| Literature DB >> 33191746 |
Victorio Saez Talens1, Joyal Davis1, Chia-Hua Wu2, Zhili Wen2, Francesca Lauria1, Karthick Babu Sai Sankar Gupta1, Raisa Rudge1, Mahsa Boraghi2, Alexander Hagemeijer1, Thuat T Trinh3, Pablo Englebienne4, Ilja K Voets5, Judy I Wu2, Roxanne E Kieltyka1.
Abstract
Despite a growing understanding of factors that drive monomer self-assembly to form supramolecular polymers, the effects of aromaticity gain have been largely ignored. Herein, we document the aromaticity gain in two different self-assembly modes ofEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33191746 PMCID: PMC7705886 DOI: 10.1021/jacs.0c02081
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Am Chem Soc ISSN: 0002-7863 Impact factor: 15.419
Figure 1(a) Hydrogen bonding increases the aromatic character in oxosquaramide; the resonance form on the right shows increased cyclic 2π-electron delocalization in the four-membered ring. (b) Carbonyls (C=O) typically form hydrogen bonds with small deviations from the lone-pair (xy) plane, but thiocarbonyls (C=S) can engage in hydrogen bonds with C=S···H angles of close to 90°. As a result, C=O- and C=S-containing synthons are expected to promote drastically different self-assembly modes. (c) Structures of the oxosquaramide (1a and 1b) and thiosquaramide (2a and 2b) bolaamphiphiles under study. Compounds 1a and 1b self-assemble into rigid fibers (top), while 2a and 2b self-assemble into short flexible rodlike structures (bottom). This disparity is attributed to the “head-to-tail” self-assembly of the oxosquaramides 1′ versus the “stacked” self-assembly of the thiosquaramides 2′.
Figure 2(a) Cryo-TEM images of 1a (left) and 2a (right) in aqueous solution (580 μM) after overnight equilibration. Scale bar: 100 nm. (b) Histograms of length distributions of 1a (left) and 2a (right) (N = 50, with average lengths of 235 ± 118 nm for 1a and 41 ± 18 nm for 2a). (c) Histograms of width distributions of 1a (left) and 2a (right) (N = 50, with average widths of 5.8 ± 1.2 nm for 1a and 4.8 ± 1.3 nm for 2a). (d) End-to-end distance plots (⟨R2⟩) as a function of contour length for 1a (left) and 2a (right), respectively, determined by cryo-TEM (blue open circles). Least-square fits are shown as red lines. (e) Fiber contours of 1a (left) and 2a (right) analyzed from cryo-TEM images, where initial tangents were aligned (contour lengths of 252 ± 116 nm for 1a and 77 ± 17 nm for 2a).
Figure 3(a) Experimental SAXS profiles of 1a and 2a (5 mg mL–1). The curves are modeled with a form factor for homogeneous and flexible homogeneous cylinders for 1a and 2a, respectively. The blue curve is shifted vertically by multiplying by a factor of 10 to enable comparison of the two profiles. (b) UV–vis spectra of 1a and 2a (c = 30 μM) in H2O (solid line) and H2O–CH3CN (6:4) (dotted line).
Computed UV–Vis Absorptions (λmax, in nm) for the Monomers, Head-to-Tail Hexamers, and Stacked Hexamers of 1′ and 2′ in Implicit Solvation in a Low-Dielectric Solvent at IEF-PCM-M06-2X/6-311+G(d,p)a
| monomer | 263.3 (0.53) | 350.4 (0.45) |
| 263.1 (0.36) | 339.1 (0.36) | |
| head-to-tail ( | 278.9 (3.05) | 351.9 (3.42) |
| 258.2 (2.47) | 337.8 (1.96) | |
| stacked ( | 258.0 (1.16) | 344.6 (0.94) |
| 251.5 (1.43) | 342.3 (0.98) |
Only transitions with oscillator strengths >0.35 are listed (actual value in parentheses).
Figure 4Orbital interactions of neighboring monomers in HOMO–LUMO and HOMO–LUMO+1 transitions for (a) head-to-tail (for 1′) and (b) stacked (for 2′) arrangements. The direction and magnitude of the computed transition dipole moments for each transition are indicated.
Figure 5The degree of aggregation (αagg) plotted as a function of the volume fraction of CH3CN as determined from UV–vis denaturation experiments for 1a (a) at λ = 330 nm and 2a (b) at λ = 384 nm. Data for the various monomer concentrations (c = 15–40 μM) were fit with the equilibrium model. Spectral data can be found in the Supporting Information.
Figure 6IR spectrum recorded in the N–H region (inset) and amide I and amide II regions in D2O for both 1a and 2a (5.8 mM).
Figure 71H–13C HETCOR experiments performed at a contact time of 2048 μs on 1a (a) and 2a (b) in their polymerized (H2O) form. Highlighted areas are described in the text.
Figure 8(a) Computed electron density difference (EDD) maps for the head-to-tail 1′ and 2′ dimers (note the larger lobes on 1′), as well as stacked 1′ and 2′ dimers (note the larger lobes on 2′). (b) Electrostatic potential maps (MEP) of 1′ and 2′ monomers (blue indicates electron density loss and positively charged; red indicates electron density gain and negatively charged).
Figure 9Computed geometries in implicit solvation for the isolated monomers of 1′ and 2′ (bond distances in angstroms, values in bold font), the head-to-tail hexamer of 1′ (left, averaged bond distances for each of the monomeric units, values in italic font), and the stacked hexamer of 2′ (right, averaged bond distances for each of the monomeric units, values in italic font).