| Literature DB >> 31847074 |
Hiba Mohamed Ameen1,2, Sándor Kunsági-Máté2,3, Balázs Bognár2, Lajos Szente4, Miklós Poór3,5, Beáta Lemli2,3.
Abstract
Sulfamethazine is a representative member of the sulfonamide antibiotic drugs; it is still used in human and veterinary therapy. The protonation state of this drug affects its aqueous solubility, which can be controlled by its inclusion complexes with native or chemically-modified cyclodextrins. In this work, the temperature-dependent (298-313 K) interaction of sulfamethazine with native and randomly methylated β-cyclodextrins have been investigated at acidic and neutral pH. Surprisingly, the interaction between the neutral and anionic forms of the guest molecule and cyclodextrins with electron rich cavity are thermodynamically more favorable compared to the cationic guest. This property probably due to the enhanced formation of zwitterionic form of sulfamethazine in the hydrophobic cavities of cyclodextrins. Spectroscopic measurements and molecular modeling studies indicated the possible driving forces (hydrophobic interaction, hydrogen bonding, and electrostatic interaction) of the complex formation, and highlighted the importance of the reorganization of the solvent molecules during the entering of the guest molecule into the host's cavity.Entities:
Keywords: cyclodextrin; host-guest complex; sulfamethazine; thermodynamics; zwitterion
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31847074 PMCID: PMC6943531 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24244565
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Chemical structures of sulfamethazine (SMT), native β-cyclodextrin (BCD), and randomly methylated β-cyclodextrin (RAMEB).
Figure 2The van’t Hoff plots of SMT-BCD and SMT-RAMEB complex formations at different pH values.
Thermodynamic parameters associated to the formation of SMT-CD complexes. Data are determinate based on temperature-dependent fluorescence spectroscopic measurements. (ΔH [kJ mol−1], ΔS [J K−1 mol−1] ΔG298K [kJ mol−1]).
| Host Species | pH | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 5 | 7 | |||||||
| ΔH | ΔS | ΔG298K | ΔH | ΔS | ΔG298K | ΔH | ΔS | ΔG298K | |
| BCD | 15.4 ± 0.8 | 90.0 ± 2.5 | −11.4 ± 1.5 | 2.2 ± 0.5 | 63.3 ± 1.7 | −16.7 ± 1.0 | −2.2 ± 0.5 | 51.0 ± 1.7 | −17.3 ± 1.0 |
| RAMEB | 18.9 ± 0.8 | 102.7 ± 2.6 | −11.7 ± 1.6 | −6.4 ± 1.0 | 37.2 ± 3.3 | −17.5 ± 2.0 | −8.5 ± 1.2 | 28.8 ± 3.8 | −17.1 ± 2.3 |
Figure 3The energetically most favorable deprotonation routes of SMT (cationic: left, nonionic: middle, anionic: right, zwitterionic: bottom) determined by MINDO/3 approximation using the TIP3P solvation model for the buffer [34]. Gibbs free energy between the nonionic and zwitterionic forms suggest presence preferably of nonionic form in the solution.
Thermodynamic parameters associated to the formation of SMT-CD complexes. Semiempirical MINDO/3 method with TIP3P solvation model is applied. (ΔH [kJ mol−1], ΔS [J K−1 mol−1]).
| Host Specie | Host Simulated as | Guest’s Charges | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +1 (Cationic) | 0 (Nonionic) | 0 (Zwitterionic) | −1 (Anionic) | ||||||
| ΔH | ΔS | ΔH | ΔS | ΔH | ΔS | ΔH | ΔS | ||
| BCD | 0 BCD | 16.3 | 93.0 | 9.3 | 78.2 | 5.4 | 68.4 | −3.7 | 47.5 |
| RAMEB | −1 BCD | 19.1 | 105.4 | 14.3 | 99.7 | −8.7 | 35.2 | −9.4 | 26.4 |
Figure 4Equilibrium conformation of SMT-BCD complexes. (a) SMT molecules with their aromatic amine moiety and (b) with their methyl groups enter into the cavities of hosts.
Figure 5Infrared spectra of SMT – RAMEB complexes.
Figure 6Enthalpy-entropy compensation plot of SMT-BCD and SMT-RAMEB complexes.