral, and we recently reported
chromatographic resolution and pharmacological testing of (+) and
(−) enantiomers of these drugs.[12] To the best of our knowledge, no polymorphic modifications have
been reported for either 1 or 2.
Scheme 1
The main goal of the presented project was a detailed
characterization
of all racemic and enantiomeric forms of mentioned compounds with
the single crystal X-ray diffraction method and discussion of the
relationship of their molecular and crystal structure to the physicochemical
properties of different forms of compounds 1 and 2. The following notations are used for the studied compounds:
2-phenylbutyramide 1, α-methyl-α-phenylsuccinimide 2, their racemic forms are called rac-1 and rac-2; after racemic
forms have been separated we call them in accordance with an order
of eluted fractions 1a and 2a, and 1b and 2b, respectively. The enantiomeric forms
characterized with X-ray analysis in accordance with their stereochemistry
are called R or S, and in accordance
with their optical activity are called + (plus) or – (minus).
In the case of a polymorphic compound a name of singony was added
to the corresponding notation.
Materials and Methods
Chemicals
2-Phenylbutyramide and α-methyl-α-phenylsuccinimide
(3-methyl-3-phenylpyrrolidine-2,5-dione) were purchased from Alfa
Aesar and Sigma-Aldrich, respectively. Acetonitrile and methanol (Omnisolv,
gradient grade), hexanes, and acetone were obtained from EM Science.
Ultrapure (18.2 MOhm) water was produced in-house using Barnstead
NANOpure Diamond system (Thermo Scientific).
Chiral Liquid Chromatography
Resolution of enantiomers
of 1 and 2 was performed by chiral high-performance
liquid chromatography (HPLC) in reversed phase mode. Briefly, enantiomers
of 1 were separated on Chiracel OD stationary phase,
and enantiomers of 2 on Chiracel OJ stationary phase
(both from Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd.) using gradients of MeOH
in H2O. Collected fractions were dried in vacuo to give powder materials used in the experiments described in this
paper. On the basis of analytical chiral HPLC, the enantiomeric purify
of enantiomers of 1 thus prepared was 93–95%,
and enantiomeric purity of enantiomers of 2, due to the
better resolution achieved in preparative chromatography, was 96–98%.
X-ray Single Crystal Structure Analysis
Data were collected
on a Bruker APEX-II CCD diffractometer (graphite monochromator, ω
and φ scan mode) and corrected for absorption.[13] For details of experiments and structure solution, see
Tables 1 and 2. The
structures were determined by direct methods and refined by a full-matrix
least-squares technique on F2 with the
anisotropic displacement parameters for non-hydrogen atoms. For the
enantiomers of 2, the absolute configurations were reliably
determined by the refinement of Flack parameters[14] and confirmed by calculations of Hooft parameters[15] (Tables 1 and 2). For (R)-1 and (S)-1, it was impossible to calculate the Hooft
parameters because of an insufficient number of the measured Friedel
pairs, and thus only the Flack parameters were used. The hydrogen
atoms of the amino groups were localized in the difference Fourier
maps and included into refinement with fixed isotropic displacement
parameters (Uiso(H) = 1.2Ueq(N)), except for compound rac-2, in which the positional parameters of these atoms were
also fixed. The other hydrogen atoms were placed in calculated positions
and refined in riding model with fixed isotropic displacement parameters
(Uiso(H) = 1.5Ueq(C) for the CH3-groups and Uiso(H) = 1.2Ueq(C) for the other groups).
All calculations were carried out by use of the SHELXTL program package.[16] Crystallographic data have been deposited with
the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center, CCDC 938765–938772.
Copies of this information may be obtained free of charge from the
Director, CCDC, 12 Union Road, Cambridge CB2 1EZ, UK (Fax: +44 1223
336033; e-mail: deposit@ccdc.cam.ac.uk or www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk).
Table 1
Crystallographic Data for Compound 1
compound
rac-1
(R)-1
(S)-1
empirical formula
C10H13NO
C10H13NO
C10H13NO
fw
163.21
163.21
163.21
radiation
Mo Kα
Cu Kα
Cu Kα
temperature (K)
100
100
100
cryst size (mm)
0.30 × 0.18 × 0.15
0.44 × 0.10 × 0.08
0.28 × 0.24 × 0.04
cryst syst
monoclinic
triclinic
triclinic
space group
C2/c
P1
P1
a (Å)
24.197(2)
5.1916(1)
5.1941(1)
b (Å)
5.1143(3)
9.4525(2)
9.4531(1)
c (Å)
17.669(1)
10.0367(2)
10.0232(1)
α (deg)
90
96.326(1)
96.343(1)
β (deg)
121.267(1)
102.938(1)
102.945(1)
γ (deg)
90
104.998(1)
104.938(1)
V (Å3)
1869.0(2)
456.23(2)
455.97(1)
Z
8
2
2
dc (g cm–3)
1.160
1.188
1.189
F(000)
704
176
176
μ (mm–1)
0.075
0.607
0.607
θ range (deg)
1.97–30.00
4.59–69.99
4.60–70.00
index range
–33 ≤ h ≤ 34
–6 ≤ h ≤ 6
–6 ≤ h ≤ 6
–7 ≤ k ≤ 7
–11 ≤ k ≤ 11
–11 ≤ k ≤ 11
–24 ≤ l ≤ 24
–10 ≤ l ≤ 12
–12 ≤ l ≤ 12
reflections collected
11537
11121
10827
reflections unique/Rint
2717/0.026
3010/0.038
2980/0.022
reflections with I > 2σ(I)
2181
2991
2955
R1/wR2 (I > 2σ(I))
0.0412/0.1123
0.0321/0.0815
0.0288/0.0750
R1/wR2 (all data)
0.0530/0.1185
0.0323/0.0818
0.0290/0.0755
data/parameters
2717/116
3010/231
2980/231
GOF on F2
1.001
1.000
1.001
Flack/Hooft
parameters
not appl
0.24(19)/—
0.09(18)/—
no. of Bijvoet pairs
1315 (76%)
1286 (74%)
largest
diff peak/hole (e·Å–3)
0.356/–0.185
0.121/–0.171
0.172/–0.175
abs cor Tmax; Tmin
0.989; 0.978
0.953; 0.776
0.976; 0.848
Table 2
Crystallographic Data for Compound 2
compound
rac-2
(R)-2m
(S)-2m
(R)-2o
(S)-2o
empirical formula
C11H11NO2
C11H11NO2
C11H11NO2
C11H11NO2
C11H11NO2
fw
189.21
189.21
189.21
189.21
189.21
radiation
Mo Kα
Cu Kα
Cu Kα
Cu Kα
Cu Kα
temperature (K)
296
100
100
100
100
cryst size (mm)
0.30 × 0.20 × 0.20
0.30 × 0.25 × 0.20
0.30 × 0.20 × 0.20
0.30 × 0.24 × 0.21
0.35 × 0.30 × 0.25
cryst syst
monoclinic
monoclinic
monoclinic
orthorhombic
orthorhombic
space group
P21/c
P21
P21
P212121
P212121
a (Å)
7.3699(9)
6.70721(7)
6.7076(5)
6.7078(1)
6.7089(1)
b (Å)
22.592(3)
7.01427(7)
7.0112(5)
7.1693(1)
7.1714(1)
c (Å)
11.7988(15)
10.0182(1)
10.0210(7)
19.0492(3)
19.0480(2)
α (deg)
90
90
90
90
90
β (deg)
90.308(2)
102.6398(3)
102.635(2)
90
90
γ (deg)
90
90
90
90
90
V (Å3)
1964.5(4)
459.895(9)
459.86(6)
916.08(2)
916.44(2)
Z
8
2
2
4
4
dc (g cm–3)
1.280
1.366
1.366
1.372
1.371
F(000)
800
200
200
400
400
μ (mm–1)
0.089
0.773
0.773
0.776
0.776
θ range (deg)
0.90–30.00
4.52–72.12
4.52–69.94
4.64–71.98
4.64–71.95
index range
–10 ≤ h ≤ 10
–8 ≤ h ≤ 8
–8 ≤ h ≤ 7
–8 ≤ h ≤ 8
–7 ≤ h ≤ 8
–31 ≤ k ≤ 31
–8 ≤ k ≤ 6
–8 ≤ k ≤ 8
–8 ≤ k ≤ 8
–8 ≤ k ≤ 8
–16 ≤ l ≤ 16
–12 ≤ l ≤ 12
–12 ≤ l ≤ 12
–23 ≤ l ≤ 23
–23 ≤ l ≤ 23
reflections collected
25061
8828
13074
16767
22269
reflections unique/Rint
5725/0.022
1631/0.024
1696/0.035
1793/0.035
1797/0.027
reflections with I > 2σ(I)
4559
1631
1696
1792
1795
R1/wR2 (I > 2σ(I))
0.0490/0.1314
0.0266/0.0686
0.0257/0.0688
0.0258/0.0647
0.0249/0.0624
R1/wR2 (all data)
0.0637/0.1406
0.0266/0.0686
0.0257/0.0688
0.0258/0.0647
0.0250/0.0624
data/parameters
5725/256
1631/132
1696/132
1793/132
1797/132
GOF on F2
1.002
1.006
1.002
1.002
1.002
Flack/Hooft parameters
not appl
0.00(19)/0.07(4)
0.17(18)/0.11(4)
0.06(20)/0.01(4)
0.05(19)/0.05(2)
No. of Bijvoet pairs
663 (80%)
754 (95%)
718 (99%)
719 (99%)
largest
diff peak/hole (e·Å–3)
0.251/–0.210
0.195/–0.137
0.187/–0.130
0.188/–0.141
0.186/–0.134
abs
cor Tmax; Tmin
0.982; 0.974
0.861; 0.801
0.861; 0.801
0.854;
0.801
0.830; 0.773
IR Spectroscopy, CD Spectroscopy, and Melting Point Determination
Powder infrared (IR) spectra of finely grounded crystals were recorded
in attenuated total reflection (ATR) mode at room temperature (22
°C) on Magna-IR 550 FT-IR spectrometer (Thermo Nicolet) with
the Linear Baseline Correction.Far-UV (200–280 nm) circular
dichroism (CD) spectra of 1-mM solutions of 1 and 2 in AcCN/H2O (1:1) were recorded on a model 420
CD spectrometer (Aviv Biomedical, Lakewood, NJ) in a 0.1 cm path length
quartz optical cell. A 2 nm spectral bandwidth was used, and three
or five scans were collected and averaged for each sample. The optical
bench was purged with dry N2.Melting points were
measured on OptiMelt automated melting point
system (Stanford Research Systems Ltd.) controlled by MeltView software
version V.1.107. Heating rate of 1 °C/min was used, and the detection
thresholds were set as follows: 10% for clear point, 50% for single
(meniscus) point, and 70% for onset point.
Results and Discussion
Chromatographic
Resolution, Relative Configuration, and Crystallization
of 1 and 2
Enantiomers of compounds 1 and 2 were resolved by chiral reversed phase
HPLC (see Materials and Methods). Far-UV CD
spectra of enantiomers of 1 (Figure 1a) show a positive Cotton effect around 225 nm for the enantiomer
that elutes first, and a negative Cotton effect for the enantiomer
that elutes second. Far-UV CD spectra of enantiomers of 2 (Figure 1b) are more complex: the enantiomer
that elutes first has a positive Cotton effect around 220 nm and a
negative one around 250 nm, while the enantiomer that elutes second
has opposite signs of the Cotton effects. Thus, for both compounds
(+) enantiomers elute first, and (−) enantiomers second. This
is in accordance with our polarimetry data. Far-UV (200–300
nm) CD spectrum of (−)-2 in AcCN/H2O (1:1) (Figure 1b) closely resembles the
far-UV (210–280 nm) spectrum of this enantiomer in MeOH previously
reported by Knabe and Koch.[17]
Figure 1
Far-UV CD spectra
of enantiomers of 1 (a) and 2 (b) in AcCN/H2O (1:1).
Far-UV CD spectra
of enantiomers of 1 (a) and 2 (b) in AcCN/H2O (1:1).After trying several
different crystallization conditions, we found
that crystals of racemic and homochiral forms of 1 and 2 grown from either 40 mg/mL solutions in AcCN/H2O (1:1) at 4 °C or 15 mg/mL solutions in hexanes/acetone (2:1)
at 22 °C are of a quality well suitable for single-crystal X-ray
diffraction crystallography.
Molecular and Crystal Structures
The structures of both racemic and enantiomerically pure compounds 1 and 2 obtained by chiral chromatography separations
have been investigated by X-ray diffraction analysis. The absolute
configurations of enantiomers have been established based on the anomalous
dispersion effects observed with Cu Kα radiation. Because the
presence of only one or two oxygen atoms in compounds 1 and 2, we have carried out the experimental X-ray diffraction
studies for both enantiomers of each compound to get more indicative
values of Flack parameters. Evidently, the structures of (R)- and (S)-enantiomers of the same compound
are mirror images of each other. Therefore, only (R)-enantiomers of 1 and 2 are described
below (for full X-ray data of the (S)-enantiomers
of 1 and 2, see Supporting
Information).The molecular structures of (R)-1 and rac-1 are shown
in Figure 2 along with the atomic numbering
schemes. Enantiomer
(R)-1 crystallizes in the triclinic
space group P1 with the two crystallographically
independent molecules representing different conformers A and B (Figure 1b). The conformers A and B are distinguished by rotation of the
amide group around the C1–C2 bond (the N1–C1–C2–C3
torsion angles are 32.26(18) and −144.08(13)°, in conformers A and B respectively). A superposition of two
conformers shown in Figure 3 demonstrates significant
difference between them attributed to rotation of amide group by ∼180°
around the C1–C2 bond. Unlike (R)-1, rac-1 crystallizes in the monoclinic
space group C2/c and consists of
the only A conformers (the N1–C1–C2–C3 torsion
angle is −130.06(9)°). The geometrical parameters of molecules
(R)-1 and rac-1 are very similar and are in good agreement with those found
in the literature.
Figure 2
Molecular structures of (a) rac-1 (conformer A) and (b) (R)1 (the two crystallographically
independent molecules–conformers A and B distinguishing by rotation of the 1-phenylpropyl substituent about
the C1–C2 bond).
Figure 3
Superposition of conformers A and B in
enantiomeric form (R)1.
Molecular structures of (a) rac-1 (conformer A) and (b) (R)1 (the two crystallographically
independent molecules–conformers A and B distinguishing by rotation of the 1-phenylpropyl substituent about
the C1–C2 bond).Superposition of conformers A and B in
enantiomeric form (R)1.The molecule of 1 contains one hydrogen-bond acceptor
and two donor sites. In order to satisfy condition of H-bonds formation
by all potential hydrogen-bonding acceptors and donors, each carbonyl
group should act as a bifurcated hydrogen-bond acceptor, and both
hydrogen atoms of each amide groups should act as hydrogen-bond donors.
As a result, the molecules (R)-1 and rac-1 produce very similar crystal structures
despite the differences in molecular structures. The presence of two
conformers in (R)1 also helps to satisfy this condition. Thus, in the crystals
of both (R)-1 and rac-1, there are the infinite ribbons built via the N–H···O
hydrogen bonds (Figure 4, Table 3). The ribbons in (R)-1 are
chiral and are composed of both conformers A and B (Figure 4b), whereas the ribbons
in rac-1 are centrosymmetric (Figure 4a). The amide groups within the chains are practically
coplanar, and the bulk phenyl substituents are arranged in anti-position
relative to the acetamide fragment plane. The infinite ribbons are
further packed in similar parquet pattern in both
(R)-1 and rac-1 structures (Figure 5). It is interesting
to note that the analogous H-bonded ribbons are also formed in the
crystals of other related amides.[18,19] Similarity
of hydrogen bonds characteristics and molecular packings for (R)-1 and rac-1 suggests that their physicochemical properties might be similar
as well. This is supported by the close similarity of IR spectral
characteristics of racemic and enantiomeric forms and by very close
values of melting points for all forms of 1.
Figure 4
Infinite H-bonded
ribbons in (a) rac-1 (centrosymmetric)
and (b) (R)-1 (chiral).
Table 3
Intermolecular N–H···O
Hydrogen Bonds (Å and deg) in 1 and 2
Da–H···Aa
d(D–H)
d(H···A)
d(D···A)
∠(D–H···A)
rac-1
N1–H1A···O1 [x, −1+y, z]
0.888(16)
2.067(15)
2.8797(11)
151.8(14)
N1–H1B···O1 [1/2–x, 3/2–y, 1–z]
0.896(19)
2.042(19)
2.9335(14)
173.2(13)
(R)-1
N1–H1A···O1A
0.84(2)
2.05(2)
2.8882(16)
175(2)
N1–H1B···O1 [−1+x, y, z]
0.84(2)
2.19(2)
2.9591(16)
152(2)
N1A–H1C···O1A [1+x, y, z]
0.88(2)
2.16(2)
2.9497(15)
150(2)
N1A–H1D···O1
0.89(2)
2.07(2)
2.9581(17)
178(2)
rac-2
N1A–H1A···O2B [x, y, −1+z]
0.86
1.97
2.823(2)
170
N1B–H1B···O2A [1+x, y, 1+z]
0.86
2.04
2.862(2)
160
(R)-2m
N1–H1A···O2 [−x, −1/2+y, 2–z]
0.864(19)
1.961(16)
2.8241(15)
176(2)
(R)-2o
N1–H1···O2 [−x, 1/2+y, 3/2–z]
0.916(14)
1.933(14)
2.8374(14)
168.99(14)
D – proton donor, A –
proton acceptor.
Figure 5
Crystal packing of the H-bonded ribbons in (a) rac-1 (along the b axis)
and (b) (R)-1 (along
the a-axis). The dashed lines indicate the intermolecular
N–H···O hydrogen bonds.
Infinite H-bonded
ribbons in (a) rac-1 (centrosymmetric)
and (b) (R)-1 (chiral).Crystal packing of the H-bonded ribbons in (a) rac-1 (along the b axis)
and (b) (R)-1 (along
the a-axis). The dashed lines indicate the intermolecular
N–H···O hydrogen bonds.D – proton donor, A –
proton acceptor.Crystallographic
studies revealed that enantiomers of 2 form two different
polymorphs when crystallized from different solvents
(Table 2). Crystallization of 2 from AcCN/H2O (1:1) gives monoclinic form (2m, space group P21), while its crystallization
from hexanes/acetone (2:1) gives orthorhombic form (2o, space group P212121). The crystal shape of two polymorphs is presented in Figure 6. rac-2 crystallizes
from hexane/acetone and acetone/water solution in the monoclinic space
group P21/c with the
two crystallographically independent molecules.
Figure 6
Crystal shape of two
homochiral polymorphs of compound 2. (a) Microscopic
pictures of needle-like crystals (R)2m (left) and prismatic
(R)2o (right); Miller indexes of crystal faces of forms (R)2m (left) and (R)2o (right).
Crystal shape of two
homochiral polymorphs of compound 2. (a) Microscopic
pictures of needle-like crystals (R)2m (left) and prismatic
(R)2o (right); Miller indexes of crystal faces of forms (R)2m (left) and (R)2o (right).The molecular structures of (R)-2 and rac-2 are shown in Figure 7 along with the atomic
numbering schemes. The geometrical
parameters of molecules (R)-2m, (R)-2o, and rac-2 are very close to each other and comparable to those found for the
related compounds.[20−26] Superposition of molecules 2 from monoclinic and orthorhombic
polymorphs (Figure 8) shows close molecular
similarity in these forms.
Figure 7
Molecular structures of (a) rac-2 (the two crystallographically independent molecules
representing
the different enantiomers) and (b) (R)-2m (left) and (R)-2o (right).
Figure 8
Superposition of molecules in monoclinic and orthorhombic
polymorphs
of (R)-2.
Molecular structures of (a) rac-2 (the two crystallographically independent molecules
representing
the different enantiomers) and (b) (R)-2m (left) and (R)-2o (right).Superposition of molecules in monoclinic and orthorhombic
polymorphs
of (R)-2.In contrast to 1, the molecule 2 contains
two hydrogen-bond acceptor and one donor sites. As a result, in the
crystal, the succinimides usually form either dimers[20,26] or infinite chains[21−25] by hydrogen bonding between the imide hydrogen atom and carbonyl
oxygen atom of adjacent molecules. In the case of 2,
the molecules both in the enantiomerically pure 2m and 2o and in the racematerac-2 are linked by the intermolecular N1–H1···O2hydrogen bonds (Table 3) into one-dimensional zigzag-like chains running in the b and a directions, respectively (Figure 9, left). The fact that only O2oxygen atom acts as a protonoacceptor
is apparently explained by the steric reasons. The succinimide rings
within the chains are almost coplanar. Nevertheless, despite the obvious
similarity of these chains, there is a striking distinction between
them, namely, anti (in the enantiomerically pure 2m and 2o), similar to 1, and syn (in the racemic rac-2),
unlike 1, mutual disposition of the phenyl substituents
relative to the succinimide ring plane (Figure 9, right). It should be noted that, to the best our knowledge, the
less sterically favorable syn configuration of the
phenyl rings within the H-bonded chains is observed for the first
time among compounds of this type.[27] The
main structural motifs the H-bonded zigzag-like chains
in the two polymorphs 2m and 2o are quasi-identical.
The crystal structures of these polymorphs are characterized by the
different packing of the H-bonded chains. In the crystal structure
of 2o, the H-bonded chains are packed congruently, i.e.,
without changing of the conformations relative to each other (Figure 9a, right), while, in the crystal structure of 2m, these chains are packed incongruently, with rotation by
180 deg in turn along the c axis (Figure 9b, right). Due to the syn-configuration
of the phenyl rings, the crystal packing of the H-bonded chains in rac-2 is zipper-like (Figure 9c).
Figure 9
Infinite H-bonded chains (left) and their crystal packing
(right)
in (a) rac-2, (b) (R)-2m, and (c) (R)-2o.
The dashed lines indicate the intermolecular N–H···O
hydrogen bonds.
Infinite H-bonded chains (left) and their crystal packing
(right)
in (a) rac-2, (b) (R)-2m, and (c) (R)-2o.
The dashed lines indicate the intermolecular N–H···O
hydrogen bonds.
Solid-State IR Spectroscopy
of Racemic and Homochiral Forms
of 1 and 2
No substantial differences
were observed in powder IR spectra between racemic and homochiral
forms of 1. However, a powder IR spectrum of racemic
form of 2 is different from spectra of homochiral forms
of this compound in the N–H stretch region (Figure 10).
Figure 10
Solid-state IR spectra of racemic and homochiral forms
of 2. Black solid line rac2, red dashed line R-(+)-2o, green dotted line S-(−)-2o. To facilitate the comparison, the spectra
were normalized
to the spectrum of racemate at their peak intensities in the C=O
stretch (1708–1711 cm–1) region.
Solid-state IR spectra of racemic and homochiral forms
of 2. Black solid line rac2, red dashed line R-(+)-2o, green dotted line S-(−)-2o. To facilitate the comparison, the spectra
were normalized
to the spectrum of racemate at their peak intensities in the C=O
stretch (1708–1711 cm–1) region.It appears that spectral data are closely related
to distinctions
of supramolecular organization in racemate–enantiomer and polymorphs
pairs. For compound 1, the presence of two conformers
in enantiomeric crystal allows the racemic H-bonded chain to be closely
mimicked, which leads to very close similarity of solid state IR spectra
for rac-1, R-1 and S-1. On the contrary, dissimilarity
of supramolecular organization for rac-2 and both polymorphs of 2 (H-bonded molecular chains
with transoid orientation for enantiomeric polymorphs
and with cisoid orientation for racemate) leads to
differences in geometric characteristics of hydrogen bonding and crystal
packing and, as a consequence, to different spectral characteristics
(Figure 10, Table 4).
Due to similarity of molecular packing in polymorphs of 2 (2m and 2o), their spectral characteristics
are also similar to small deviations related to slight differences
in hydrogen bonding.
Table 4
Melting Points for Racemic and Homochiral
Compounds 1 and 2a
onset point (°C)
single point (°C)
clear point (°C)
Compound 1
rac-1
83.5 ± 0.09
83.9 ± 0.12
84.6 ± 0.05
(R)-1
80.4 ± 0.28
80.9 ± 0.25
81.7 ± 0.28
(S)-1
78.0 ± 0.35
79.5 ± 0.23
80.6 ± 0.22
Compound 2
rac-2
81.6 ± 0.05
82.4 ± 0.24
83.9 ± 0.12
(R)-2m
115.0 ± 0.12
115.6 ± 0.23
116.3 ± 0.09
(S)-2m
114.8 ± 0.12
115.6 ± 0.23
116.2 ± 0.23
(R)-2o
114.1 ± 0.07
116.1 ± 0.03
117.3 ± 0.07
(S)-2o
114.2 ± 0.06
116.2 ± 0.03
117.2 ± 0.03
For compound 2,
data for two polymorphs 2m (monoclinic) and 2o (orthorhombic) are presented.
For compound 2,
data for two polymorphs 2m (monoclinic) and 2o (orthorhombic) are presented.
Crystal Density and Melting Points of Racemic and Homochiral
Forms of 1 and 2
Usually denser
compounds with tightly packed molecules are considered to be more
thermodynamically stable.[7] Comparison of
eight pairs of homochiral and racemic compounds conducted by Wallach
in 1895 allowed him to formulate a rule that racemic compounds have
a trend to be denser than enantiomers.[28] Statistical analysis carried out by Brock at al.[29] based on CSD data in 1991 revealed that such trend in general
exists for racemic crystals composed of enantiomers that can be resolved
chemically. However, exceptions to this rule are described in the
literature.[30,31] In contrast to the Wallach rule,
compound 2, unlike compound 1, demonstrates
a higher density of chiral crystals in comparison to its racemate
(difference is ca. 0.1 g cm–3, Table 2). That might be an indication that compound 2 in chiral forms is at least as stable as its racemate.Interesting
observations were obtained for melting points of studied materials.
If for racemic and homochiral forms of 1 melting points
are very close, for 2 melting points differ significantly
(Table 4). These results can be explained by
the close similarity of molecular packings in all forms of 1 and by dissimilarities in supramolecular aggregates and molecular
packings in crystals 2 (chains with transoid orientation for enantiomeric polymorphs and with uncommon cisoid orientation for racemate). For racemate 2, lower crystal density and lower melting temperature (difference
∼33°) suggest its lower stability.
Conclusions
Enantiomers of compounds 1 and 2 were
separated by chiral chromatography, and their absolute configurations
were reliably established by analysis of anomalous X-ray scattering
using refinement of Flack and Hooft parameters. A combination of X-ray
and CD data allowed the following designations for the enantiomers: R-(−)-1,S-(+)-1,R-(+)-2,S-(−)-2. The assignments
for 2 are in accordance with the study by Knabe and Koch,[17] who determined relative and absolute configurations
of enantiomers of this compound by establishing a correlation between
their optical activity and optical activity of their synthetic precursors
of known absolute configuration. In crystals of racemate and enantiomers
of 1, the robust molecular synthons with very similar
structure and hydrogen bonding pattern were found. The existence of
such synthons in the enantiomers was due to the presence of two molecular
conformations that allowed mimicking of molecular hydrogen bonded
chains found in the racemate. Structural similarity of racemate and
homochiral forms for 1 and polymorphs for 2 explains the close similarity of their IR spectra and melting points.
On the basis of presented structural characteristics, it is possible
to speculate that bioactivity for all forms of 1 will
be similar, while for 2 it might be different.
Authors: María C Núñez; M Eugenia García-Rubiño; Ana Conejo-García; Olga Cruz-López; María Kimatrai; Miguel A Gallo; Antonio Espinosa; Joaquín M Campos Journal: Curr Med Chem Date: 2009 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: T R Browne; R G Feldman; R A Buchanan; N C Allen; L Fawcett-Vickers; G K Szabo; G F Mattson; S E Norman; D J Greenblatt Journal: Neurology Date: 1983-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Antja Watanangura; Sebastian Meller; Jan S Suchodolski; Rachel Pilla; Mohammad R Khattab; Shenja Loderstedt; Lisa F Becker; Andrea Bathen-Nöthen; Gemma Mazzuoli-Weber; Holger A Volk Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2022-08-04