skip to main content

This content will become publicly available on March 9, 2023

Title: Pt(II)-Coordinated Tricomponent Self-Assemblies of Tetrapyridyl Porphyrin and Dicarboxylate Ligands: Are They 3D Prisms or 2D Bow-Ties?
Thermodynamically favored simultaneous coordination of Pt(II) corners with aza- and carboxylate ligands yields tricomponent coordination complexes with sophisticated structures and functions, which require careful structural characterization to paint accurate depiction of their structure–function relationships. Previous reports had claimed that heteroleptic coordination of cis-(Et3P)2PtII with tetrapyridyl porphyrins (M'TPP, M' = Zn or H2) and dicarboxylate ligands (XDC) yielded 3D tetragonal prisms containing two horizontal M'TPP faces and four vertical XDC pillars connected by eight Pt(II) corners, even though such structures were not supported by their 1H NMR data. Through extensive X-ray crystallographic and NMR studies, herein, we demonstrate that self-assembly of cis-(Et3P)2PtII, M'TPP, and four different XDC linkers having varied lengths and rigidity actually yields bow-tie (⋈)-shaped 2D [{cis-(Et3P)2Pt}4(M'TPP)(XDC)2]4+ complexes featuring a M'TPP core and two parallel XDC linkers connected by four heteroleptic PtII corners instead of 3D prisms. This happened because (i) irrespective of their length (~7–11 Å) and rigidity, the XDC linkers intramolecularly bridged two adjacent pyridyl-N atoms of a M'TPP core via PtII corners instead of connecting two cofacial M'TPP ligands and (ii) the bow-tie complexes are entropically more favored over prisms. The electron-rich ZnTPP core of a bow-tie complex selectively formed a charge-transfer complex with highly π-acidic more » 1,4,5,8,9,12-hexaazatriphenylene-2,3,6,7,10,11-heaxacarbonitrile but not with a π-donor like pyrene. Thus, this work not only produced novel M'TPP-based bow-tie complexes and demonstrated their selective π-acid recognition capability, but also underscored the importance of proper structural characterization of supramolecular assemblies to ensure accurate depiction of their structure–property relationships. « less
Authors:
; ; ; ;
Editors:
Goldup, S
Award ID(s):
1809092 1660329 1725919
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10318768
Journal Name:
Chemical Science
Volume:
13
ISSN:
2041-6520
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Addition of [UI 2 (THF) 3 (μ-OMe)] 2 ·THF (2·THF) to THF solutions containing 6 equiv. of K[C 14 H 10 ] generates the heteroleptic dimeric complexes [K(18-crown-6)(THF) 2 ] 2 [U(η 6 -C 14 H 10 )(η 4 -C 14 H 10 )(μ-OMe)] 2 ·4THF (118C6·4THF) and {[K(THF) 3 ][U(η 6 -C 14 H 10 )(η 4 -C 14 H 10 )(μ-OMe)]} 2 (1THF) upon crystallization of the products in THF in the presence or absence of 18-crown-6, respectively. Both 118C6·4THF and 1THF are thermally stable in the solid-state at room temperature; however, after crystallization, they become insoluble inmore »THF or DME solutions and instead gradually decompose upon standing. X-ray diffraction analysis reveals 118C6·4THF and 1THF to be structurally similar, possessing uranium centres sandwiched between bent anthracenide ligands of mixed tetrahapto and hexahapto ligation modes. Yet, the two complexes are distinguished by the close contact potassium-arenide ion pairing that is seen in 1THF but absent in 118C6·4THF, which is observed to have a significant effect on the electronic characteristics of the two complexes. Structural analysis, SQUID magnetometry data, XANES spectral characterization, and computational analyses are generally consistent with U( iv ) formal assignments for the metal centres in both 118C6·4THF and 1THF, though noticeable differences are detected between the two species. For instance, the effective magnetic moment of 1THF (3.74 μ B ) is significantly lower than that of 118C6·4THF (4.40 μ B ) at 300 K. Furthermore, the XANES data shows the U L III -edge absorption energy for 1THF to be 0.9 eV higher than that of 118C6·4THF, suggestive of more oxidized metal centres in the former. Of note, CASSCF calculations on the model complex {[U(η 6 -C 14 H 10 )(η 4 -C 14 H 10 )(μ-OMe)] 2 } 2− (1*) shows highly polarized uranium–arenide interactions defined by π-type bonds where the metal contributions are primarily comprised by the 6d-orbitals (7.3 ± 0.6%) with minor participation from the 5f-orbitals (1.5 ± 0.5%). These unique complexes provide new insights into actinide–arenide bonding interactions and show the sensitivity of the electronic structures of the uranium atoms to coordination sphere effects.« less
  2. Two new tris-heteroleptic Ru( ii ) complexes with triphenylphosphine (PPh 3 ) coordination, cis -[Ru(phen) 2 (PPh 3 )(CH 3 CN)] 2+ (1a, phen = 1,10-phenanthroline) and cis -[Ru(biq)(phen)(PPh 3 )(CH 3 CN)] 2+ (2a, biq = 2,2′-biquinoline), were synthesized and characterized for photochemotherapeutic applications. Upon absorption of visible light, 1a exchanges a CH 3 CN ligand for a solvent water molecule. Surprisingly, the steady-state irradiation of 2a followed by electronic absorption and NMR spectroscopies reveals the photosubstitution of the PPh 3 ligand. Phosphine photoinduced ligand exchange with visible light from a Ru( ii ) polypyridyl complex has not previouslymore »been reported, and calculations reveal that it results from a trans -type influence in the excited state. Complexes 1a and 2a are not toxic against the triple negative breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231 in the dark, but upon irradiation with blue light, the activity of both complexes increases by factors of >4.2 and 5.8, respectively. Experiments with PPh 3 alone show that the phototoxicity observed for 2a does not arise from the released phosphine ligand, indicating the role of the photochemically generated ruthenium aqua complex on the biological activity. These complexes represent a new design motif for the selective release of PPh 3 and CH 3 CN for use in photochemotherapy.« less
  3. The activation of O 2 at thiolate–ligated iron( ii ) sites is essential to the function of numerous metalloenzymes and synthetic catalysts. Iron–thiolate bonds in the active sites of nonheme iron enzymes arise from either coordination of an endogenous cysteinate residue or binding of a deprotonated thiol-containing substrate. Examples of the latter include sulfoxide synthases, such as EgtB and OvoA, that utilize O 2 to catalyze tandem S–C bond formation and S -oxygenation steps in thiohistidine biosyntheses. We recently reported the preparation of two mononuclear nonheme iron–thiolate complexes (1 and 2) that serve as structural active-site models of substrate-bound EgtBmore »and OvoA ( Dalton Trans. 2020, 49 , 17745–17757). These models feature monodentate thiolate ligands and tripodal N 4 ligands with mixed pyridyl/imidazolyl donors. Here, we describe the reactivity of 1 and 2 with O 2 at low temperatures to give metastable intermediates (3 and 4, respectively). Characterization with multiple spectroscopic techniques (UV-vis absorption, NMR, variable-field and -temperature Mössbauer, and resonance Raman) revealed that these intermediates are thiolate-ligated iron( iii ) dimers with a bridging oxo ligand derived from the four-electron reduction of O 2 . Structural models of 3 and 4 consistent with the experimental data were generated via density functional theory (DFT) calculations. The combined experimental and computational results illuminate the geometric and electronic origins of the unique spectral features of diiron( iii )-μ-oxo complexes with thiolate ligands, and the spectroscopic signatures of 3 and 4 are compared to those of closely-related diiron( iii )-μ-peroxo species. Collectively, these results will assist in the identification of intermediates that appear on the O 2 reaction landscapes of iron–thiolate species in both biological and synthetic environments.« less
  4. Structural analyses of the compounds di-μ-acetato-κ 4 O : O ′-bis{[2-methoxy- N , N -bis(quinolin-2-ylmethyl)ethanamine-κ 4 N , N ′, N ′′, O ]manganese(II)} bis(tetraphenylborate) dichloromethane 1.45-solvate, [Mn 2 (C 23 O 2 ) 2 (C 23 H 23 N 3 O) 2 ](C 24 H 20 B)·1.45CH 2 Cl 2 or [Mn(DQMEA)(μ-OAc) 2 Mn(DQMEA)](BPh 4 ) 2 ·1.45CH 2 Cl 2 or [1] (BPh 4 ) 2 ·1.45CH 2 Cl 2 , and (acetato-κ O )[2-hydroxy- N , N -bis(quinolin-2-ylmethyl)ethanamine-κ 4 N , N ′, N ′′, O ](methanol-κ O )manganese(II) tetraphenylborate methanol monosolvate, [Mn(CH 3 COO)(C 22 Hmore »21 N 3 O)(CH 3 OH)](C 24 H 20 B)·CH 3 OH or [Mn(DQEA)(OAc)(CH 3 OH)]BPh 4 ·CH 3 OH or [2] BPh 4 ·CH 3 OH, by single-crystal X-ray diffraction reveal distinct differences in the geometry of coordination of the tripodal DQEA and DQMEA ligands to Mn II ions. In the asymmetric unit, compound [1] (BPh 4 ) 2 ·(CH 2 Cl 2 ) 1.45 crystallizes as a dimer in which each manganese(II) center is coordinated by the central amine nitrogen, the nitrogen atom of each quinoline group, and the methoxy-oxygen of the tetradentate DQMEA ligand, and two bridging-acetate oxygen atoms. The symmetric Mn II centers have a distorted, octahedral geometry in which the quinoline nitrogen atoms are trans to each other resulting in co-planarity of the quinoline rings. For each Mn II center, a coordinated acetate oxygen participates in C—H...O hydrogen-bonding interactions with the two quinolyl moieties, further stabilizing the trans structure. Within the crystal, weak π – π stacking interactions and intermolecular cation–anion interactions stabilize the crystal packing. In the asymmetric unit, compound [2] BPh 4 ·CH 3 OH crystallizes as a monomer in which the manganese(II) ion is coordinated to the central nitrogen, the nitrogen atom of each quinoline group, and the alcohol oxygen of the tetradentate DQEA ligand, an oxygen atom of OAc, and the oxygen atom of a methanol ligand. The geometry of the Mn II center in [2] BPh 4 ·CH 3 OH is also a distorted octahedron, but the quinoline nitrogen atoms are cis to each other in this structure. Hydrogen bonding between the acetate oxygen atoms and hydroxyl (O—H...O) and quinolyl (C—H...O and N—H...O) moieties of the DQEA ligand stabilize the complex in this cis configuration. Within the crystal, dimerization of complexes occurs by the formation of a pair of intermolecular O3—H3...O2 hydrogen bonds between the coordinated hydroxyl oxygen of the DQEA ligand of one complex and an acetate oxygen of another. Additional hydrogen-bonding and intermolecular cation–anion interactions contribute to the crystal packing.« less
  5. Structural characterization of the ionic complexes [FeCl 2 (C 26 H 22 P 2 ) 2 ][FeCl 4 ]·0.59CH 2 Cl 2 or [(dppen) 2 FeCl 2 ][FeCl 4 ]·0.59CH 2 Cl 2 (dppen = cis -1,2-bis(diphenylphosphane)ethylene, P 2 C 26 H 22 ) and [FeCl 2 (C 30 H 24 P 2 ) 2 ][FeCl 4 ]·CH 2 Cl 2 or [(dpbz) 2 FeCl 2 ][FeCl 4 ]·CH 2 Cl 2 (dpbz = 1,2-bis(diphenylphosphane)benzene, P 2 C 30 H 24 ) demonstrates trans coordination of two bidentate phosphane ligands (bisphosphanes) to a single iron(III) center, resulting in six-coordinate cationicmore »complexes that are balanced in charge by tetrachloridoferrate(III) monoanions. The trans bisphosphane coordination is consistent will all previously reported molecular structures of six coordinate iron(III) complex cations with a (PP) 2 X 2 ( X = halido) donor set. The complex with dppen crystallizes in the centrosymmetric space group C 2/ c as a partial-occupancy [0.592 (4)] dichloromethane solvate, while the dpbz-ligated complex crystallizes in the triclinic space group P 1 as a full dichloromethane monosolvate. Furthermore, the crystal studied of [(dpbz) 2 FeCl 2 ][FeCl 4 ]·CH 2 Cl 2 was an inversion twin, whose component mass ratio refined to 0.76 (3):0.24 (3). Beyond a few very weak C—H...Cl and C—H...π interactions, there are no significant supramolecular features in either structure.« less