A long-standing debate in the Cu-O2 field has revolved around the relevance of the Cu(III) oxidation state in biological redox processes. The proposal of Cu(III) in biology is generally challenged as no spectroscopic or structural evidence exists currently for its presence. The reaction of synthetic Cu(I) complexes with O2 at low temperature in aprotic solvents provides the opportunity to investigate and define the chemical landscape of Cu-O2 species at a small-molecule level of detail; eight different types are characterized structurally, three of which contain at least one Cu(III) center. Simple imidazole or histamine ligands are competent in these oxygenation reactions to form Cu(III) complexes. The combination of synthetic structural and reactivity data suggests (1) that Cu(I) should be considered as either a one or two electron reductant reacting with O2, (2) that Cu(III) reduction potentials of these formed complexes are modest and well within the limits of a protein matrix and (3) that primary amine and imidazole ligands are surprisingly good at stabilizing Cu(III) centers. These Cu(III) complexes are efficient oxidants for hydroxylating phenolate substrates with reaction hallmarks similar to that performed in biological systems. The remarkable ligation similarity of the synthetic and biological systems makes it difficult to continue to exclude Cu(III) from biological discussions.
A long-standing debate in the n class="Chemical">n class="Chemical">Cu-O2 field has revolved around the relevance of the <spn>an class="Chemical">Cu(III) oxidation state in biological redox processes. The proposal of Cu(III) in biology is generally challenged as no spectroscopic or structural evidence exists currently for its presence. The reaction of synthetic Cu(I)complexes with O2 at low temperature in aprotic solvents provides the opportunity to investigate and define the chemical landscape of Cu-O2 species at a small-molecule level of detail; eight different types are characterized structurally, three of which contain at least one Cu(III) center. Simple imidazole or histamine ligands are competent in these oxygenation reactions to form Cu(III)complexes. The combination of synthetic structural and reactivity data suggests (1) that Cu(I) should be considered as either a one or two electron reductant reacting with O2, (2) that Cu(III) reduction potentials of these formed complexes are modest and well within the limits of a protein matrix and (3) that primary amine and imidazole ligands are surprisingly good at stabilizing Cu(III) centers. These Cu(III)complexes are efficient oxidants for hydroxylating phenolate substrates with reaction hallmarks similar to that performed in biological systems. The remarkable ligation similarity of the synthetic and biological systems makes it difficult to continue to exclude Cu(III) from biological discussions.
Authors: Nermeen W Aboelella; Sergey V Kryatov; Benjamin F Gherman; William W Brennessel; Victor G Young; Ritimukta Sarangi; Elena V Rybak-Akimova; Keith O Hodgson; Britt Hedman; Edward I Solomon; Christopher J Cramer; William B Tolman Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2004-12-29 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Jose Luis Muñoz-Muñoz; Jose Berna; María del Mar García-Molina; Francisco Garcia-Molina; Pedro Antonio Garcia-Ruiz; Ramon Varon; Jose N Rodriguez-Lopez; Francisco Garcia-Canovas Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 3.575
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: Isaac Garcia-Bosch; Anna Company; Jonathan R Frisch; Miquel Torrent-Sucarrat; Mar Cardellach; Ilaria Gamba; Mireia Güell; Luigi Casella; Lawrence Que; Xavi Ribas; Josep M Luis; Miquel Costas Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2010-03-22 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: William Keown; Tao A G Large; Linus Chiang; Erik C Wasinger; T Daniel P Stack Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Deborah Brazzolotto; Fabián G Cantú Reinhard; Julian Smith-Jones; Marius Retegan; Lucia Amidani; Abayomi S Faponle; Kallol Ray; Christian Philouze; Sam P de Visser; Marcello Gennari; Carole Duboc Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 15.336
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
Authors: Suzanne M Adam; Gayan B Wijeratne; Patrick J Rogler; Daniel E Diaz; David A Quist; Jeffrey J Liu; Kenneth D Karlin Journal: Chem Rev Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 60.622
Authors: Yang Liu; Stefan G Resch; Iris Klawitter; George E Cutsail; Serhiy Demeshko; Sebastian Dechert; Fritz E Kühn; Serena DeBeer; Franc Meyer Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Julianna Kardos; László Héja; Ágnes Simon; István Jablonkai; Richard Kovács; Katalin Jemnitz Journal: Cell Commun Signal Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 5.712