6098 J . Org. Chem., Vol. 65, No. 19, 2000
Mizutani et al.
Two types of forces are involved in the binding pro-
cesses: direct interactions between a host molecule and
a guest molecule and interactions between host/guest
molecules and solvent molecules. Both of these interac-
tions can be the driving force of the binding. Host-guest
complexation can be classified into three categories
depending on polarity of the host/guest molecules and
polarity of the media: (1) When host and guest have polar
functional groups, the electrostatic interaction between
the polar functional groups can be the driving force of
binding. A typical example of this class of binding is the
binding of metal cations by crown ethers through host-
guest attractive electrostatic forces. (2) When host and
guest are nonpolar, both dispersion forces between host
and guest and the desolvation of polar and cohesive
solvent molecules can drive the binding. For instance,
cyclodextrins bind apolar organic guests mainly through
desolvation-driven hydrophobic forces in water.7 (3) When
host and guest molecules possess both polar functional
groups and apolar moieties, then both forces, host-guest
interactions and desolvation, can be the driving forces
of binding.
It is known that the binding of a polar guest is favored
in a less polar solvent,8 whereas the binding of a nonpolar
guest is most favorable in a polar and cohesive solvent
such as water.3 For representative examples of solvent
effects on the binding constant (Ka) of polar guests, the
values of log Ka of sodium and potassium by 15-crown-5
are 0.7 and 0.7, respectively, in water while 3.24 and 3.43,
respectively, in MeOH. Similarly, the values of log Ka of
sodium and potassium by 18-crown-6 are 0.8 and 2.0 in
water and 4.35 and 6.08 in MeOH, respectively.9 There-
fore changing the solvent from water to MeOH gives rise
to the 102.5-fold to 104.1-fold increase in binding constants
of metal cations by the crown ethers.10 Adrian and Wilcox
reported that the binding affinity of amine by a hydrogen-
bond-based receptor is reduced by the addition of water
to chloroform.11 As examples of solvent effects on the
binding of an apolar guest, Siegel and Breslow reported
that the binding constant of anisole by â-cyclodextrin in
DMSO is 2 orders of magnitude smaller than that in
water.12 Diederich and co-workers determined the bind-
ing affinity of a cyclophane receptor for pyrene in various
solvents, and it decreases monotonically in the following
order: water > ethanol > acetone > carbon disulfide, a
result suggesting that binding of apolar guests driven by
desolvation and host-guest dispersion forces occurs in
a wide range of solvents.3,13
interactions, because a number of molecules of biological
interest have both polar and apolar groups as important
interaction groups. In the previous paper,14 we reported
that water-soluble porphyrin receptors show selective
molecular recognition of amines and amino acids in
water, particularly for a charged guest. As a complemen-
tary study, in this paper, we performed a study of the
complexation of porphyrin receptors with several amines
and R-amino esters in CH2Cl2, and the results are
interpreted by comparison with the molecular recognition
behaviors of the water-soluble receptors having a struc-
turally similar binding pocket. The objectives of the
present study are twofold: first, to clarify details of host-
guest interactions, and second, to gain deeper insight into
the roles of solvent molecules in the energetics of molec-
ular recognition.
Resu lts a n d Discu ssion
Syn th esis of Zin c P or p h yr in Recep tor s a n d De-
ter m in a tion of Bin d in g Con sta n ts. Zinc porphyrins
bearing ester groups 1-4 and a simple zinc tetraphenyl-
porphyrin 5 were employed as receptors in organic
solvent, and zinc porphyrins bearing carboxylate groups
1a -3a and 6 were employed as receptors in water. The
aromatic macrocycle of porphyrin provides a rigid frame-
work for a preorganized binding pocket, as well as
versatile spectroscopic methods for detection of binding
events.15 One disadvantage is that porphyrins have a
pronounced tendency to undergo face-to-face dimeriza-
tion, especially in polar solvents. Therefore we designed
receptors having substituents on both faces of porphyrin
to avoid the porphyrin’s aggregation. Preparation of
porphyrins bearing bulky substituents above and below
the porphyrin plane is a synthetic challenge, and Lindsey
and co-workers performed elaborate investigations into
the porphyrin synthesis from benzaldehyde bearing bulky
substituents at the ortho positions. They reported that
reaction of benzaldehydes bearing 2,6-dibenzyloxy groups
with pyrrole proceeds in CHCl3 in relatively high yields.16,17
Receptors 1-4 were thus prepared14 following Lindsey’s
method.
These receptors are soluble in a variety of solvents
including chloroform, ethyl acetate, and THF. The ester
receptors 1-4 can be readily made soluble in water by
hydrolysis, by keeping the geometry of the binding site
almost intact. Therefore we can compare the binding
affinity toward guest in various solvents. The structures
1
of these receptors were characterized by H NMR and
We focus on the binding in which both polar and
nonpolar functional groups participate in the binding
high-resolution mass spectroscopy. For the free base of
1, a crystal suitable for X-ray crystallographic study
was obtained and the structure was also confirmed by
X-ray diffraction study. Crystal data and experimental
details for the free base of 1 are sumarized in Table 1.
The molecular structure of the free base of 1 is shown
in Figure 1. The porphyrin framework was planar. The
average distance of the 24 atoms of carbon and nitro-
gen of the porphyrin framework from the least-squares
plane obtained from the 24 atoms was 0.009 Å, with
the largest distance (0.05 Å) observed for one of the
(7) (a) Tabushi, I. Acc. Chem. Res. 1982, 15, 66. (b) Schneider, H.-J .;
Kramer, R.; Simova, S.; Schneider, U. J . Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110,
6442. (c) Connors, K. A. Chem. Rev. 1997, 97, 1325. (d) Liu, Y.; Han,
B.-H.; Li, B.; Zhang, Y.-M.; Zhao, P.; Chen, Y.-T.; Wada, T.; Inoue, Y.
J . Org. Chem. 1998, 63, 1444. (e) Kitae, T.; Nakayama, T.; Kano, K.
J . Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1998, 207-212.
(8) Maitra, U.; Rao, P.; Vijay Kumar, P.; Balasubramanian, R.;
Mathew, L. Tetrahedron Lett. 1998, 39, 3255.
(9) Gokel, G. W.; Schall, O. F. Comprehensive Supramolecular
Chemistry; Gokel, G. W., Ed.; Pergamon Press Ltd.: Oxford, 1996; Vol.
1, p 126.
(10) For solvent effects on the binding by crown ethers, see Solov'ev,
V. P.; Strakhova, N. N.; Raevsky, O. A.; Ruediger, V.; Schneider, H.-J .
J . Org. Chem. 1996, 61, 5221-5226.
(11) Adrian, J . C., J r.; Wilcox, C. S. J . Am. Chem. Soc. 1991, 113,
678.
(12) Siegel, B.; Breslow, R. J . Am. Chem. Soc. 1975, 97, 6869.
(13) (a) Ferguson, S. B.; Sanford, E. M.; Seward, E. M.; Diederich,
F. J . Am. Chem. Soc. 1991, 113, 5410. (b) Smithrud, D. B.; Wyman, T.
B.; Diederich, F. J . Am. Chem. Soc. 1991, 113, 5420.
(14) Mizutani, T.; Wada, K.; Kitagawa, S. J . Am. Chem. Soc. 1999,
121, 11425.
(15) Ogoshi, H.; Mizutani, T. Acc. Chem. Res. 1998, 31, 81.
(16) (a) Wagner, R. W.; Ruffing, J .; Breakwell, B. V.; Lindsey, J . S.
Tetrahedron Lett. 1991, 32, 1703. (b) Wagner, R. W.; Lindsey, J . S.;
Turowska-Tyrk, I.; Scheidt, W. R. Tetrahedron 1994, 50, 11097.
(17) Lindsey, J . S.; Wagner, R. W. J . Org. Chem. 1989, 54, 828.