Chidambar Kulkarni1, E W Meijer1, Anja R A Palmans1. 1. Laboratory of Macromolecular and Organic Chemistry and Institute for Complex Molecular Systems (ICMS), Eindhoven University of Technology , PO Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Abstract
The self-assembly of small and well-defined molecules using noncovalent interactions to generate various nano- and microarchitectures has been extensively studied. Among various architectures, one-dimensional (1-D) nano-objects have garnered significant attention. It has become increasingly evident that a cooperative or nucleation-elongation mechanism of polymerization leads to highly ordered 1-D supramolecular polymers, analogous to shape-persistent biopolymers such as actin. With this in mind, achieving cooperativity in self-assembled structures has been actively pursued with significant success. Only recently, researchers are focusing on the origin of the mechanism at the molecular level in different synthetic systems. Taking a step further, a thorough quantitative structure-mechanism correlation is crucial to control the size, shape, and functions of supramolecular polymers, and this is currently lacking in the literature. Among a plethora of molecules, benzene-1,3,5-tricarboxamides (BTAs) provide a unique combination of important noncovalent interactions such as hydrogen bonding, π-stacking, and hydrophobic interactions, for self-assembly and synthetic ease. Due to the latter, a diverse range of BTA derivatives with all possible structural mutations have been synthesized and studied during the past decade, mainly from our group. With such a large body of experimental results on BTA self-assembly, it is time to embark on a structure-mechanism correlation in this family of molecules, and a first step toward this will form the main focus of this Account. The origin of the cooperative mechanism of self-assembly in BTAs has been ascribed to 3-fold intermolecular hydrogen bonding (HB) between monomers based on density-functional theory (DFT) calculations. The intermolecular hydrogen-bonding interaction forms the central premise of this work, in which we evaluate the effect of different moieties such as alkyl chains, and amino acids, attached to the core amides on the strength of intermolecular HB, which consequently governs the extent of cooperativity (quantified by the cooperativity factor, σ). In addition to this, we evaluate the effect of amide connectivity (C- vs N-centered), the role of solvents, amides vs thioamides, and finally the influence of the benzene vs cyclohexane core on the σ. Remarkably, every subtle structural change in the BTA monomer seems to affect the cooperativity factor in a systematic and rationalizable way. The take home message will be that the cooperativity factor (σ) in the BTA family forms a continuous spectrum from 1 (isodesmic) to <10-6 (highly cooperative) and it can be tuned based on the appropriate modification of the BTA monomer. We anticipate that these correlations drawn from the BTA series will be applicable to other systems in which HB is the main driving force for cooperativity. Thus, the understanding gained from such correlations on a prototypical self-assembling motif such as BTA will aid in designing more complex systems with distinct functions.
The self-assembly of small and well-defined molecules using noncovalent interactions to generate various nano- and microarchitectures has been extensively studied. Among various architectures, one-dimensional (1-D) nano-objects have garnered significant attention. It has become increasingly evident that a cooperative or nucleation-elongation mechanism of polymerization leads to highly ordered 1-D supramolecular polymers, analogous to shape-persistent biopolymers such as actin. With this in mind, achieving cooperativity in self-assembled structures has been actively pursued with significant success. Only recently, researchers are focusing on the origin of the mechanism at the molecular level in different synthetic systems. Taking a step further, a thorough quantitative structure-mechanism correlation is crucial to control the size, shape, and functions of supramolecular polymers, and this is currently lacking in the literature. Among a plethora of molecules, benzene-1,3,5-tricarboxamides (BTAs) provide a unique combination of important noncovalent interactions such as hydrogen bonding, π-stacking, and hydrophobic interactions, for self-assembly and synthetic ease. Due to the latter, a diverse range of BTA derivatives with all possible structural mutations have been synthesized and studied during the past decade, mainly from our group. With such a large body of experimental results on BTA self-assembly, it is time to embark on a structure-mechanism correlation in this family of molecules, and a first step toward this will form the main focus of this Account. The origin of the cooperative mechanism of self-assembly in BTAs has been ascribed to 3-fold intermolecular hydrogen bonding (HB) between monomers based on density-functional theory (DFT) calculations. The intermolecular hydrogen-bonding interaction forms the central premise of this work, in which we evaluate the effect of different moieties such as alkyl chains, and amino acids, attached to the core amides on the strength of intermolecular HB, which consequently governs the extent of cooperativity (quantified by the cooperativity factor, σ). In addition to this, we evaluate the effect of amide connectivity (C- vs N-centered), the role of solvents, amides vs thioamides, and finally the influence of the benzene vs cyclohexane core on the σ. Remarkably, every subtle structural change in the BTA monomer seems to affect the cooperativity factor in a systematic and rationalizable way. The take home message will be that the cooperativity factor (σ) in the BTA family forms a continuous spectrum from 1 (isodesmic) to <10-6 (highly cooperative) and it can be tuned based on the appropriate modification of the BTA monomer. We anticipate that these correlations drawn from the BTA series will be applicable to other systems in which HB is the main driving force for cooperativity. Thus, the understanding gained from such correlations on a prototypical self-assembling motif such as BTA will aid in designing more complex systems with distinct functions.
The assembly of small
organic molecules using noncovalent interactions such as hydrogen-bonding,
π–π stacking, and hydrophobic interactions results
in long polymeric chains, which are termed as supramolecular polymers.[1] Due to the reversibility of these noncovalent
interactions, supramolecular polymers often display adaptability and
self-healing, features not encountered in covalent polymers.[2] As a result, supramolecular polymers have emerged
as one of the prominent pillars of polymer science.[3,4] The
material properties of supramolecular polymers critically depend on
(i) the strength of the noncovalent interaction between monomers determining
the molecular weight and (ii) the mechanism of polymerization dictating
the molar-mass dispersity.[5] In the past
decade, the focus of supramolecular polymer research shifted from
controlling the strength of supramolecular interactions to studying
and understanding the mechanism of supramolecular polymerizations
with the aim to regulate supramolecular material properties.The mechanism of one-dimensional (1-D) supramolecular polymerization
is classified into either cooperative/nucleation–elongation
or isodesmic.[5] In a cooperative supramolecular
polymerization, the assembly is thermodynamically distinguished by
two equilibrium constants, one for the less favorable nucleation process
(Knuc) and another for the subsequent
highly favorable elongation process (Kelo). When the nucleus consists of a dimer, this is referred to as the K2–K model.[6] In an isodesmic mechanism, all binding constants
throughout the course of polymerization are equal (also called the
equal K-model).[7] Cooperative
and isodesmic mechanisms are analogous to chain and step-growth mechanisms,
respectively, in covalent polymers. These aspects have been reviewed
in great detail elsewhere, and thus we refrain from a thorough discussion
about the thermodynamic classification of supramolecular polymerization.[5] Nonetheless, it has been consistently observed
across many systems that a cooperative mechanism gives rise to high
virtual molecular weight polymers with an internally ordered supramolecular
structure. It is conjectured that this internal order stems from a
well-defined nucleus, on which further polymerization takes place.
Moreover, recent examples in the emerging field of living supramolecular
polymerization invariably involve a cooperative mechanism.[8−10] Thus, achieving and understanding cooperative supramolecular polymerizations
has received significant attention in the past decade.A plethora
of examples of cooperative 1-D supramolecular polymerizations have
been reported.[11] Although a few notable
studies exist on relating structure or the noncovalent interaction
to the properties of a system in supramolecular chemistry,[12−16] approaches to rationalizing cooperativity have been scarce.[17,18] We envisage that a classical physical–organic chemistry approach
to understanding structure–cooperativity correlations will
aid in achieving functional 1-D supramolecular polymers with precise
size, shape, and properties. Benzene-1,3,5-tricarboxamides (BTAs),
a molecular model system for supramolecular polymerization, have been
extensively investigated in the past decade by our group and others.[19] The supramolecular polymerization mechanism
of several different BTAs has been studied, and it was found that
depending on the structure of the monomers the complete spectrum of
mechanisms, from isodesmic to highly cooperative, was present (Figure ). Due to the large
body of experimental data on the mechanism of BTA derivatives, it
is an ideal hydrogen-bonded supramolecular prototype to attempt a
structure–mechanism correlation.
Figure 1
(a) Molecular structure
of benzene-1,3,5-tricarboxamide (BTA) and a schematic representation
of its self-assembly into 1-D helical stacks stabilized by 3-fold
intermolecular hydrogen-bonding interactions. (b) BTA derivatives
exhibiting isodesmic and cooperative mechanisms based on the substituents
on the amide. (c) Typical cooling curves for the two systems shown
in panel b (cooperative (□), c = 12 μM
in n-heptane; isodesmic (○), c = 50 μM in MCH). Inset of panel c shows a model
of BTA dimer, which is the likely nucleus for further growth.
(a) Molecular structure
of benzene-1,3,5-tricarboxamide (BTA) and a schematic representation
of its self-assembly into 1-D helical stacks stabilized by 3-fold
intermolecular hydrogen-bonding interactions. (b) BTA derivatives
exhibiting isodesmic and cooperative mechanisms based on the substituents
on the amide. (c) Typical cooling curves for the two systems shown
in panel b (cooperative (□), c = 12 μM
in n-heptane; isodesmic (○), c = 50 μM in MCH). Inset of panel c shows a model
of BTA dimer, which is the likely nucleus for further growth.In this Account, we first reconcile
the different models used to quantify the cooperativity in a system
and then delineate the factors governing cooperativity in the BTA
family. Next, we look at the influence of the BTA monomer structure
on the cooperativity factor (σ) by demarking the structural
changes into (i) influence of substitution on the amidenitrogen and
(ii) structural changes to the BTA core. Under each section, the effects
of structural mutation are elaborated to clearly bring out a structure–mechanism
correlation. Finally, we put our work into perspective with possible
future directions to harnessing cooperativity in functional self-assembled
materials.
Quantifying the Thermodynamic Parameters of
Cooperative Self-Assembly
The mechanism of self-assembly
in BTAs and other systems in organic solvent has been regularly studied
through temperature-dependent UV/vis absorption and circular dichroism
(CD) spectroscopy.[20] Typically, the normalized
spectroscopic signal (between 0 and 1) at a particular wavelength
(characteristic of assembly) is plotted as a function of temperature
and the curve is referred to as a “cooling curve”. The
cooling curves need to be recorded at slow rates such that no hysteresis
is observed, thus ensuring that the system remains under thermodynamic
control. Such cooling curves are fitted with mathematical models either
based on a thermally activated equilibrium polymerization[21] or by taking the equilibrium between the monomer
pool and supramolecular polymers into account and solving the mass-balance
equations.[22,23] In both cases, the models describe
the self-assembly of a one-component system into a 1-D aggregate and
permit one to extract the various thermodynamic parameters that describe
the self-assembly process. The thermally activated equilibrium polymerization
model assumes the activation of a monomer (characterized by the dimensionless
equilibrium constant Ka) followed by polymerization
(characterized by an energy term he). The cooling curve is then typically described by two different
equations that can be easily fitted to the experimental data using
nonlinear regression. A caveat in this methodology is the subjectivity
involved in demarking the two processes. In contrast, the mass-balance
(MB) model takes into account the exchange of monomers between the
polymers and free monomers in solution. The fraction of aggregated
species at various temperatures is simulated based on mass-balance
equations for different sets of thermodynamic parameters that describe
the equilibrium in the nucleation phase (Knuc, characterized by ΔHnuc, ΔSnuc) and the equilibrium in elongation phase
(Kelo, characterized by ΔHelo, ΔSelo), in which the two phases are separated by the characteristic temperature Te. Often ΔSelo is taken as equal to ΔSnuc to
facilitate the fitting procedure. The best match to the experimental
curve is the fitted curve. It is recommended to fit cooling curves
at multiple concentrations simultaneously to obtain accurate values
for the thermodynamic parameters. The extent of cooperativity in the
MB model is quantified through the expression, σ = Knuc/Kelo = exp(ΔHnp/(RT)) in which ΔHnp is the nucleation penalty assuming ΔSelo = ΔSnuc. The more negative the value of ΔHnp (defined as (ΔHelo – ΔHnuc) is, the smaller the σ-value becomes
and hence higher the cooperativity in the system. In case of ΔHelo equals ΔHnuc, σ equals 1, which signifies an isodesmic process. Although
in several of our previous publications the Ka and he have been quantified for
BTAs, in this work, we focus on the σ-values (at 293 K) derived
from the MB model.
Molecular Origin of the Cooperativity
in Benzene-1,3,5-tricarboxamides
BTAs form triple helical
hydrogen-bonded (HB) 1-D structures (Figure a) in their crystalline form.[24] A typical cooling curve for ()-1 BTA recorded in n-heptane at dilute concentrations indicates a nonsigmoidal behavior
with a critical temperature below which elongation takes place (Figure c). Fitting the data
with the MB model yields σ = 5.7 × 10–7, indicating high cooperativity.[25] In
order to understand the origin of cooperativity, we performed density
functional theory (DFT) based computations on oligomers of BTA.[26] These studies indicated strong triple helical
HB between monomers (with a rotational angle of 60° between consecutive
monomers) to be the dominant factor in stabilizing an assembly. The
most likely size of the nucleus is a dimer (Figure c, inset) or trimer.[27] The stabilization energy per monomer (ΔEavg = (E – nE1)/(n – 1)) gained
due to oligomerization showed a nonmonotonic decrease (Figure a). The change in ΔEavg decreases at higher oligomer numbers. This
indicates that beyond a certain oligomer size further addition of
monomers does not lead to significant stabilization per monomer, and
this phenomenon of nonadditivity is called cooperativity. In addition,
electrostatic potential isosurfaces showed clear charge redistribution
along an oligomer, indicating significant polarization (Figure b). Thus, the origin of cooperativity
in the assembly of BTAs was attributed to the 3-fold intermolecular
hydrogen bonding between the monomers. The dihedral angle
(θ) between the benzene and amide plane directly influences
the hydrogen-bond strength in an oligomer. Since it is very difficult
to quantify the strength of hydrogen bonding, we use θ and hydrogen-bond
length as a measure to understand the influence of different substituents
on σ.
Figure 2
(a) Computed stabilization energy per monomer (ΔEavg = (E – nE1)/(n –
1)) as a function of oligomer size (n) for BTA model
compound (alkyl chains replaced by methyl groups on amide). Legends
indicate the different levels of theory used for computation. (b)
Electrostatic potential in eV plotted on isodensity surfaces of 10–5 e/Å3 obtained using plane-wave (PW)
density functional theory studies of BTA model compound. Reproduced
with permission from ref (26). Copyright 2010 American Chemical Society.
(a) Computed stabilization energy per monomer (ΔEavg = (E – nE1)/(n –
1)) as a function of oligomer size (n) for BTA model
compound (alkyl chains replaced by methyl groups on amide). Legends
indicate the different levels of theory used for computation. (b)
Electrostatic potential in eV plotted on isodensity surfaces of 10–5 e/Å3 obtained using plane-wave (PW)
density functional theory studies of BTA model compound. Reproduced
with permission from ref (26). Copyright 2010 American Chemical Society.
Influence of Substituents
on the Amide Nitrogen on Cooperative Self-Assembly
Linear and Branched Alkyl Chains
Of all the possible
mutations to the BTA, variations on the amidenitrogen are the most
obvious and convenient due to the synthetic accessibility of different
amines.[25,28−30] The first detailed quantitative
work on the mechanisms of self-assembly in the BTA family was carried
out on C3-symmetric BTAs ()-1 and 2 (Figure ) using
CD or UV/vis spectroscopy or both at dilute concentrations in n-heptane as solvent.[25] CD spectroscopy
showed an exciton-coupled bisignate Cotton effect for the n →
π* transition for ()-1 in n-heptane and MCH, indicative
of a helical arrangement of the hydrogen-bonding array. Cooling curves
obtained from both CD and UV/vis measurements in MCH exhibited a critical
point in the self-assembly process and were fitted with the MB model
to derive the various thermodynamic parameters of self-assembly. A
similar analysis on 2 using UV/vis studies also indicated
a cooperative self-assembly. Interestingly, the σ for ()-1 is 2 orders
of magnitude smaller than that for 2 (Table and vide infra).
Figure 3
Effect of different alkyl chains: (a) Structure of symmetrical, asymmetrical,
and deuterated BTAs. For BTA 1, both (S) and (R) enantiomers have been studied, and the
stereochemistry is explicitly mentioned in the manuscript. For all
the other BTA derivatives, only the (S)-enantiomer
was studied, and thus the stereochemistry is not explicitly mentioned.
(b) CD spectra of asymmetrical BTAs (aBTAs) at 20 °C in MCH (c = 30 μM). (c) The structure of a model BTA octamer
exhibiting the difference between the substitution on the odd and
even numbered carbon atom of the side chain. Reproduced with permission
from ref (29). Copyright
2012 Royal Society of Chemistry.
Table 1
Cooperativity Factor (σ) for
BTAs 1–7 in MCH and n-Heptanea
BTA
σ in
MCH
σ in n-heptane
(R)-1
3.7 × 10–6 (3.0 × 10–6)
5.7 × 10–7
2
(3.8 × 10–4)
(1.5 × 10–5)
3
<10–8
<10–8
4
1.9 × 10–6
<10–8
5
<10–8
<10–8
6
3.1 × 10–3
<10–8
7
(0.9 × 10–4)
(2.5 × 10–5)
The σ
value was calculated at 293 K and obtained by refitting previously
published CD cooling curves with the MB model. Values in parentheses
are obtained from fits to the UV/vis cooling curves. Very low values
for σ could not be determined accurately; thus all σ values
lower than 10–8 are not compared and designated
as <10–8.
Effect of different alkyl chains: (a) Structure of symmetrical, asymmetrical,
and deuterated BTAs. For BTA 1, both (S) and (R) enantiomers have been studied, and the
stereochemistry is explicitly mentioned in the manuscript. For all
the other BTA derivatives, only the (S)-enantiomer
was studied, and thus the stereochemistry is not explicitly mentioned.
(b) CD spectra of asymmetrical BTAs (aBTAs) at 20 °C in MCH (c = 30 μM). (c) The structure of a model BTA octamer
exhibiting the difference between the substitution on the odd and
even numbered carbon atom of the side chain. Reproduced with permission
from ref (29). Copyright
2012 Royal Society of Chemistry.The σ
value was calculated at 293 K and obtained by refitting previously
published CD cooling curves with the MB model. Values in parentheses
are obtained from fits to the UV/vis cooling curves. Very low values
for σ could not be determined accurately; thus all σ values
lower than 10–8 are not compared and designated
as <10–8.In addition to the symmetric BTAs, we have also investigated asymmetric
BTAs (3–6) comprising two n-octyl chains and one chiral side chain on the amides (see Figure ).[28] The stereogenic methyl group was systematically varied
from the α to the δ position along the carbon chain to
investigate the presence of an odd–even effect. Detailed studies
on the BTA series 3–6 revealed that
in MCH two types of Cotton effects were observed: for the methyl at
the α and the γ position, a single Cotton effect with
a maximum at 223 nm was observed, whereas for the methyl at the β
and δ position a double Cotton effect was found with a maximum
at 216 nm and a shoulder at 242 nm (Figure b). TDDFT computations performed on the monomer
show that the angle between the C=O and phenyl core dictates
the shape of the CD spectra. A θ-value of 45° showed a
single Cotton effect, whereas a lower θ of 35° showed a
double Cotton effect. In fact, the calculated CD spectra reproduced
well the two different types of Cotton effects measured experimentally,
suggesting that the shape of the CD spectra is indeed strongly dependent
on θ.In addition, the influence of θ (35°
and 45°) on the extent of cooperativity in the self-assembly
of BTAs 3–6 in MCH was investigated.
Interestingly, the σ parameter showed an odd–even effect
in MCH (see Table ); the σ value for BTAs substituted at the α and γ
position was consistently smaller than that of BTAs substituted at
the β and δ position, indicating a higher cooperativity
for the former. Molecular mechanics calculations on an octamer of
a model compound showed a perpendicular and parallel orientation of
the methyl group on the α and β carbon atom, respectively
(Figure c).[29] As a consequence, the inter-ring distance was
3.78 Å for α-substituted (odd) compared to 3.63 Å
for the β-substituted (even) BTAs. This in turn result in an
increased θ and lower HB distance for perpendicular orientation
(α-substituted) compared to the parallel arrangement of methyl
groups (β-substituted). Thus, the perpendicular orientation
of the methyl substituent on the odd-carbon atoms subtly changes the
θ, which is reflected in an increased cooperativity or smaller
σ-value.Based on these results, we expected that
achiral 2 would behave like 4 and 6 due to the tighter packing of unbranched linear chains and
a diminished θ compared to 1, leading to lower
cooperativity. Indeed, the UV/vis cooling curves of 2 in MCH show σ of 3.8 × 10–4, indicating
lower cooperativity for the linear chain BTA 2. Further,
a selectively deuterated analogue of 3 was prepared,
D-BTA 7, to induce excess helicity.[30] Interestingly, 7 showed a double Cotton effect
in MCH, indicating a θ of 35°, and a σ of 0.9 ×
10–4, which is indeed larger than that observed
for ()-1 in
MCH (σ = 3 × 10–6) in which θ =
45°.
Effect of the Nature of the Alkane Solvent
on Cooperativity in Alkyl-Substituted BTAs
Solvents play
a pivotal role in most if not all self-assembly processes.[21,31] In the self-assembly of BTA ()-1, it was found that the Te’s in n-heptane were significantly
higher compared to those in MCH, indicating a higher stability of
the formed aggregates in n-heptane.[29] In addition, a stronger cooperativity was observed for ()-1 in n-heptane (σ = 5.7 × 10–7)
compared to that in MCH (σ = 3.7 × 10–6). Intriguingly, upon mixing MCH and n-heptane in
different ratios, the Te decreased nonlinearly
with the amount of MCH added, indicating that the solvent shows specific
interactions and participates actively in the aggregation process.The cooperativity of the even-substituted BTAs was lower than the
odd-substituted ones in MCH, but the σ was identical in n-heptane (Table ). This was attributed to different θ in MCH and n-heptane (vide supra): intercalation of n-heptane into the helical aggregates always resulted in
a θ of 45° for all compounds 3–6, whereas compounds 4 and 6 adopted
a lower θ of 35° in MCH. This smaller angle is directly
reflected in lower cooperativity. In fact, the cooperativity for achiral
BTA 2 in MCH (σ = 3.8 × 10–4) is lower than that in n-heptane (σ = 1.5
× 10–5). Interestingly, a similar trend was
observed for 7, in which fitting of the UV cooling curves
gave σ = 2.5 × 10–5 and 0.9 × 10–4 in n-heptane and MCH, respectively
(Table ).[32]
Factors Competing with
Intermolecular Hydrogen Bonding
Due to the good compatibility
of MCH with many BTA-based systems, in the remainder of this Account,
we focus on the results obtained in exclusively MCH. BTAs substituted
with 3,3′-diamino-2,2′-bipyridine units on the amide
position (Figure a)
were investigated in apolar solvents.[33] The mechanism of self-assembly of these extended-disc BTAs were
studied in detail using temperature-dependent CD studies.[34] Curiously, the transition from the monomers
to assembly for 8 in MCH occurs gradually, and the data
is in excellent agreement with the isodesmic model (σ = 1).
The 3,3′-diamino-2,2′-bipyridine connected to the amidenitrogen has been shown to undergo intramolecular hydrogen
bonding based on 1H NMR studies[35] and quantum chemical computations.[34] As a result of the intramolecular hydrogen bonding, the θ
is 7–13° and the rotation angle between two consecutive
monomers in an assembly is 13–15°. Due to these structural
parameters, monomers of 8 cannot engage in any intermolecular
hydrogen bonding along the stacking direction. Thus, due to the lack
of intermolecular hydrogen bonding, 8 self-assembles
in an isodesmic manner (σ = 1).
Figure 4
(a) Molecular structure of BTA 8. The atoms in blue color engage in intramolecular hydrogen bonding.
The substituents on positions 3 and 5 of benzene core are same as
that on position 1. A schematic representation of the self-assembly
of 8 is shown below the structure. (b) Experimental cooling
curves obtained from CD studies of 8 in MCH at different
concentrations. (c) Molecular structure of BTA 9 and
its 3D-space filling molecular model showing the bulky phenyl groups
close to one of the amides. (d) Normalized cooling curves of 9 obtained using CD studies in MCH.
(a) Molecular structure of BTA 8. The atoms in blue color engage in intramolecular hydrogen bonding.
The substituents on positions 3 and 5 of benzene core are same as
that on position 1. A schematic representation of the self-assembly
of 8 is shown below the structure. (b) Experimental cooling
curves obtained from CD studies of 8 in MCH at different
concentrations. (c) Molecular structure of BTA 9 and
its 3D-space filling molecular model showing the bulky phenyl groups
close to one of the amides. (d) Normalized cooling curves of 9 obtained using CD studies in MCH.Also the introduction of a bulky group such as phenylglycine
on one of the amides of BTA with n-octyl groups on
other two (Figure c) significantly affects the cooperativity in BTAs.[36] The shape of the Cotton effect for 9 in MCH
is similar to that observed of BTA 1, indicating a similar
helical packing for 9. Temperature-dependent CD studies
resulted in cooling curves with an apparent critical point (Figure d). However, fitting
the curves with the MB model,[22,23] indicated a significantly
weaker cooperativity with σ = 6.7 × 10–3. 3D-space-filling models of 9 show a considerable amount
of steric hindrance around the amide bond due to the phenylglycine
(Figure c). Thus,
to accommodate the bulky phenyl groups, it is likely that the strength
of intermolecular hydrogen bonding decreases leading to lowering of
the cooperativity in the system. An even more bulky side chain such
as phenylalanine seemed to afford an isodesmic supramolecular polymerization.[37] However, studies by the group of Bouteiller
indicated that the self-assembly pattern of BTAs with such bulky substituents
showed a change in hydrogen-bond pattern, which inhibited supramolecular
polymerization.[38]
Effect of Mutations in the Core of Benzene-1,3,5-tricarboxamide on
the Cooperative Self-Assembly
The Influence of Amide
Connectivity
The amide connectivity in BTAs can be of two
types based on the atom of attachment to the benzene core, C-centered
(()-1) and
N-centered (10, Figure a).[39] Oligo(p-phenylenevinylene) functionalized N-centered BTA did not show significant
intermolecular hydrogen bonding compared to its C-counterpart.[40] Thus, in order to understand the origin of such
differences in amide connectivity and if it can affect the mechanism
of self-assembly, a detailed experimental and computational study
was carried out on the simplest BTAs with chiral side chains (()-1 and 10).[39]
Figure 5
(a) Structure of C- and
N-centered BTAs ()-1 and 10. The corresponding σ derived
from CD studies and the θ are listed below the structures. (b)
Potential energy profile around the Caromatic–Ccarbonyl and Caromatic–Cnitrogen bond for the model compounds of ()-1 and 10 (chiral alkyl chains replaced
by methyl for computational tractability), respectively, at PBE/6-311+g(d,p)
level of theory. The values indicated at a particular angle represent
the difference in energy between the C- and N-centered BTA. (c) Plane
wave DFT optimized structures of model compounds of ()-1 and 10 showing different hydrogen-bond lengths and θ. Reproduced
with permission from ref (39). Copyright 2010 Wiley-VCH.
(a) Structure of C- and
N-centered BTAs ()-1 and 10. The corresponding σ derived
from CD studies and the θ are listed below the structures. (b)
Potential energy profile around the Caromatic–Ccarbonyl and Caromatic–Cnitrogen bond for the model compounds of ()-1 and 10 (chiral alkyl chains replaced
by methyl for computational tractability), respectively, at PBE/6-311+g(d,p)
level of theory. The values indicated at a particular angle represent
the difference in energy between the C- and N-centered BTA. (c) Plane
wave DFT optimized structures of model compounds of ()-1 and 10 showing different hydrogen-bond lengths and θ. Reproduced
with permission from ref (39). Copyright 2010 Wiley-VCH.The FT-IR and CD studies indicated helical packing
for 10. Temperature-dependent CD data when fitted to
the MB model indicated a cooperative mechanism,[39] similar to that observed for 1. The σ
was found to be 2.9 × 10–5 for 10, 2 orders of magnitude larger than the corresponding C-centered
BTA ()-1.
Plane wave DFT studies were carried out on an infinite stack of model
compounds of ()-1 and 10 to understand the difference in the assembly
behavior. In the optimized structure of monomer, θN (N-centered) = 0 and θC (C-centered) = 12°
was obtained. Further, the torsional barrier at θ of 40°
was found to be 17 kJ/mol higher for N-centered BTA compared to the
C-centered BTA (Figure b). The hydrogen-bond length was 1.94–1.97 Å and 1.99–2.06
Å for C- and N-centered BTA, respectively, indicating stronger
intermolecular hydrogen bonding in the former. Also, the θ in
the optimized infinite stack for N-centered BTA is lower compared
to its C-counterpart (θN = 38.6° and θC = 40.8°) (Figure c).[39] All these structural parameters
suggest that the lower σ observed for the N-centered BTA (10) is due to the weaker hydrogen bonding brought about by
the higher barrier for rotation about the Caromatic–Namide bond compared to the C-centered BTA (()-1).
The Effect
of Amide versus Thioamide and Benzene versus Cyclohexane Core
Most of the BTA derivatives are based on the ubiquitously found amide
bonds. Thioamide motifs incorporated into peptides allow the tuning
of the α-helical structure.[41] To
explore the utility of this seldom-studied group in supramolecular
chemistry, we have studied the self-assembly of thioamideBTA (11) both in bulk and in dilute alkane solutions (Figure ).[42]
Figure 6
(a) Structures of amide (()-1), thioamide (11), and cyclohexane–thioamide
(12). The σ-values obtained from CD studies (in
MCH) for each of the BTAs are mentioned below the structures. (b)
DFT based (B3LYP/6-31+g(d,p) level of theory) optimized structures
(of dimers) of the corresponding model compounds (alkyl chain replaced
by hydrogen). The hydrogen-bond length and π–π
stacking distances are shown in red color.
(a) Structures of amide (()-1), thioamide (11), and cyclohexane–thioamide
(12). The σ-values obtained from CD studies (in
MCH) for each of the BTAs are mentioned below the structures. (b)
DFT based (B3LYP/6-31+g(d,p) level of theory) optimized structures
(of dimers) of the corresponding model compounds (alkyl chain replaced
by hydrogen). The hydrogen-bond length and π–π
stacking distances are shown in red color.The FT-IR studies of 11 in bulk and solution
state and CD spectroscopy in MCH suggest a helical arrangement in
the assembly. Temperature-dependent CD studies of 11 in
MCH indicated two distinct phases of self-assembly, namely, nucleation
and elongation separated by a critical temperature (Te).[42] The σ for 11 is 3.2 × 10–4, 3 orders of magnitude
larger than the corresponding amideBTA ()-1. We resorted to computational studies
to understand the origin of the difference in the σ value between ()-1 and 11. The hydrogen-bond length and π–π stacking
distance for 11 are 2.67 and 4.2 Å, respectively.
The corresponding hydrogen-bond length and π–π
stacking distances for ()-1 are lower by 0.55 and 0.4 Å, respectively (Figure b), indicating the
weaker intermolecular hydrogen-bonding for 11 compared
to ()-1.
Thus, weaker hydrogen bonding in 11 could be the cause
for its lower cooperativity.The last and the most noticeable
mutation to BTA core was carried out by replacing the benzene core
of thioamideBTA (11) with the cyclohexane core (cyclohexane-tris(thioamide),
CTA, 12) to study the effect of the core on the self-assembly
of this class of compounds. The CD cooling curves of 12 in MCH were fitted to the MB model to extract a σ-value of
6.4 × 10–4. The σ-value for CTA 12 is twice that for the BTA 11, indicating a
slightly lower cooperativity for 12 when compared to 11. DFT calculations on a dimer of CTA model compound show
an increased hydrogen-bond length (by ∼0.1 Å) compared
to 11 (Figure b). Thus, the lower cooperativity of 12 could
be attributed to the weaker hydrogen bonding.
Conclusions and Outlook
Since the first report of cooperative
1-D self-assembly in synthetic systems in 2006,[21] mechanisms of self-assembly have been extensively studied.
A salient feature from these examples is that hydrogen-bond-driven
supramolecular polymerizations generally follow a cooperative mechanism.
A closer look at these studies shows the large variation of the σ
across different systems, although they are all driven by hydrogen-bonding.
Since hydrogen-bonding is a ubiquitous interaction in both natural
and synthetic molecular systems, it is paramount to understand how
hydrogen-bonding relates to cooperativity in a quantitative manner.
The first step in such an exercise is to determine the major contributor
to the cooperativity in a system and then study the effect of monomer
structure on the σ. Here we have initiated such a study taking
the BTA family as an example to gain structural insights into the
hydrogen-bonded cooperative systems. The major outcome of the present
work is that the σ spans a continuum from isodesmic
(σ = 1) to highly cooperative (σ < 10) and it depends strongly
on the monomer structure and correlates to hydrogen-bond strength. We anticipate that these correlations can be translated to other
systems in which the self-assembly is primarily driven by intermolecular
hydrogen-bond formation.[9,43,44] However, care should be taken in translating these correlations
to systems in which other interactions influence the hydrogen-bonding.
In addition, the transfer of knowledge on mechanistic aspects in organic
solvents to aqueous medium is not necessarily straightforward, due
to the active participation of water in the self-assembly process.The ultimate aim of this approach would be to assign values to
groups (amides, esters, alkyl chains, etc.) based on which one can
predict the extent of cooperativity in a system, analogous to the
classical Hammett and Taft parameters for reaction mechanisms in organic
chemistry or predicting gelation behavior by solvent parameters.[45] To achieve this, we need a large body of data
on mechanisms of different systems in which a consistent parameter
such as σ is carefully quantified and correlated to the factor
governing cooperativity (e.g., hydrogen-bonding). Thus, a leapfrog
from achieving cooperativity to quantifying it and building predictive
powers will positively impact the manifestations of cooperativity
in synthetic systems. At present, detailed DFT calculations of the
molecules designed will give a first indication of the strength of
the hydrogen bonding present, and hence an indication of the level
of cooperativity can be deduced.
Authors: Seda Cantekin; Huub M M ten Eikelder; Albert J Markvoort; Martijn A J Veld; Peter A Korevaar; Mark M Green; Anja R A Palmans; E W Meijer Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Patrick J M Stals; Jeffrey C Everts; Robin de Bruijn; Ivo A W Filot; Maarten M J Smulders; Rafael Martín-Rapún; Evgeny A Pidko; Tom F A de Greef; Anja R A Palmans; E W Meijer Journal: Chemistry Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 5.236
Authors: Tristan Mes; Seda Cantekin; Dirk W R Balkenende; Martijn M M Frissen; Martijn A J Gillissen; Bas F M De Waal; Ilja K Voets; E W Meijer; Anja R A Palmans Journal: Chemistry Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 5.236
Authors: Joseph S Brown; Yaset M Acevedo; Grace D He; Jack H Freed; Paulette Clancy; Christopher A Alabi Journal: Macromolecules Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 5.985
Authors: Lafayette N J de Windt; Chidambar Kulkarni; Huub M M Ten Eikelder; Albert J Markvoort; E W Meijer; Anja R A Palmans Journal: Macromolecules Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 5.985
Authors: Ghislaine Vantomme; Gijs M Ter Huurne; Chidambar Kulkarni; Huub M M Ten Eikelder; Albert J Markvoort; Anja R A Palmans; E W Meijer Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Vladyslav Savchenko; Markus Koch; Aleksander S Pavlov; Marina Saphiannikova; Olga Guskova Journal: Molecules Date: 2019-11-30 Impact factor: 4.411
Authors: Kalathil K Kartha; Felix Wendler; Tobias Rudolph; Philip Biehl; Gustavo Fernández; F H Schacher Journal: Chemistry Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 5.236