Posts Tagged ‘crystallography’

Tautomeric polymorphism.

Thursday, June 1st, 2017

Conformational polymorphism occurs when a compound crystallises in two polymorphs differing only in the relative orientations of flexible groups (e.g. Ritonavir). At the Beilstein conference, Ian Bruno mentioned another type;  tautomeric polymorphism, where a compound can crystallise in two forms differing in the position of acidic protons. Here I explore three such examples.

The term occurs in the title of this article,[1] for a compound known as Omeprazole.

When the bottom structure (the 6-methoxy) is used to search the CSD, two separate series are found. The first of these is UDAVIF (DOI:  10.5517/ccp82qq,  6-Methoxy-2-((4-methoxy-3,5-dimethyl-2-pyridinyl)methylsulfinyl)-1H-benzimidazole). There is no information regarding the absolute configuration of the chiral S-centre. Although the downloaded coordinates show it as R it is probably a racemic mixture. A note added to the structure declares disorder: “Omeprazole exists as solid solutions of the two tautomers. The structure is mixed 5-methoxy/6-methoxy with occupancies 0.078:0.922“, which indicates 7.8% is present as in the upper structure above. 

The second hit is VAYXOI (DOI: 10.5517/ccp82pp, rac-6-Methoxy-2-(((4-methoxy-3,5-dimethyl-2-pyridinyl)methyl)sulfinyl)-1H-benzimidazole) which now contains no disorder; the contaminating 5-methoxy tautomer is no longer present. Perhaps not quite a true tautomeric polymorph, since the 5-methoxy tautomer is never observed in pure form.

This does occur with a second example. DEBFAR[2] represents the keto form on the right which crystallises from methanol, whilst YUYDOL as the enol form on the left crystallises from n-hexane. 

Calculations shed some light on this behaviour. DEBFAR has a computed (DOI: 10.14469/hpc/2591)  dipole moment of 11D, whereas YUYDOL (DOI: 10.14469/hpc/2590) is 2.5D. In chloroform solutions (~half way between the two solvent polarities), the keto form is ~6.1 kcal/mol lower in ΔG than the enol. The crystal packing for the two forms is very different and the differences in this packing must clearly amount to >6.1 kcal/mol to over-ride the lesser stability of DEBFAR in solution.


The final example [3] is illustrated using scheme 2 from that article, one entitled tautomeric species of 4-hydroxynicotinic acid:

The original diagram has two unfortunate bond errors which are NOT reproduced above (and which perhaps are a good topic for discussion in tutorials with students), along with an unusual interpretation of the term tautomerism. The blue arrows above are mine and I suggest the isomerism between the connected species is resonance isomerism, and not tautomerism. So three possible different true tautomers then. Five crystal structures are reported which I list below.

  1. 10.5517/cctswjz (KUXPUP, 4-oxo-1,4-dihydropyridine-3-carboxylic acid, no H2O),  10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc1kfyxv (KUXPUP01 no H2O) and 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc1kfyzx (KUXPUP02 no H2O)
  2. 10.5517/ccx59s4 (AVEMUK, 4-Oxo-1,4-dihydropyridine-3-carboxylic acid hemihydrate) and  10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc1kfz21 (AVEMUK01)
  3. 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc1kfz54 (AKIHIN, 4-hydroxypyridin-1-ium-3-carboxylate monohydrate) 
  4. 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc1kfz10 (AKIHAF, 4-hydroxypyridin-1-ium-3-carboxylate)

KUXPUP and AVEMUK differ only in the presence of one solvent water molecule and both represent tautomer 2 above. AKIHIN and AKIHAF similarly represent tautomer 3 above; both are represented as 3a in the CSD and not as 3b. There are no examples of tautomer 1 in the crystal structure database; it may only exist in the gas phase. So the equilibrium 2 ⇌ 3 is another genuine example of tautomeric polymorphism, with the keto form favoured by more polar solvents, as was noted for the previous example.

With this last article,[3] comprehensive calculations at a good level were reported, including modelling the periodic cell using the Crystal program and including corrections such as BSSE (basis set superposition error) and dispersion terms. I was hopeful that this might lead me to something as simple as the computed dipole moments of the (isolated) species (as I reported above for the previous system), but these were not mentioned in the text of the article. Unfortunately, the supporting information also had no details of any such calculations, which left me frustrated again at how difficult it can be in (it has to be said) the vast majority of articles which report calculations to get details of such calculations. 

Tautomeric polymorphism remains a very rare phenomenon. SciFinder for example only has 19 references citing it (2 of which are to conference talks). Perhaps the most intriguing[4] claims that 2-thiobarbituric acid has the richest collection of tautomeric polymorphs with five. Since no calculations are reported there, I might try these out and report back here.

Postscript:  Here is some analysis of 2-thiobarbituric.

  1. THBARB (DOI 10.5517/cctbxcd, 10.5517/cctbxfg  and 10.5517/cctbxgh) are three polymorphs of  the keto tautomer, the isolated molecule having a small calculated dipole moment (DOI: 10.14469/hpc/2632).
  2. PABNAJ (DOI: 10.5517/cctbxbc) is a polymorph in the enol form, with a much larger calculated dipole moment (DOI: 10.14469/hpc/2633)
  3. PABNIR (DOI: 10.5517/cctbxdf) is a mixed polymorph with one enol paired with one keto form. 

The relative free-energies of the isolated molecules are 0.0 (keto) and 9.0 (enol). The keto-enol pair is 0.4 kcal/mol more stable than the isolated components. This again shows the effect that crystal packing can have on the relative energies and also shows that a  simple inspection of the dipole moment may cast light on the polymorphism.

 

References

  1. P.M. Bhatt, and G.R. Desiraju, "Tautomeric polymorphism in omeprazole", Chemical Communications, pp. 2057, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1039/b700506g
  2. Y. Akama, M. Shiro, T. Ueda, and M. Kajitani, "Keto and Enol Tautomers of 4-Benzoyl-3-methyl-1-phenyl-5(2H)-pyrazolone", Acta Crystallographica Section C Crystal Structure Communications, vol. 51, pp. 1310-1314, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1107/s0108270194007389
  3. S. Long, M. Zhang, P. Zhou, F. Yu, S. Parkin, and T. Li, "Tautomeric Polymorphism of 4-Hydroxynicotinic Acid", Crystal Growth & Design, vol. 16, pp. 2573-2580, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.5b01639
  4. M. Chierotti, L. Ferrero, N. Garino, R. Gobetto, L. Pellegrino, D. Braga, F. Grepioni, and L. Maini, "The Richest Collection of Tautomeric Polymorphs: The Case of 2‐Thiobarbituric Acid", Chemistry – A European Journal, vol. 16, pp. 4347-4358, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.200902485

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Chemical IT, crystal_structure_mining | No Comments »

π-Facial hydrogen bonds to alkenes (revisited): how close can an acidic hydrogen approach?

Saturday, April 15th, 2017

Back in the early 1990s, we first discovered the delights of searching crystal structures for unusual bonding features.[1] One of the first cases was a search for hydrogen bonds formed to the π-faces of alkenes and alkynes. In those days the CSD database of crystal structures was a lot smaller (<80,000 structures; it’s now ten times larger) and the search software less powerful. So here is an update. 

The search query (dataDOI:10.14469/hpc/2473) is shown below:

  1. A mid-point (centroid) of a C-C bond (of any type) is defined, but the carbons are each restricted to being 3-coordinate, with the substituents R being either C or H.
  2. The distance to a hydrogen (attached to group QA, where QA is any one of N,O,F,Cl, i.e. acidic H) is defined.
  3. The properties of the alkene are defined by the sines of the two angles subtended at the centroid. This defines how perpendicular the QA-H hydrogen bond is to the C-C bond.
  4. Four torsions R-C-centroid-H are defined by their sines. The mean of the absolute values of these will define how orthogonal the approach of the hydrogen to the π-π plane is.
  5. Further constraints in the search are no disorder, no errors, R < 0.05,  the H atom position is normalised and this position is defined as being <2.5Å from the C-C bond centroid, which is ~0.3Å < the sum of the van der Waals values for C and H.

The first search is limited to intermolecular contacts between the C-C bond and the H and reveals that for most of the 18 hits, the H approach is close to perpendicular to the centroid but the inclination to the π-π plane is more scattered. The most interesting (shortest H…centroid contact of ~2.22Å, orthogonal approach) can be inspected as KANYAA (dataDOI: 10.5517/CC8JRQ7). 
When the search is repeated for intramolecular contacts, rather shorter distances are obtained for 88 hits and with more variation in the angles of approach. The most interesting candidate (blue dots) is IGELAJ[2] (dataDOI: 10.5517/CC14PBW1 ) which has the very short intramolecular H approach of 1.90Å to the C-C centroid corresponding to ~2.04Å to the carbons,  a contraction of ~0.8Å from the van der Waals sum.

The authors remarked[2]  “that it possesses a better defined intramolecular hydrogen bond compared to the usual molecules for which it is noted“. They also note JOCQEX, which is present in the above plot, but for which there is  a non-orthogonal approach of the hydrogen bond to the π-π plane. The authors do not mention TIBCUD[3] (dataDOI: 10.5517/CCPL0FP), which has a similar close approach of 1.92Å to the C-C centroid, but at an angle inclined to the C-C axis.

IGELAJ, as an intramolecular H-bond, was amenable to calculation of its geometry and properties (inter-molecular interactions would ideally require the periodic lattice to be computed), with the observation[3] that “another test was to compare the energy calculation of IGELAJ to a non-hydrogen-bound version where the OH bond is rotated 180°” and “the results predict IGELAJ to be 7.30 kcal more stable than the non-hydrogen-bound version”. This value,  if correct,  is indeed typical of a very strong hydrogen bond!

Pedant (curious?) as I am, I wanted to be clear what kind of calculated energy was being reported. Was it the difference in total energies, or the energies corrected for ZPE (zero-point-energy) as ΔH or the free energies for which entropy is included as ΔG? The article[3] itself is unclear on this aspect and no energies are reported in the  supporting information. This is an illustration that “supporting information” in most current incarnations may often not provide crucial information; only a full deposition as the management of research (RDM) of FAIR data can provide. This process is illustrated for my own calculations of this system (ωB97XD/Def2-TZVPP, dataDOIs: 10.14469/hpc/2474, 10.14469/hpc/2475), which reveals that  ΔG298 4.8 kcal/mol and ν 3761 cm-1. In comparison when the OH bond is rotated 180° the wavenumber goes up 3956 cm-1, a difference of 195 cm-1 is calculated, which is indeed a large red-shift. But the “non-hydrogen-bound version where the OH bond is rotated 180°” is not a valid reference point for a non-hydrogen bonded isomer, since it manifests instead as a transition state for OH rotation with νi 166 cm-1, there being no minimum other than the π-facially hydrogen bonded one (dataDOI: 10.14469/hpc/2476). So, for the lack of a suitable reference system, we cannot conclude what the strength of this particular hydrogen bond is, nor make any conclusions about it being unusually strong.

So IGELAJ holds the current record for the shortest π-facial hydrogen bond to an alkene, but not necessarily the strongest! I wonder if this record might be broken with the aid of further computational design and prediction?

References

  1. H.S. Rzepa, M.H. Smith, and M.L. Webb, "A crystallographic AM1 and PM3 SCF-MO investigation of strong OH ⋯π-alkene and alkyne hydrogen bonding interactions", J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, pp. 703-707, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1039/p29940000703
  2. M.D. Struble, M.G. Holl, G. Coombs, M.A. Siegler, and T. Lectka, "Synthesis of a Tight Intramolecular OH···Olefin Interaction, Probed by IR,<sup>1</sup>H NMR, and Quantum Chemistry", The Journal of Organic Chemistry, vol. 80, pp. 4803-4807, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.joc.5b00470
  3. B. Ndjakou Lenta, K.P. Devkota, B. Neumann, E. Tsamo, and N. Sewald, "4-(1,1-Dimethylprop-2-enyl)-1,3,5-trihydroxy-2-(3-methylbut-2-enyl)-9<i>H</i>-xanthen-9-one", Acta Crystallographica Section E Structure Reports Online, vol. 63, pp. o1629-o1631, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1107/s1600536807009907

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in crystal_structure_mining | 2 Comments »

To be cyclobutadiene, or not to be, that is the question? You decide.

Thursday, March 21st, 2013

A quartet of articles has recently appeared on the topic of cyclobutadiene.[1],[2],[3],[4]. You will find a great deal discussed there, but I can boil it down to this essence. Do the following coordinates (obtained from a (disordered) previously published[5] x-ray refinement) correspond to a van der Waals complex of 1,3-dimethyl cyclobutadiene and carbon dioxide, or do they instead represent a covalent interaction between these two components resulting in a compound with the chemical name 2-oxabicyclo[2.2.0]hex-5-en-3-one (i.e. not a cyclobutadiene)?

Click for 3D

Click for 3D. The unconnected atoms are the result of disordered partial occupancy.

The two bonds to concentrate on are shown in gold; a O…C pair with a distance of 1.61Å as obtained from the x-ray refinement and a C…C pair with a distance of 1.5Å (and if you want to go further, the O=C=O bond angle). I list below values obtained from the wonderful Webelements site. Using these values, this makes a van der Waals O…C contact 3.22Å and a C…C contact 3.40Å and covalent values of respectively 1.38Å and 1.5Å.

Element Covalent radius, Å van der Waals radius
C 0.75 1.70
O 0.63 1.52

According to chemistry convention, we classify the interaction between a pair of atoms according to which category best fits the observed distance. So this should allow you to decide if the molecule is a van der Waals complex of 1,3-dimethyl cyclobutadiene and carbon dioxide or the covalent system 2-oxabicyclo[2.2.0]hex-5-en-3-one. 

Oh, if the observed O…C pair with a distance of 1.61Å does not seem to perfectly fit either category above, one of the quartet of articles above[1] offers the explanation of an unusual π-anomeric effect lengthening the C…O bond in 2-oxabicyclo[2.2.0]hex-5-en-3-one slightly beyond the standard covalent distance. Of course, if the system were to be a van der Waals complex, that explanation cannot apply.

References

  1. H.S. Rzepa, "A Computational Evaluation of the Evidence for the Synthesis of 1,3‐Dimethylcyclobutadiene in the Solid State and Aqueous Solution", Chemistry – A European Journal, vol. 19, pp. 4932-4937, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.201102942
  2. M. Shatruk, and I.V. Alabugin, "Reinvestigation of “Single‐Crystal X‐ray Structure of 1,3‐dimethylcyclobutadiene”", Chemistry – A European Journal, vol. 19, pp. 4942-4945, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.201103017
  3. Y. Legrand, D. Dumitrescu, A. Gilles, E. Petit, A. van der Lee, and M. Barboiu, "A Constrained Disorder Refinement: “Reinvestigation of “Single‐Crystal X‐ray Structure of 1,3‐Dimethylcyclobutadiene” by M. Shatruk and I. V. Alabugin”", Chemistry – A European Journal, vol. 19, pp. 4946-4950, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.201203234
  4. Y. Legrand, D. Dumitrescu, A. Gilles, E. Petit, A. van der Lee, and M. Barboiu, "Reply to A Computational Evaluation of the Evidence for the Synthesis of 1,3‐Dimethylcyclobutadiene in Solid State and Aqueous Solution—Beyond the Experimental Reality", Chemistry – A European Journal, vol. 19, pp. 4938-4941, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.201203235
  5. Y. Legrand, A. van der Lee, and M. Barboiu, "Single-Crystal X-ray Structure of 1,3-Dimethylcyclobutadiene by Confinement in a Crystalline Matrix", Science, vol. 329, pp. 299-302, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188002

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Interesting chemistry | 4 Comments »