| Literature DB >> 34993174 |
Fereshteh Emami1, Hamid Abdollahi2, Tsyuoshi Minami3, Ben Peco1, Sean Reliford1.
Abstract
The power of sensing molecules is often characterized in part by determining their thermodynamic/dynamic properties, in particular the binding constant of a guest to a host. In many studies, traditional nonlinear regression analysis has been used to determine the binding constants, which cannot be applied to complex systems and limits the reliability of such calculations. Supramolecular sensor systems include many interactions that make such chemical systems complicated. The challenges in creating sensing molecules can be significantly decreased through the availability of detailed mathematical models of such systems. Here, we propose uncovering accurate thermodynamic parameters of chemical reactions using better-defined mathematical modeling-fitting analysis is the key to understanding molecular assemblies and developing new bio/sensing agents. The supramolecular example we chose for this investigation is a self-assembled sensor consists of a synthesized receptor, DPA (DPA = dipicolylamine)-appended phenylboronic acid (1) in combination with Zn2+(1.Zn) that forms various assemblies with a fluorophore like alizarin red S (ARS). The self-assemblies can detect multi-phosphates like pyrophosphate (PPi) in aqueous solutions. We developed a mathematical model for the simultaneous quantitative analysis of twenty-seven intertwined interactions and reactions between the sensor (1.Zn-ARS) and the target (PPi) for the first time, relying on the Newton-Raphson algorithm. Through analyzing simulated potentiometric titration data, we describe the concurrent determination of thermodynamic parameters of the different guest-host bindings. Various values of temperatures, initial concentrations, and starting pHs were considered to predict the required measurement conditions for thermodynamic studies. Accordingly, we determined the species concentrations of different host-guest bindings in a generalized way. This way, the binding capabilities of a set of species can be quantitatively examined to systematically measure the power of the sensing system. This study shows analyzing supramolecular self-assemblies with solid mathematical models has a high potential for a better understanding of molecular interactions within complex chemical networks and developing new sensors with better sensing effects for bio-purposes.Entities:
Keywords: enthalpy; entropy; intertwined equilibria; mathematical modeling; molecular sensing; pyrophosphate; supramolecules; thermodynamic parameter fitting
Year: 2021 PMID: 34993174 PMCID: PMC8724255 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2021.759714
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.221
SCHEME 1Plausible mechanism related to different interactions among 1.Zn, ARS and PPi.
Notation for equilibrium modeling of the investigated mechanism in Scheme 1.
| Species | Notation | Formation constant | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 1 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
|
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
|
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
|
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
|
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
Obtained thermodynamic constants for the simulated pH datasets corresponding to ARS, 1 and PPi.
| Used to construct data | Calculated | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | ∆H (J/mole) | ∆S (J/mole.K) | ∆H (J/mole) | ∆S (J/mole.K) | Ssq |
|
| 54,334 | 393 | 54,289 ± 126 | 393 ± 0.44 (−0.04%) | 3.32 × 10−4 |
|
| 52,047 | 500 | 51,875 ± 143 (−0.33%) | 499 ± 0.50 (−0.12%) | |
|
| 44,813 | 326 | 44,762 ± 91 (−0.11%) | 326 ± 0.31 (−0.05%) | 3.42 × 10−4 |
|
| 64,878 | 531 | 64,787 ± 113 (−0.14%) | 530 ± 0.39 (−0.06%) | |
|
| 55,206 | 369 | 55,143.9 ± 113 (−0.11%) | 368 ± 0.39 (−0.06%) | 8.50 × 10−4 |
|
| 115,430 | 704 | 115,202 ± 145 (−0.20%) | 703 ± 0.50 (−0.11%) | |
|
| 101,380 | 700 | 100,435 ± 475 (−0.93%) | 697 ± 1.63 (−0.46%) | |
|
| 123,460 | 806 | 127,597 ± 2,693 (3.35%) | 820 ± 9.02 (1.72%) | |
The standard errors associated with the fitted parameters ( ) were calculated as where represents the estimated SD of the measurement error in . where is the degree of freedom, which is defined as the number of experimental values m (elements of ), subtracted by the number of optimized parameters np, .
is the i-th diagonal element of the inverted Hessian matrix . Hessian matrix is the variance-covariance matrix of the parameters. The diagonal elements contain information on the parameter variances and the off-diagonal elements the covariances.
The Newton-Gauss algorithm for minimization requires the computation of the derivatives of the residuals with respect to the parameters. These derivatives are collected in the Jacobian .
Please see (Maeder and Neuhold, 2007) for more extensive explanations. where are the thermodynamic parameters used to construct data and are the thermodynamic parameters calculated using the fitting procedure.
Obtained affinity thermodynamic constants for the simulated pH datasets corresponding to binding affinities of to PPi, ARS and 1.
| Used to construct data | Calculated | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | ∆H (J/mole) | ∆S (J/mole.K) | ∆H (J/mole) | ∆S (J/mole.K) | ssq |
|
| 86,322 | 441 | 86,146 ± 189 | 439 ± 0.65 (−0.21%) | 3.18 × 10−4 |
|
| 99,370 | 326 | 98,711 ± 349 (−0.80%) | 323 ± 1.20 (−0.20%) | |
|
| 104,390 | 625 | 104,133 ± 190 (−0.25%) | 624 ± 0.65 (−0.66%) | |
|
| 102,380 | 522 | 102,731 ± 549 (0.34%) | 523 ± 1.89 (0.04%) | 3.36 × 10−3 |
|
| 34,127 | 406 | 34,329 ± 638 (0.59%) | 406 ± 2.20 (−0.01%) | |
|
| 80,299 | 413 | 80,440 ± 761 (0.18%) | 413 ± 2.63 (0.12%) | 3.19 × 10−4 |
|
| 120,450 | 709 | 120,467 ± 782 (0.01%) | 709 ± 2.70 (0.01%) | |
|
| 100,370 | 726 | 100,281 ± 1,155 (−0.09%) | 725 ± 3.98 (−0.04%) | |
|
| 100,370 | 949 | 100,938 ± 6,993 (0.56%) | 950 ± 24 (0.20%) | 1.92 × 10−3 |
The standard errors associated with the fitted parameters ( ).
Accuracy associated with the fitted parameters.
Obtained affinity thermodynamic constants for the simulated pH datasets corresponding to binding affinities of ARS, 1, Zn, and PPi.
| Used to construct data | Calculated | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | ∆H (J/mole) | ∆S (J/mole.K) | ∆H (J/mole) | ∆S (J/mole.K) | ssq | |
|
| 104,350 | 880 | 104,350 ± 10,883 | 889 ± 37 (0.64%) | 2.29 × 10−3 | |
|
| 71,633 | 691 | 71,633 ± 2,718 (−0.00) | 691 ± 7.93 (0.001%) | ||
|
| 37,845 | 571 | 37,845 ± 4,620 (−0.004%) | 571 ± 18.17 (0.002%) | ||
|
| 28,935 | 351 | 28,935 ± 350 (0.001%) | 351 ± 1.23 (0.004%) | ||
|
| 100,370 | 846 | 96,900 ± 51 (−1.45%) | 834 ± 18.21 (−3.45%) | 1.81 × 10−3 | |
|
| 100,370 | 1,269 | 99,145 ± 2,820 (−1.22%) | 1,264 ± 11.11 (−0.37%) | 1.80 × 10−3 | |
|
| 130,490 | 1,364 | 128,836 ± 6,068 (−1.27%) | 1,359 ± 16.97 (−0.32%) | ||
The standard errors associated with the fitted parameters ( ).
Accuracy associated with the fitted parameters.
FIGURE 1Simulated concentration profiles for = 9.9 × 10−4 M, = 8.7 × 10−4 M, and = 0 M at (A) 283 K, (B) 288 K, (C) 293 K, and (D) 298 K; (E) Simulated and fitted pH for [ ; ; ; ]; Concentration profiles of species obtained using global analysis corresponding to (F) 283 K, (G) 288 K, (H) 293 K, and (I) 298 K.
FIGURE 2Simulated concentration profiles for = 20.00 mM, = 10.00 mM, = 0 at (A) 283 K, (B) 288 K, (C) 293 K, and (D) for = 20.00 mM, = 10.00 mM, = 10.00 mM at 298 K; (E) Simulated and fitted pH for [ ; ; ; ]; Concentration profiles of species obtained using global analysis corresponding to (F) 283 K, (G) 288 K, (H) 293 K, and (I) 298 K.
The pH presence window for the species of Scheme 1.
| Species | pH | Species | pH |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 8–11.5 |
| 5–11 |
|
| 4.5–11.5 |
| 6–11 |
|
| 4.5–7.5 |
| 3–11 |
|
| 7–11.5 |
| 2–8 |
|
| 5–11 |
| 4–11 |
|
| 4–8 |
| 6–11 |
|
| 7–11 |
| 3–9 |
|
| 4–10 |
| 2–6 |
|
| 2–9 |
| 4–8 |
|
| 0.5–5 |
| 5–11 |
|
| 0.5–4 |
| 5–11 |
|
| 1.5–10 |
| 8–11.5 |
|
| 2–10.5 | — | — |
Conditions of the simulated datasets related to ARS and 1 titration with a strong acid.
| Data | Temperature (K) |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 278 | 1.00 × 10−3 | 2.00 × 10−11 | 1.00 × 10−3 | 18.00 × 10−2 |
|
| 284 | 8.00 × 10−2 | |||
|
| 298 | 18.00 × 10−2 | |||
|
| 308 | ||||
|
| 308 | 1.90 × 10−3 |
FIGURE 3Simulated concentration profiles for = 40.00 mM, = 20.00 mM, = 5 × 10−4 M at (A) 278 K, (B) 284 K, (C) 298 K, and (D) 308 K; (E) Simulated and fitted pH for [ ; ; ; ]; Concentration profiles of species obtained using global analysis corresponding to (F) 278 K, (G) 284 K, (H) 298 K, and (I) 308 K.
FIGURE 4Concentration profiles of all species in the reaction mechanism (Scheme 1) at different pHs obtained using the developed model and Newton-Raphson Algorithm.