| Literature DB >> 34095663 |
Tunde L Yusuf1, Segun D Oladipo2, Sizwe Zamisa3, Hezekiel M Kumalo4, Isiaka A Lawal5, Monsurat M Lawal4, Nonhlangabezo Mabuba1.
Abstract
We report the synthesis and crystal structures of three new copper(II) Schiff-baseEntities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34095663 PMCID: PMC8173565 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.1c00906
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Scheme 1Synthesis of the Copper Complexes
Figure 1Electronic absorption spectra of complexes 1–3.
Figure 2Experimental and calculated IR spectra of Cu3. Other IR spectra are available in the Supporting Information.
Calculated IR Values (in cm–1) for the Cu(II) Complexes in Methanol at the SMD/B3LYP/6-31+G(d) Level of Theory
| ν(C=N) | ν(C–O) | ν(Cu–O) | ν(Cu–N) | ν(C=C) | ν(C–H) | ν(O–H) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1572.02–1552.34 | 1292.28–1283.72 | 455.01–436.16 | 408.47 | 1612.02–1589.71 | 3221.64–3217.07 | 3708.86–3708.35 | |
| 1575.48–1562.37 | 1299.36–1296.15 | 442.35 | 430.36 | 1612.48–1579.71 | 3221.90–3213.60 | 3716.71–3706.91 | |
| 1577.77–1565.65 | 1281.07–1275.39 | 468.68 | 411.82 | 1614.83–1588.56 | 3226.14–3221.38 | 3722.35–3710.83 |
Figure 3Crystal structures of Cu(II) complexes 2 and 3.
Selected Bond Parameters for Compounds 1–3
| compound | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| bond parameter | 1[ | 2 | 3 |
| Cu–O/Å | 1.89(1) | 1.884(9) | 1.89(1) |
| 1.880(9) | 1.90(1) | ||
| Cu–N/Å | 2.02(1) | 2.01(1) | 1.99(1) |
| 2.001(1) | 2.00(1) | ||
| O–Cu–O/deg | 180.000(2) | 173.222(4) | 166.812(4) |
| O–Cu–N/deg | 90.080(5) | 92.461(4) | 93.431(4) |
| 89.920(5) | 88.830(4) | 89.824(4) | |
| 90.081(5) | 91.870(4) | 91.851(4) | |
| 89.922(5) | 87.782(4) | 87.312(4) | |
| N–Cu–N/deg | 180.001(7) | 171.931(4) | 169.508(5) |
Figure 4Planes identified in the Cu(II) complexes 1–3 denoted R1, R2, R3, and R4.
Dihedral Angles between the Selected Planes
| dihedral angle/deg | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| compound | R1–R1 | R1–R2 | R3–R4 |
| 0.000(2) | 33.48(7) | 34.40(6) | |
| 35.24(8) | 35.54(6) | ||
| 10.32(4) | 12.46(4) | 64.51(4) | |
| 17.18(7) | 119.53(5) | ||
| 15.6(4) | 13.3(6) | 121.4(4) | |
| 7.8(6) | 120.8(4) | ||
Figure 5Intramolecular and intermolecular interactions observed in the crystal packing of compounds 1–3.
Figure 6Molecular overlays with RMSD values of the crystal structures (gray) and their respective optimized structures (orange) at the SMD/B3LYP/6-31+G(d) level of theory.
Figure 7Charge distribution derived from natural bond orbital analysis calculated at the SMD/B3LYP/6-31+G(d) level of theory for the studied Cu(II) complex.
Quantum Chemical Descriptors for the Copper Complexes at the SMD/B3LYP/6-31+G(d) Level of Theory
| LUMO + 1 (eV) | –2.310 | –2.258 | –2.352 |
| LUMO (eV) | –4.565 | –4.530 | –4.590 |
| HOMO – 1 (eV) | –6.244 | –6.193 | –5.992 |
| HOMO (eV) | –5.927 | –5.933 | –6.076 |
| IP (eV) | 5.927 | 5.933 | 6.076 |
| EA (eV) | 4.565 | 4.530 | 4.590 |
| Δ | 1.362 | 1.403 | 1.486 |
| μ (eV) | –5.246 | –5.232 | –5.333 |
| η (eV) | 0.681 | 0.702 | 0.743 |
| 1.469 | 1.425 | 1.346 | |
| ω (eV) | 20.209 | 19.505 | 19.139 |
| χ | 5.246 | 5.232 | 5.333 |
Figure 8LUMO and HOMO plots for the studied copper complexes at the SMD/B3LYP/6-31+G(d) level of theory.
Predicted Drug-Likeness and Pharmacokinetic Properties of the Cu(II) Complexesa
| ADME properties | |
|---|---|
| MW: 487.99 g/mol, H-bond donor:
2, H-bond acceptor: 4, log | |
| Lipinski: yes, Veber: yes, Muegge: yes | |
| GI absorption: high, P-gp substrate: yes, CYP2C19
inhibitor:
yes, CYP2C9: yes, CYP3A4 inhibitor: yes, log | |
| MW: 516.05 g/mol, H-bond donor:
2, H-bond acceptor: 4, log | |
| Lipinski: no, Veber: yes, Muegge: yes | |
| GI absorption: high, P-gp substrate: yes, CYP2C19 inhibitor:
yes, CYP2C9: yes, CYP3A4 inhibitor: yes, log | |
| MW: 558.90 g/mol, H-bond donor:
2, H-bond acceptor: 4, log | |
| Lipinski: no, Veber: yes, Muegge: yes | |
| GI absorption: high, P-gp substrate: yes, CYP2C19 inhibitor:
yes, CYP2C9: yes, CYP3A4 inhibitor: yes, log |
MW = Molecular weight, H = hydrogen, GI = gastrointestinal.
Chart 1(A) Overlay of the Initial X-ray Structure (Blue) Containing the Heme Ligand with the Optimized CYP3A4–Cu(II) Complex 1 (Pink), 2 (Green), and 3 (Cyan); (B) Binding Energy (ΔEbind) and RMSD (Å) of Cu(II) Compounds and Heme with CYP3A4 at the B3LYP/6-31+G(d): AMBER ONIOM Level
Figure 9Ligand-active residues’ nonbonded interaction network for CYP3A4 binding to (A) Cu(II) compounds 1, (B) 2, (C) 3, and (D) heme natural substrate.
Crystal Data and Structure Refinement for 2 and 3
| parameters | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|
| empirical formula | C28H24CuN2O4 | C26H18Cl2CuN2O4 |
| formula weight | 516.03 | 556.86 |
| temperature/K | 100.02 | 100.33 |
| crystal system | monoclinic | monoclinic |
| space group | ||
| a/Å | 24.8417(6) | 12.0280(9) |
| b/Å | 14.2633(4) | 14.800(1) |
| c/Å | 17.1697(4) | 13.524(1) |
| β/deg | 128.9150(10) | 110.518(4) |
| volume/Å3 | 4733.6(2) | 2254.6(3) |
| 8 | 4 | |
| ρcalc g/cm3 | 1.448 | 1.641 |
| μ/mm–1 | 0.961 | 1.245 |
| 2136.0 | 1132.0 | |
| crystal size/mm3 | 0.35 × 0.31 × 0.18 | 0.23 × 0.14 × 0.08 |
| 2θ range for data collection/deg | 3.548–56.884 | 3.906–52.992 |
| index ranges | –33 ≤ | –15 ≤ |
| reflections collected | 31 813 | 29 792 |
| independent reflections | 5938 [ | 29 792 [ |
| data/restraints/parameters | 5938/2/320 | 29 792/0/163 |
| goodness of fit on | 1.065 | 1.182 |
| final | ||
| final | ||
| largest diff. peak/hole/e Å–3 | 0.45/–0.42 | 3.22/–3.65 |
Figure 10Schematic representation of (A) the two-layered ONIOM [B3LYP/6-31+G(d):AMBER] model for the CYP3A4–Cu(II) complex simulation and (B) interaction of the Cu complex with the enzyme before the calculation.