Vibrational spectroscopy, quantum computational and molecular docking studies on 2-chloroquinoline-3-carboxaldehyde.

The quantum mechanical density functional theory (DFT) approach was used to analyze vibrational spectroscopy for the title compound 2-chloroquinoline-3-carboxaldehyde, and the observations were compared to experimental results. B3LYP with the 6-311++ G (d, p) basis set produces the optimized molecular structure and vibrational assignments. The charge delocalization and hyper conjugative interactions were studied using NBO analysis. Fukui functions were used to determine the chemical reactivity of the examined molecule. The linear polarizability, first order polarizability, NLO and Thermodynamic properties are calculated. Additionally, Molecular electrostatic potential (MEP) and HOMO-LUMO are reported. Multi wavefunction analysis like ELF (Electron Localization Function) and LOL (Localized Orbital Locator) are analyzed. For the headline compound, drug-likeness properties were examined. Molecular docking analysis on the examined molecule are done to understand the biological functions of the headline molecule and the minimum binding energy, hydrogen bond interactions, are analyzed.

Introduction

Quinoline is widely occurred in natural products and its annulated skeletons is more n class="Chemical">significant in medicinal chemistry, polymer chemistry [1, 2, 3, 4], electronics for their admirable mechanical properties [5, 6, 7]. Quinoline and its derivatives have their own impact in the [8, 9] antibacterial [10, 11], antioxidant, antiprotozoal [12, 13, 14], anti-inflammatory [15], antituberculosis [16, 17], antimalarial, antidepressant, antiproliferative, anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial activities. Quinoline compounds are effective antagonist [18, 19, 20, 21]. 2-chloroquinoline-3-carbaldehyde have great chemical reactivity due to the occurrence of two effective moieties chloro and aldehyde functions [22].

2-Chloroquinoline-3-carboxaldehyde (2CQ3CALD) has the molecular formula C10H6ClNO and molecular mass as191.61 g/mol literature survey reveals that many researches have been done to derive quinoline derivatives. There were no details in quantum chemical calculations and biological activities.

In the existing effort theoretical parameters are compared with experimentally observed data. Un class="Chemical">sing Gaussian 09W program B3LYP with 6–311++G (d, p), enhanced geometrical structure of the headline compound is attained. The vibrational assignments were achieved on the PED of individual vibrational modes. Fukui functions are calculated to study the most reactive sites of compound. Stabilisation energy of bonding and antibonding orbitals studied by NBO. The MEP surface, HOMO LUMO bandgap energy and Non-Linear Optical (NLO) behaviour are studied. Topological analysis like ELF and LOL was done for the headline molecule. Further the molecular properties including polarizability, dipole moment and thermodynamic properties are also computed. In addition to that Molecular docking is achieved on 2CQ3CALD with antagonist protein.

The headline compound 2CQ3CALD was bought in solid state from the n class="Chemical">sigma – Aldrich chemical company. The FT-IR spectrum was captured on PERKIN - ELMER spectrometer utilising KBR pellet technique in the 4000-450cm−1 range. The FT-Raman spectrum was recorded in the region 4000 -100 cm−1 on BRUKER- RFS: 27 using Nd- YAG laser, at IIT- SAIF, Chennai.

Procedure

Computational method

Density functional n class="Chemical">computational analysis is carried out using B3LYP [23] 6–311++ G (d, p) using Gaussian09W [24] software. The geometric structure and the parameters are attained from CHEMCRAFT 1.6. The vibrational assignments and the PED are evaluated using VEDA software [25]. To compensate for faults caused by the basis set, the vibrational frequencies are scaled by 0.961 [26,27]. IR and Raman spectra were generated theoretically and experimentally, and data was compared using Gabedit and Orginpro 8.5 software. NBO is calculated to understand the interactions between the orbitals [28, 29]. The MEP and HOMO-LUMO energies are also proposed using Gauss View. THERMO.PL software [30] is used to measure thermodynamic properties at various temperatures. The Auto Dock software program was used to dock ligand-protein simulations and assess the least binding energy, inhibition constant, and other variables. The analyses like ELF and LOL were done using multi wavefunction analysis program. Mullikan population analysis and Fukui functions as well as hyper polarizability and electronegativity were computed.

Result and discussion

Optimized description

The enhanced molecular diagram of headline compound is presented in Figure 1. Gausn class="Chemical">sian09W was used to determine bond lengths and angles. The same compound structural parameters (BL and BA) have already been reported in a paper [31] that is similar to the current analysis, but they have not been compared with the experimental XRD. In the present work, the structural parameters are related with the XRD parameters [32] of the headline compound and mentioned in Table 1. The compound taken has a monoclinic crystal system with space group P21/n and cell dimensions: a = 11.8784Å; b = 3.9235Å; c = 18.1375Å. Optimized molecular parameters are slightly varying because the theoretic estimations is done in gaseous state and the experimental outcomes are found in the solid state. The molecular structure comprises of ten C–C, six C–H, two N–C and one C–Cl, C–O bond lengths. The peak bond distance for C2–Cl13 (1.7519Å) is found experimentally and 1.751Å in theoretically. The measured bond lengths for C–C range from 1.375Å -1.487Å and C–H range from 1.083Å -1.112Å by basis set which is close to the experimental data. The theoretical bond length of C-O is 1.206 Å which coincides with experimental bond length. Since C–C is homonuclear it has a longer bond length and the bond length of heteronuclear bonds, such as C–H is shorter.

Figure 1

Optimized geometric structure of 2-chloroquinoline-3-carboxaldehyde.

Table 1

Geometrical parameters of 2-chloroquinoline-3-carboxaldehyde: bond length (Å) and bond angle (°).

Parameter	Experimental∗	B3LYP/6–311++G (d,p)	Parameter	Experimental∗	B3LYP/6–311++G (d,p)
Bond Length			Bond Angle
N1–C2	1.288	1.297	C2–N1–C10	117.48	119.4
N1–C10	1.372	1.365	N1–C2–C3	126.15	124.2
C2–C3	1.423	1.436	N1–C2–Cl13	115.14	115.7
C2–Cl13	1.7519	1.751	N1–C10–C5	121.83	121.8
C3–C4	1.367	1.381	N1–C10–C9	118.45	119
C3–C11	1.479	1.487	C3–C2–Cl13	118.71	120.1
C4–C5	1.406	1.41	C2–C3–C4	116.22	116.3
C4–H14	0.93	1.087	C2–C3–C11	123.62	127.2
C5–C6	1.411	1.418	C4–C3–C11	120.14	116.5
C5–C10	1.418	1.427	C3–C4–C5	120.74	121.5
C6–C7	1.36	1.375	C3–C4–H14	119.6	119
C6–H15	0.93	1.085	C3–C11–O12	123.76	127.7
C7–C8	1.409	1.415	C3–C11–H19	118.1	111.9
C7–H16	0.93	1.084	C5–C4–H14	119.6	119.5
C8–C9	1.363	1.376	C4–C5–C6	123.22	123.8
C8–H17	0.93	1.084	C4–C5–C10	117.52	116.7
C9–C10	1.409	1.414	C6–C5–C10	119.24	119.5
C9–H18	0.93	1.083	C5–C6–C7	120.07	120.1
C11–O12	1.196	1.206	C5–C6–H15	120	119.2
C11–H19	0.93	1.112	C5–C10–C9	119.71	119.2
			C7–C6–H15	120	120.7
			C6–C7–C8	120.28	120.3
			C6–C7–H16	119.9	120.1
			C8–C7–H16	119.9	119.6
			C7–C8–C9	121.46	120.9
			C7–C8–H17	119.3	119.3
			C9–C8–H17	119.3	119.7
			C8–C9–C10	119.23	120
			C8–C9–H18	120.4	121.9
			C10–C9–H18	120.4	118.1
			O12–C11–H19	118.1	120.4

Ref [32].

Vibrational spectral study

The examined compound n class="Chemical">contains nineteen atoms, as it is nonlinear and has fifty-one vibrational modes by 3N–6. Theoretical spectral data of FT- IR and FT- Raman with the experimental results is presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 respectively. Separate correlation graphs for FT- IR and FT- Raman with experimental and theoretic wavenumbers are given in Figure 4. The corresponding R2 values are 0.9971 and 0.9982 which also shown in graph. The calculated IR intensities, scaled vibrational frequencies and Raman intensity with PED are shown in Table.2. The following expression Eq. (1) [31] was used to convert the theoretical Raman scattering activity (Si) into relative Raman intensity (IRaman)where the laser-excited wavenumber and is the normal mode vibrational wavenumber (cm−1); the constant (= 10−12) is normalization factor for all peak intensities; c, T, k & h are the light velocity, temperature in Kelvin and Boltzmann & Planck constants correspondingly. The vibrational frequencies are scaled with 0.961 [26]. VEDA software was used to do vibrational assignments. The rms deviation between experimental and computed scaled frequencies calculated as 45.47cm−1 [33]. Theoretical data differ slightly from experimental data because theoretic wavenumbers obtained from gaseous state and experimental wave numbers are obtained from the solid state [34].

Figure 2

Compared theoretical and experimental FT-IR spectrum.

Figure 3

Compared theoretical and experimental FT-Raman spectrum.

Figure 4

Correlation graph of (a) FT-IR and (b) FT-Raman.

Table 2

Observed and calculated vibrational frequency of 2-chloroquinoline-3-carboxaldehyde at B3LYP with 6–311++G (d,p) basis set.

SI.No	Experimental		Theoretical		IR		Raman		RamanIntensityc(IRaman)	dAssignments
	Frequency (cm−1)		Frequencies (cm−1)		Intensity		Activity
	FT-IR	FT-Raman	Unscaled	ascaled	bRelative	Absolute	cRelative	Absolute
1	3107(w)	3062 (vs)	3203	3078	5	1	202	57	0.399	ʋCH(95)
2	3058(w)	3040 (vw)	3192	3067	13	3	216	61	0.433	ʋCH(100)
3	3041(m)		3176	3052	7	2	115	32	0.235	ʋCH(88)
4	2928(m)	3020 (vw)	3167	3043	2	0	56	16	0.116	ʋCH(90)
5	2870(s)	2873(s)	3153	3030	4	1	65	18	0.137	ʋCH(99)
6	2750 (vw)	2767(m)	2869	2757	108	30	137	39	0.411	ʋCH(100)
7	1685(s)	1682 (vs)	1786	1717	367	100	212	60	2.952	ʋOC(90)
8	1612(s)	1661(m)	1654	1590	79	21	106	30	1.831	ʋCC(57)
9	1577 (vs)	1612 (vs)	1625	1561	165	45	42	12	0.764	ʋNC(18)+ʋCC(32)+βHCC(13)
10	1489(s)	1579 (vs)	1593	1530	80	22	46	13	0.878	ʋNC(13)+ʋCC(23)+βCCC(10)
11	1454(m)	1490(s)	1522	1463	19	5	10	3	0.222	ʋCC(11)+βHCC(11)
12		1456(m)	1485	1427	12	3	7	2	0.158	ʋNC(11)+ʋCC(10)+βHCC(36)
13	1370(s)	1413(w)	1450	1394	8	2	40	11	0.987	βHCO(57)
14	1332(s)	1383 (vs)	1423	1367	41	11	355	100	9.278	ʋCC(10)+ʋNC(11)+βHCO(10)+βCCC(11)
15		1329(m)	1383	1329	15	4	36	10	1.000	ʋCC(19)+βHCO(16)
16			1370	1317	39	11	39	11	1.134	ʋNC(22)+ʋCC(33)+βHCC(16)
17	1212(m)	1218(w)	1331	1279	4	1	15	4	0.465	ʋCC(14)+ʋNC(13)+βHCC(20)
18		1167(m)	1274	1224	4	1	2	1	0.084	ʋCC(11)+βHCC(38)
19	1165 (vs)	1143(m)	1247	1198	10	3	4	1	0.141	ʋCC(26)+ʋNC(20)+βHCC(12)
20	1131(s)		1192	1146	44	12	27	8	1.111	ʋCC(14)+βHCC(38)
21			1171	1125	6	2	11	3	0.479	βHCC(56)
22	1045 (vs)		1156	1111	31	9	3	1	0.115	βHCC(51)
23	970(m)	1016(s)	1060	1019	152	41	2	1	0.116	ʋCC(10)+ʋClC(11)+βCNC(21)
24	939(m)		1037	996	0	0	30	9	1.789	ʋCC(54)+βHCC(13)
25			1018	979	2	0	4	1	0.230	τHCCC(49)+τOCCC(33)
26	911(s)	950 (vw)	1007	968	0	0	0	0	0.013	τHCCC(81)+τCCCC(11)
27			981	943	3	1	0	0	0.024	τHCCC(78)
28	872(w)	900 (vw)	935	899	14	4	0	0	0.005	τHCCC(76)
29			909	874	7	2	1	0	0.070	ʋCC(11)+ʋNC(10)+βCCC(38)
30	806(m)	808(s)	879	845	5	1	0	0	0.005	τHCCC(80)
31	776(w)	750(s)	809	778	14	4	33	9	3.483	βCCC(23)
32	760(s)		784	753	25	7	0	0	0.008	τHCCC(16)+τCNCC(20)+τCCCC(35)+ωNCCC(12)
33			769	739	66	18	8	2	0.980	βOCC(27)+βCCC(15)
34			767	738	38	10	0	0	0.014	τHCCC(51)+τCCCC(11)
35	678(m)	640 (vw)	696	669	1	0	0	0	0.072	τCCCC(32)+τClCNC(24)
36	621(w)	600 (vw)	671	644	14	4	5	1	0.794	ʋClC(11)+βCNC(13)+βCCC(20)+βNCC(13)
37	592(w)		621	596	15	4	2	0	0.304	βCCC(48)
38	550 (vw)		599	576	2	0	3	1	0.653	ʋClC(15)+βCCC(34)
39			543	522	1	0	0	0	0.052	τHCCC(21)+τCNCC(12)+τCCCC(11)+ωClCNC(19)
40	486(w)	476(w)	492	473	5	1	0	0	0.001	τCCCC(11)+ωNCCC(17)+ωCCCC(36)
41		450(w)	456	439	11	3	4	1	1.435	βOCC(11)+βCCC(26)+βClCN(17)
42		410(w)	424	407	1	0	2	1	0.825	τCCCC(41)+ωClCNC(10)+ωCCCC(19)
43		320(s)	378	363	3	1	18	5	10.85	ʋClC(18)
44			348	335	3	1	5	1	3.733	ʋCC(14)+ʋClC(24)+βOCC(16)
45		250(w)	298	286	0	0	0	0	0.422	τHCCC(13)+ωClCNC(21)+ωCCCC(38)
46		240(w)	271	260	0	0	1	0	0.680	τCNCC(16)+τCCCC(47)
47		200(m)	227	218	0	0	1	0	1.728	βNCC(20)+βClCN(47)
48			194	187	5	1	0	0	0.177	βOCC(12)+βCCC(60)
49		110(s)	145	140	9	3	1	0	3.242	τHCCC(12)+τOCCC(26)+τCCCC(22)+ωCCCC(16)
50		80(s)	98	94	0	0	0	0	4.771	τCCCC(36)+ωNCCC(25)
51			48	46	3	1	2	1	100.0	τOCCC(20)+τCNCC(18)+τCCCC(10)+ωCCCC(17)

Scaling factor: 0.961 for B3LYP/6–311++G (d,p).

Relative absorption intensities normalized with higher peak absorption equal to 100.

Relative Raman activities normalized to 100. Relative Raman intensities calculated by Eq. (1) and normalized to 100.

ʋ-Stretching β-in plane bending ω-out plane pending τ-torsion.

Carbon–Carbon vibrations

The Carbon–Carbon stretching vibration occurs in 1650–1100cm−1 [35] range. The same vibrations were seen in FT-IR spectrum at 1612, 1577, 1489, 1454, 1332, 1212, 1165, 1131, 939cm−1 and in the FT-Raman spectrum at 1661, 1612, 1579, 1490, 1456, 1383, 1329, 1143, 1016cm−1. Between 1590 and 874 cm−1, theoretical C–C stretching vibrations were observed. It demonstrates that both theoretical and experimental results correlate well with PED contributions of 57,32,23,10,19,14,26 and 54 percent, respectively.

Carbon–Hydrogen vibrations

Hetero aromatics Carbon–Hydrogen (C–H) vibrations were observed in 3100–3000cm−1 [36,37] range. C–H stretching vibrations were found experimentally at 3107, 3058, 3041,2928, 2870, 2750cm−1 in FT-IR and 3062, 3040, 3020, 2873, 2767cm−1in FT-Raman spectra. Theoretically, this vibration was observed at the frequencies 3078, 3067, 3052, 3043, 3030, 2757cm−1 with 88–100% PED. For 3067 and 2757 shows 100% PED.

Nitrogen–Carbon vibrations

Nitrogen–Carbon (N–C) vibration occurs in the area 1400-1200 cm−1 [38] as mixed band. The title molecule N–C vibrations were observed at 1577,1489,1332,1212,1165cm−1 in FT-IR and 1612,1579,1456,1383,1218,1143cm−1 in FT-Raman spectra. Theoretical peaks are observed in 1625–1247cm−1 range. The PED contribution is 18,13,11,22 and 20%, respectively.

Carbon–Oxygen vibration

The stretching vibration of carbonyl group is noted in 1850–1550cm−1 [39] range. In FT- IR and Raman, the n class="Chemical">compound exhibits a strong absorption peak at 1685cm−1 and 1682cm−1 respectively. Theoretically, frequency was obtained at 1717cm−1 with 90% PED.

Carbon–Chlorine(C–Cl) vibration

The C–Cl vibration appears in the range 710–505 cm−1 [40,41]. Theoretical C–Cl vibration is obtained at 644 and 576cm−1. Experimental FT- IR and Raman peaks observed at 621 and 600 cm−1 correspondingly with 11 percent PED.

Natural bond orbital

The NBO method provides evidence of interactions in both occupied orbital and virtual orbital areas, which improves the investigation of intra and inter molecule interactions. The interaction is evaluated un class="Chemical">sing the fock matrix [42]. NBO analysis on 2CQ3CALD is carried out with B3LYP/6–311++ G (d, p) method [43]. Donor-acceptor pairings and donor-acceptor stabilization energy values are computed [44, 45] and presented in Table 3. The orbital overlap between σ (C–C) and σ∗ (C–C) bond orbitals induce intramolecular contact, which leads in intramolecular charge transfer (ICT) and system stabilisation [46]. Due to the conjugative interactions, electrons from σ(C3–C4) delocalize to antibonding σ∗(C2–Cl13), σ∗(C5–C6), σ∗ (C2–C3), σ∗ (C4–C5), σ∗ (C11–O12), σ∗ (C3–C11), σ∗ (C4–H14) with the stabilisation energies 3.49,2.99,2.66,2.15,1.09,1 and 0.68 kcal/mol respectively. π bond electron from π(C3–C4) to anti-bonding π∗(N1–C2), π∗(C5– C10), π∗ (C11–O12) with moderate stabilisation energy 19.01,13.27,11.79 kcal/mol and σ∗(C2–Cl13), σ∗(N1–C2), σ∗(C11–H19), σ∗(C11–O12) with low stabilisation energy 1.46,1.21,0.95,0.4 kcal/mol respectively. The delocalisation of π electron from π(C5–C10) distribute the anti-bonding π∗ (C3–C4), π∗ (C6–C7), π∗ (N1–C2), π∗ (C8–C9) with stabilisation energy 20.03,17.7,14.52,14.21 kcal/mol respectively. A strong interaction was observed as a result of the delocalisation of π∗(N1–C2) to the π∗(C5–C10) with high stabilisation energy 37.68 kcal/mol. On the other hand, lone pair of Cl13 (LP3) → π∗(N1–C2), lone pair of O12 (LP2) → σ∗(C11–H19), σ∗(C3–C11), lone pair of N1 (LP1) → σ∗(C2–C3) with the stabilisation energy 27.21,21.37,19.93,10.04 correspondingly.

Table 3

Second order perturbation theory analysis of Fock matrix in NBO basis of 2CQ3CALD.

Donor	Type	ED/e (qi)	Acceptor	Type	ED/e (qi)	E (2)a	E(j)-E(i)b	F(I,j)c
						kcal/mol	a.u.	a.u.
N 1 - C 2	σ	1.98622	N 1 - C 10	σ∗	0.02673	0.85	1.32	0.03
			C 5 - C 10	π∗	0.49095	0.56	0.85	0.022
			C 9 - C 10	σ∗	0.02448	3.19	1.37	0.059
N 1 - C 2	π	1.76831	N 1 - C 2	π∗	0.393	1.38	0.26	0.018
			N 1 - C 10	σ∗	0.02673	1.63	0.8	0.034
			C 3 - C 4	σ∗	0.01935	0.54	0.82	0.02
			C 5 - C 10	π∗	0.49095	24.82	0.33	0.087
N 1 - C 10	σ	1.97414	N 1 - C 2	σ∗	0.0315	1.09	1.28	0.033
			C 2 -Cl 13	σ∗	0.05625	3.24	0.95	0.05
			C 5 - C 10	π∗	0.49095	1.13	0.83	0.031
			C 8 - C 9	σ∗	0.01168	1.16	1.35	0.035
C 2 - C 3	σ	1.97329	N 1 - C 2	σ∗	0.0315	0.91	1.18	0.029
			C 11 - O 12	π∗	0.0768	0.53	0.73	0.018
C 2 -Cl 13	σ	1.98474	N 1 - C 2	π∗	0.393	1.57	0.67	0.032
			C 3 - C 4	σ∗	0.01935	2.18	1.23	0.046
C 3 - C 4	σ	1.97244	C 2 -Cl 13	σ∗	0.05625	3.49	0.83	0.049
			C 4 - H 14	σ∗	0.01435	0.68	1.1	0.024
			C 11 - O 12	σ∗	0.00357	1.09	1.29	0.034
C 3 - C 4	π	1.71236	N 1 - C 2	σ∗	0.0315	1.21	0.76	0.029
			N 1 - C 2	π∗	0.393	19.01	0.23	0.061
			C 2 -Cl 13	σ∗	0.05625	1.46	0.42	0.024
			C 11 - O 12	π∗	0.0768	11.79	0.3	0.056
C 3 - C 11	σ	1.9814	N 1 - C 2	σ∗	0.0315	1.97	1.14	0.043
			N 1 - C 2	π∗	0.393	0.75	0.62	0.021
			C 4 - C 5	σ∗	0.01969	1.91	1.2	0.043
C 4 - C 5	σ	1.97415	C 3 - C 11	σ∗	0.06547	3.29	1.08	0.054
			C 5 - C 6	σ∗	0.02123	3.17	1.24	0.056
			C 5 - C 10	σ∗	0.04367	3.2	1.24	0.056
C 4 - H 14	σ	1.97768	C 2 - C 3	σ∗	0.04983	3.34	0.98	0.052
			C 5 - C 10	σ∗	0.04367	4.14	1.07	0.06
C 5 - C 6	σ	1.97363	N 1 - C 10	σ∗	0.02673	2.92	1.18	0.052
			C 5 - C 10	σ∗	0.04367	3.54	1.23	0.059
			C 7 - H 16	σ∗	0.01196	2.05	1.11	0.043
C 5 - C 10	σ	1.9676	N 1 - C 10	σ∗	0.02673	1.47	1.19	0.037
			C 4 - C 5	σ∗	0.01969	3.24	1.22	0.056
C 5 - C 10	π	1.50101	N 1 - C 2	π∗	0.393	14.52	0.2	0.05
			N 1 - C 10	σ∗	0.02673	1.4	0.74	0.033
			C 3 - C 4	π∗	0.27314	20.03	0.27	0.07
C 6 - C 7	σ	1.98163	C 4 - C 5	σ∗	0.01969	3.26	1.21	0.056
			C 5 - C 6	σ∗	0.02123	2.29	1.22	0.047
			C 8 - H 17	σ∗	0.01142	2.07	1.11	0.043
C 6 - C 7	π	1.71569	C 5 - C 10	π∗	0.49095	16.21	0.27	0.063
C 6 - H 15	σ	1.98145	C 7 - C 8	σ∗	0.014	3.37	1.04	0.053
C 7 - C 8	σ	1.98194	C 6 - C 7	σ∗	0.01217	1.85	1.22	0.042
			C 6 - H 15	σ∗	0.01262	2.4	1.1	0.046
			C 9 - H 18	σ∗	0.01142	2.28	1.11	0.045
C 7 - H 16	σ	1.98211	C 5 - C 6	σ∗	0.02123	3.51	1.05	0.054
C 8 - C 9	σ	1.97956	N 1 - C 10	σ∗	0.02673	3.68	1.18	0.059
			C 7 - C 8	σ∗	0.014	1.72	1.21	0.041
			C 7 - H 16	σ∗	0.01196	2.2	1.11	0.044
C 8 - C 9	π	1.70898	C 5 - C 10	π∗	0.49095	19.57	0.27	0.068
C 8 - H 17	σ	1.9814	C 6 - C 7	σ∗	0.01217	3.32	1.06	0.053
C 9 - C 10	σ	1.97373	N 1 - C 2	σ∗	0.0315	2.68	1.16	0.05
			N 1 - C 2	π∗	0.393	0.77	0.64	0.022
			C 5 - C 10	σ∗	0.04367	3.45	1.23	0.058
			C 8 - H 17	σ∗	0.01142	2.03	1.11	0.043
C 9 - H 18	σ	1.97913	N 1 - C 10	σ∗	0.02673	0.55	1	0.021
			C 5 - C 10	σ∗	0.04367	4.43	1.05	0.061
C 11 - O 12	σ	1.99642	C 3 - C 4	σ∗	0.01935	1.25	1.58	0.04
C 11 - O 12	π	1.98331	C 2 - C 3	σ∗	0.04983	0.81	0.85	0.024
			C 3 - C 4	π∗	0.27314	3.47	0.42	0.037
C 11 - H 19	σ	1.98586	C 2 - C 3	σ∗	0.04983	2.55	0.99	0.045
			C 3 - C 4	π∗	0.27314	0.97	0.57	0.022
N 1	LP (1)	1.87257	C 2 - C 3	σ∗	0.04983	10.04	0.78	0.081
			C 5 - C 10	σ∗	0.04367	9.23	0.87	0.082
			C 5 - C 10	π∗	0.49095	1.37	0.35	0.022
O 12	LP (2)	1.87741	C 3 - C 11	σ∗	0.06547	19.93	0.66	0.104
			C 11 - H 19	σ∗	0.06151	21.37	0.62	0.104
Cl 13	LP (1)	1.99151	N 1 - C 2	σ∗	0.0315	0.92	1.4	0.032
			C 2 - C 3	σ∗	0.04983	0.94	1.37	0.032
Cl 13	LP (2)	1.95141	C 3 - C 4	π∗	0.27314	0.79	0.33	0.015
Cl 13	LP (3)	1.86398	N 1 - C 2	π∗	0.393	27.21	0.29	0.085
			C 2 -Cl 13	σ∗	0.05625	0.74	0.48	0.017
N 1 - C 2	π∗	0.393	N 1 - C 10	σ∗	0.02673	2.44	0.54	0.071
			C 2 -Cl 13	σ∗	0.05625	9.57	0.19	0.08
			C 3 - C 11	σ∗	0.06547	0.76	0.43	0.034
			C 5 - C 10	π∗	0.49095	37.68	0.07	0.069
C 3 - C 4	π∗	0.27314	C 2 -Cl 13	σ∗	0.05625	1.11	0.12	0.025
			C 3 - C 4	σ∗	0.01935	2.48	0.49	0.081

E2 means energy of hyper conjugative interaction (stabilization energy).

E(j)-E(i) is the energy difference between donor i and acceptor j.

F (i,j) is the Fock matrix element between i and j NBO orbital's.

MEP

Molecular electrostatic potential (MEP) is associated to the electron density and is an excellent descriptor for locating reactive binding locations and donor acceptor regions [47]. Electrostatic potential of the molecule is illustrated by MEP surface with different n class="Chemical">colours. Nature of the chemical bond may also be identified by this electrostatic surface [48]. The three-dimensional MEP plot of the examined compound is shown in Figure 5. These maps are colour coded between -5.158e−2 and +5.158e−2, with blue suggesting nucleophilic reactivity and red indicating electrophilic reactivity [49]. The present compound has negative regions (minimum electrostatic potential) primarily confined on oxygen, which is more reactive site for electrophilic attack, and positive sections (maximum electrostatic potential) mainly confined on nitrogen and hydrogen, which is a highly active centre for nucleophilic attack.

Figure 5

Molecular electrostatic potential (MEP) of 2-chloroquinoline-3-carboxaldehyde obtained by B3LYP/6–311++G (d,p) method.

Frontier molecular orbitals analysis

The interaction of highest occupied and lowest unoccupied orbital (HOMO and LUMO) resulting in electronic transitions [50]. The visual image of orbital diagram is presented in Figure 6. Tan class="Disease">ble 4 displays the relevant energy values and energy gap (ΔE = 4.430eV), which describes the overall reactivity of the headline compound. The compound has chemical softness 0.226, chemical hardness 2.215, electron affinity 2.762, electronegativity 4.977 and ionization potential 7.193. The above-mentioned values, especially the electrophilicity (5.592) value of the present compound 2CQ3CALD, supports its biologically activity [51, 52].

Figure 6

The atomic orbital arrangements of the frontier molecular orbital of the title compound.

Table 4

Calculated energy values for 2-chloroquinoline-3- carboxaldehyde by B3LYP/6–311++G (d,p) method.

Basis set	B3LYP/6–311++G (d,p)
HOMO (eV)	-7.193
LUMO (eV)	-2.762
Ionization potential	7.193
Electron affinity	2.762
Energy gap (eV)	4.430
Electronegativity	4.977
Chemical potential	-4.977
Chemical hardness	2.215
Chemical softness	0.226
Electrophilicity index	5.592

Hyper polarizability

The energy of a system in the presence of an applied electric field is a function of the electric field. The first hyperpolarizabilities (βtot), polarizability α, electric dipole moment μ and the hyperpolarizability β of 2CQ3CALD are evaluated using force field process with B3LYP and tabulated in Tan class="Disease">ble 5, which govern the NLO activity of the system [53, 54]. Urea is often considered as a standard reference when describing an organic NLO molecule. The computed values for β (first order hyperpolarizability), μ(D) (dipole moment) and α (polarizability) are 5.52 × 10−30esu, 1.797 Debye and 2.32 × 10−23esu respectively. The β value is 15 times greater than that of Urea (βtot = 0.372 × 10−30) [55,56], indicating that title molecule has the potential to be a strong NLO material. The total static μ(D) dipole moment of the head compound is 0.779 Debye. In the future, the investigated compound will be considered for NLO.

Table 5

The value of calculated dipole moment μ (D), polarizability (α) and first order hyperpolarizability (β) of title compound.

Parameter	B3LYP/6–311++G (d,p)	Parameter	B3LYP/6–311++G (d,p)
βxxx	513.923	αxy	-5.153
βxxy	-258.535	αyy	140.328
βxyy	18.607	αxz	21.459
βyyy	-25.779	αyz	13.525
βzxx	-97.159	αzz	93.072
βxyz	14.324	α (a.u)	156.329
βzyy	-74.414	α (e.s.u)	2.32 × 10−23
βxzz	-107.222	Δα (a.u)	426.984
βyzz	-66.002	Δα (e.s.u)	6.33 × 10−23
βzzz	-151.852	μx	-1.432
βtot (a.u)	638.914	μy	-0.992
βtot (e.s.u)	5.52 × 10−30	μz	-0.439
αxx	235.589	μ(D)	1.797

Thermodynamic properties

The determination of thermodynamic properties at various temperatures aids in determining the reactivity of material at high temperatures. The thermodynamic functions are attained by THERMO. PL [30] and tabulated in Table 6. Temperature increases (100K–1000 K) would increase the functions shown in n class="Chemical">correlation graph Figure 7, such as heat capacity, entropy and enthalpy. This is due to an increase in molecular vibration with the temperature [57, 58]. The quadratic fit of functions with temperature is described by the relationships shown below. S, Cp and H have the fitting factor (R2) of 0.99999,0.99949 and 0.99926, respectively [59],S = 231.81386 + 0.67365T- 1.60359 × 10Cp = 9.23558 + 0.62752T- 2.75045 × 10H = - 7.41764 + 0.07927T+ 1.62853 × 10

Table 6

Thermodynamic function variation of values for 2-chloroquinoline-3-carboxaldehyde with temperature.

T (K)	S (J/mol.K)	Cp (J/mol.K)	H (kJ/mol)
100	296.604	71.762	4.981
200	361.172	120.665	14.576
298.2	418.635	170.355	28.863
300	419.692	171.274	29.179
400	475.514	217.943	48.695
500	528.489	256.954	72.508
600	578.21	288.234	99.827
700	624.587	313.189	129.944
800	667.767	333.3	162.304
900	708.004	349.723	196.482
1000	745.575	363.3	232.154

Figure 7

Graphs representing dependence of entropy, specific heat capacity and enthalpy on temperature of 2-chloroquinoline-3-carboxaldehyde.

Fukui function and dual descriptor

Mulliken charges n class="Chemical">computed by B3LYP [60] aid in understanding the headline compound's condensed Fukui function (fr) and dual descriptor values. Table 7 displays the fukui functions and dual descriptor values for 2CQ3CALD. Carbon atoms have atomic charges ranging from -2.180 to 2.152 as shown in Figure 8. The atomic charge of C5 is the highest. This is due to the highly negative C10 atom. Chlorine and nitrogen are also positively charged atoms. The intermolecular interaction could be formed by negatively charged oxygen and positively charged hydrogen. This type of interaction promotes the hydrogen bond.

Table 7

Condensed Fukui function f and new descriptor (s f) for 2CQ3CALD.

Atom	Mulliken atomic charges			Fukui functions			dual descriptor	local softness
	0, 1 (N)	N +1 (-1, 2)	N-1 (1,2)	fr+	fr-	fr0	Δfr	sr+ ƒr+	sr-ƒr-	sr0 ƒr0
1 N	0.226	0.086	0.371	-0.140	-0.146	-0.143	0.006	-0.032	-0.033	-0.032
2 C	0.261	0.195	0.278	-0.066	-0.017	-0.041	-0.049	-0.015	-0.004	-0.009
3 C	0.257	0.234	0.250	-0.023	0.007	-0.008	-0.030	-0.005	0.001	-0.002
4 C	-0.381	-0.503	-0.354	-0.121	-0.027	-0.074	-0.094	-0.027	-0.006	-0.017
5 C	2.152	2.017	2.251	-0.135	-0.100	-0.117	-0.035	-0.030	-0.022	-0.026
6 C	-0.154	-0.211	-0.057	-0.057	-0.097	-0.077	0.041	-0.013	-0.022	-0.017
7 C	-0.299	-0.335	-0.259	-0.036	-0.040	-0.038	0.003	-0.008	-0.009	-0.009
8 C	-0.298	-0.322	-0.284	-0.024	-0.014	-0.019	-0.010	-0.006	-0.003	-0.004
9 C	-0.297	-0.293	-0.233	0.004	-0.064	-0.030	0.068	0.001	-0.014	-0.007
10 C	-2.180	-2.014	-2.300	0.166	0.120	0.143	0.046	0.037	0.027	0.032
11 C	-0.314	-0.345	-0.268	-0.030	-0.046	-0.038	0.016	-0.007	-0.010	-0.009
12 O	-0.185	-0.214	-0.144	-0.029	-0.041	-0.035	0.011	-0.007	-0.009	-0.008
13 Cl	0.209	0.062	0.383	-0.148	-0.173	-0.161	0.026	-0.033	-0.039	-0.036
14 H	0.190	0.124	0.245	-0.066	-0.055	-0.061	-0.011	-0.015	-0.013	-0.014
15 H	0.141	0.089	0.206	-0.052	-0.065	-0.059	0.012	-0.012	-0.015	-0.013
16 H	0.174	0.113	0.246	-0.060	-0.072	-0.066	0.012	-0.014	-0.016	-0.015
17 H	0.168	0.116	0.225	-0.053	-0.057	-0.055	0.004	-0.012	-0.013	-0.012
18 H	0.218	0.150	0.282	-0.068	-0.064	-0.066	-0.004	-0.015	-0.014	-0.015
19 H	0.113	0.052	0.162	-0.061	-0.049	-0.055	-0.012	-0.014	-0.011	-0.012

Figure 8

The histogram of calculated Mulliken charge of 2-chloroquinoline-3-carboxaldehyde.

Fukui function is calculated [61, 62]in terms of electron density [63, 64, 65]. Tan class="Disease">ble 7 shows the electrophilic reactivity order as Cl13 > N1>C5>C6. The calculated fr+ values of C10 and C9 indicate a potential site for nucleophilic attack. The values of local softness are at maximum for C10 = 0.037. Except C3 and C10, all remaining atoms are preferable for electrophilic reactions. The dual descriptor is more exact than the fukui function. Positive values for the atoms 9C,10C,6C,13Cl,11C,15H,16H,12O,1N,17H and 7C explains which atoms are for nucleophilic attack. Positive descriptor values for atoms 18H,8C,14H,19H,3C,5C,2C and 4C indicates that these atoms are for electrophilic attack.

ELF and LOL

ELF and LOL are surface investigations done on the base of covalent bonds to estimate the electron pair denn class="Chemical">sity. This topological character was found using the Multiwave function program [66]. The electron localization function, which is based on electron pair density and the Localized orbital locator, is concerned with the localized electron cloud. Colored maps of 2CQ3CALD Multiwave functions are displayed in Figure 9 (a, a’ and b, b’). The ELF value ranged from 0.0 to 1.0, where >0.5 indicating bonding and non-bonded localized electrons and <0.5 describing delocalized electrons [67, 68]. The LOL attain a high value of >0.5, describing how electron localization overcomes electron density. Because of covalent bond, electrons are highly localized [69].

Figure 9

ELF (a, a’) and LOL (b, b’) coloured diagram and contour maps.

The red color (high region) around n class="Chemical">hydrogen atoms in the ELF diagram is shows the presence of high localized electrons. The blue color around C, N and O indicates the presence of a delocalized electron cloud. The white color around the hydrogen atom shows that the electron density is approaching the upper limit of the color scale, according to the LOL diagram. The covalent areas between carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen atoms are indicated by the red color (high LOL value) in the diagram. The electron depletion region is represented by blue circles enclosing a few carbons, nitrogen, and oxygen.

Drug likeness

The studied drug likeness parameters such as number of HBD (hydrogen bond donors), HBA (n class="Chemical">hydrogen bond acceptor), rotatable bonds, A logP and Topological (TPSA) polar surface area values are summarized in Table 8. The values of 2CQ3CALD obeys Lipinski's rule of five [70, 71]. As a result, HBD is 0 and HBA is 2, both of which are less than the onset value 5 and 10. There are one rotatable bond for the compound. The AlogP value is 2.68, which is less than the threshold value of 5. TPSA for the compound is far less than threshold value. These drug likeness parameters lead to the conclusion that the headline compound is pharmaceutically efficient.

Table 8

Drug like parameters calculated for the title molecule.

Descriptor	value
Hydrogen Bond Donor (HBD)	0
Hydrogen Bond Acceptor (HBA)	2
AlogP1	2.68
Topological polar surface area (TPSA) [Å2]	29.96
Number of atoms	13
Number of rotatable bonds	1
Molecular weight	191.62

Molecular docking

Auto-Dock 4.2.6 is a tool for analyzing the molecular mechanism of docking and generating a three-dimensional structure. A review of the literature reveals that n class="Chemical">quinoline derivatives have strong antagonist behavior. The examined compound is docked with antagonist proteins 2BJ4, 1IRA and 1IYH, which are taken from RCBS-PDB [72, 73, 74]. For 2BJ4, 1IRA and 1IYH, the molecular docking binding energies are -5.51, -5.16 and -5.17 respectively, while the inhibition constants are 91.51,163.73 and 161.10 and intermolecular energy is -5.81, -5.46 and -5.47. Table 9 presents the molecule's docking parameters with regards to the targeted protein. 2BJ4 showed the least binding energy among the proteins, at -5.51 kcalmol-1, and the most of inhibitors interacted with the ligand in the 2BJ4 bonding site. They had four hydrogen bonds involving LEU 387, ARG 394, GLU 353 and GLU353 with an inhibition constant of 91.51 μm and a RMSD of 53.257 Å. The ligand interacts with three diverse receptors are exposed in Figures 10, 11, and 12.

Table 9

Molecular docking of title compound with antagonist protein target.

Protein (PDB ID)	Bonded residues	Bond distance	Estimated inhibition constant (μm)	Binding energy (kcal/mol)	Intermolecular energy (kcal/mol)	Reference RMSD(Å)
2BJ4	LEU′387	3.1	91.51	-5.51	-5.81	53.257
	ARG′394	2.1
	GLU′353	3.6
	GLU′353	3.5
1IRA	LEU′78	2.4	163.73	-5.16	-5.46	55.427
	VAL′131	3.3
1IYH	ILE′155	3.0	161.10	-5.17	-5.47	93.592

Figure 10

Docking the hydrogen bond interactions of 2CQ3CALD with 2BJ4 protein.

Figure 11

Docking the hydrogen bond interactions of 2CQ3CALD with 1IRA protein.

Figure 12

Docking the hydrogen bond interaction of 2CQ3CALD with 1IYH protein.

Molecular docking of title compound with antagonist protein tn class="Chemical">arget.

Conclusion

Vibrational spectra and quantum simulations are calculated for the headline n class="Chemical">compound. The geometrical variables (bond distance and bond angle) match the XRD data very well. Theoretical FT-IR and FT-Raman vibrational spectra of 2CQ3CALD were computed and compared to experimental results, which revealed a high level of agreement. The electron density transfer from π∗(N1–C2) to π∗(C5–C10) resulted in a strong interaction with a high stabilisation energy 37.68 kcal/mol. The charges of atoms are shown by MEP surface of the headline compound. The charge-transfer within the molecule is supported by low energy gap (4.430eV) of HOMO-LUMO. Furthermore, its biological activity is defined by its high electrophilicity value 5.592. The compound's hyperpolarizability is fifteen times that of urea, showing that the head molecule is a potent NLO substance. Thermodynamic gradients with temperature reveal that the molecular vibration is enhanced. The electron density grounded local reactivity descriptors were analysed. Besides that, topological analyses ELF and LOL are proposed. Furthermore, the least binding energy for 2CQ3CALD is -5.51 kcal/mol, and the most docked inhibitors interacted with the ligand within the 2BJ4 binding site, according to the molecular docking results.

Declarations

Author contribution statement

A. Saral, P. Sudha: Conceived and designed the experiments; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

S. Muthu, S. Sevvanthi: Performed the experiments.

P. Sangeetha, S. Selvakumari: Analyzed and interpreted the data.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, n class="Chemical">commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement

Data included in article/supplementary material/referenced in article.

Declaration of interests statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.