Published on Web 10/21/2008
A 3-fold “Butterfly Valve” in Command of the Encapsulation’s
Kinetic Stability. Molecular Baskets at Work
Bao-Yu Wang, Xiaoguang Bao, Zhiqing Yan, Veselin Maslak,
Christopher M. Hadad, and Jovica D. Badjic´*
Department of Chemistry, The Ohio State UniVersity, 100 West 18th AVenue,
Columbus, Ohio 43210
Received June 10, 2008; E-mail: badjic@chemistry.ohio-state.edu
Abstract: Molecular basket 1, composed of a semirigid tris-norbornadiene framework and three revolving
pyridine-based gates at the rim, has been built to “dynamically” enclose space and as such regulate
molecular encapsulation. The gates were shown to fold via intramolecular hydrogen bonding and thereby
form a C3v symmetrical receptor: the 1H NMR resonance for the amide N-H protons of the pyridine gates
appeared downfield (δ ) 10.98 ppm), and the N-H vibrational stretch (IR) was observed at 3176 cm-1
.
Accordingly, density functional theory (DFT, B3LYP) investigations revealed for the closed conformers of
1 to be energetically the most stable and dominant. The gearing of the pyridine “gates”, about their axis,
led to the interconversion of two dynamic enantiomers 1A and 1B comprising the clockwise and
counterclockwise seam of intramolecular hydrogen bonds. Dynamic 1H NMR spectroscopic measurements
and line-shape simulations suggested that the energy barrier of 10.0 kcal/mol (∆GqA/B, 298 K) is required
for the 1A/B interconversion, when CCl4 occupies the cavity of 1. Likewise, the activation free energy for
CCl4 departing the basket was found to be 13.1 kcal/mol (∆Gq, 298 K), whereas the thermodynamic stability
of 1:CCl4 complex was -2.7 kcal/mol (∆G°, 298 K). In view of that, CCl4 (but also (CH3)3CBr) was proposed
to escape from, and a molecule of solvent to enter, the basket when the gates rotate about their axis: the
exit of CCl4 requires the activation energy of 12.7 kcal/mol (∆GqA/B + ∆G°), similar to the experimentally
found 13.1 kcal/mol (∆Gq).
Introduction
function of its size. The substrate binding rate for smaller guests
(<2.4 Å radius), thereby, becomes modestly reduced, whereas
The molecular trafficking in natural systems is governed via
programmed and dynamic chemical processes.1 Complex opera-
tions, such as selective transport of molecules2 and catalysis,3
are thus repeatedly executed in a precise manner, albeit
challenging to duplicate into functional artificial systems.4
Acetylcholinesterase, for instance, regulates its specificity
without sacrificing efficiency through a mechanism of confor-
mation gating:5 stochastically controlled entry, inside a deep
gorge leading to the enzyme active site, opens for a small
fraction of time to modulate the guest’s incoming rate as a
bulkier substrates (>2.8 Å radius) experience a considerable
decrease in the rate of access to the active site; the fluctuating
constriction of the entrance brings a required selectivity without
sacrificing the catalytic efficiency! In unnatural systems,6
however, conformationally dynamic groups at the skin of
hemicarcerands7 have afforded a measurable gain in kinetic
stability of the complexes via gating access to the host’s interior.
Notably, investigating novel ways for directing molecular
encapsulation8 and constrictive binding9 will provide insight into
understanding the molecular translocation in unnatural environ-
(1) Essays in Biochemistry: Molecular Trafficking; Bernstein, P., Ed.;
Portland Press: London, 2000.
(2) Pallotta, B. S. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1997, 812, 133–140.
(3) Swift, R. V.; McCammon, J. A. Biochemistry 2008, 47, 4102–4111.
(4) For selected references, see: (a) Badjic´, J. D.; Ronconi, C. M.; Stoddart,
J. F.; Balzani, V.; Silvi, S.; Credi, A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128,
1489–1499. (b) Pei, R.; Taylor, S. K.; Stefanovic, D.; Rudchenko, S.;
Mitchell, T. E.; Stojanovic, M. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128,
12693–12699. (c) Wintjes, N.; Bonifazi, D.; Cheng, F.; Kiebele, A.;
Stoehr, M.; Jung, T.; Spillmann, H.; Diederich, F. Angew. Chem., Int.
Ed. 2007, 46, 4089–4092. (d) Hidalgo, R. P.; Coumans, R. G. E.;
Deutman, A. B. C.; Smits, J. M. M.; De Gelder, R.; Elemans,
J. A. A. W.; Nolte, R. J. M.; Rowan, A. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007,
129, 5699–5702. (e) Percec, V.; Rudick, J. G.; Peterca, M.; Heiney,
P. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 7503–7508. (f) Angelos, S.; Yang,
Y.-W.; Patel, K.; Stoddart, J. F.; Zink, J. I. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.
2008, 47, 2222–2226. (g) Stock, C.; Heureux, N.; Browne, W. R.;
Feringa, B. L. Chem.-Eur. J. 2008, 14, 3146–3153.
(6) (a) Talukdar, P.; Bollot, G.; Mareda, J.; Sakai, N.; Matile, S. Chem.-
Eur. J. 2005, 11, 6525–6532. (b) Gokel, G. W.; Leevy, W. M.; Weber,
M. E. Macrocycl. Chem. 2005, 253–265.
(7) (a) Houk, K. N.; Nakamura, K.; Sheu, C.; Keating, A. E. Science 1996,
273, 627–629. (b) Sheu, C.; Houk, K. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996,
118, 8056–8070.
(8) For selected examples, see: (a) Rudkevich, D. M.; Hilmersson, G.;
Rebek, J., Jr. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 12216–12225. (b)
Vysotsky, M. O.; Thondorf, I.; Bohmer, V. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.
2000, 39, 1264–1267. (c) Zuccaccia, D.; Pirondini, L.; Pinalli, R.;
Dalcane, E.; Macchioni, A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 7025–7032.
(d) Hooley, R. J.; Anda, H. J. V.; Rebek, J., Jr. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2006, 128, 3894–3895. (e) Mukhopadhyay, P.; Zavalij, P. Y.; Isaacs,
L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 14093–14102. (f) Gottschalk, T.;
Jaun, B.; Diederich, F. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 260–264.
(g) Pluth, M. D.; Bergman, R. G.; Raymond, K. N. Angew. Chem.,
Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 8587–8589.
(5) Zhou, H.-X.; Wlodek, S. T.; McCammon, J. A. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 1998, 95, 9280–9283.
(9) Liu, Y.; Warmuth, R. Org. Lett. 2007, 9, 2883–2886.
9
10.1021/ja8041977 CCC: $40.75
2008 American Chemical Society
J. AM. CHEM. SOC. 2008, 130, 15127–15133 15127