Journal of the American Chemical Society
Communication
the overall trigonal-bipyramidal geometry of 2 and provides
reasonably consistent Fe−ligand distances. Most importantly,
the computed and experimental tBuISQ− bond distances exhibit
remarkable agreement, with an rms deviation of merely 0.007 Å
(Table S2). Model 2B is also 9 kcal/mol more stable than 2A,
indicating an energetic preference for the Fe2+−tBuISQ form.
To the best of our knowledge, the electronic structure of 2
has no precedent among synthetic complexes. While Fe2+−SQ
intermediates are often invoked in the mechanisms of catechol
dioxygenases, all relevant models to date feature unambiguous
[Fe3+−catecholate]+ units.17,18 Similarly, the Fe3+−ISQ com-
plexes generated by Wieghardt and co-workers exclusively
undergo ligand-based reductions to give the corresponding
Fe3+−AP species.8,9 The unique Fe2+−ISQ configuration of 2 is
likely due to the presence of a high-spin, 5C Fe ion, whereas related
complexes prepared by Wieghardt (such as [(L)Fe3+(RISQ)]+,
and Fe2+−tBuIBQ limits. Detailed spectroscopic studies are
currently underway to better understand the electronic
structure of [3]+.
Complexes 1−3 replicate key structural and electronic
aspects of the proposed o-aminophenol dioxygenase mecha-
nism. In particular, the conversion of 1→2 mimics the
transformation of the enzyme−substrate complex (A) into a
ferrous−ISQ species (B) via coupled proton and electron
transfers. Our results therefore provide a synthetic precedent
for the existence of Fe2+−ISQ intermediates in enzymatic
catalysis. Of course, complex 2 is an imperfect model of
intermediate B, since it lacks the coordinated superoxo ligand.
Attempts are currently in progress to characterize species
formed during the reaction of 1 and 2 with O2 (and its
surrogate, NO). These studies will yield further insights into
the role of noninnocent ligands in ring-cleaving dioxygenase
mechanisms.
t
where L = cis-cyclam and R = H or Bu) generally feature low-
spin, 6C Fe centers.8 Thus, changes in spin state and coordina-
tion geometry are capable of shifting the delicate balance
between the Fe2+−ISQ and Fe3+−AP valence tautomers.
Reaction of 2 with 1 equiv of an acetylferrocenium salt in
CH2Cl2 provides a dark green species, [3]+, with intense
absorption features at 770 and 430 nm (Figure 2). Treatment
of [3]+ with 1 equiv of reductant (such as Fe(Cp*)2) fully
regenerates 2 (Figure S2), indicating that the two species are
related by a reversible one-electron process. EPR experiments
with frozen solutions of [3]+ failed to detect a signal in either
perpendicular or parallel mode, indicative of an integer-spin
system. Indeed, the magnetic moment of [3]+ was found to be
5.0(1) μB at RT, close to the spin-only value for an S = 2
paramagnet.
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
■
S
* Supporting Information
Experimental details, computational methods and models,
crystallographic structures and data (CIFs), and absorption
spectra of the interconversion of 2 and [3]+. This material is
AUTHOR INFORMATION
■
Corresponding Author
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
X-ray quality crystals of [3]SbF6 were prepared by vapor
diffusion of pentane into a concentrated dichloroethane
solution. The resulting structure (Figure S3) contains two
symmetrically independent Fe units, each featuring a distorted
square-pyramidal geometry (τ = 0.42 and 0.38). Despite the
difference in charge, complexes [3]+ and 2 have identical
atomic compositions. Yet the average Fe−NTp bond distance
shortens from 2.132 to 2.081 Å upon conversion of 2 to [3]+,
suggesting an increase in Fe-based charge. While the structural
parameters of the bidentate O,N-donor ligand of [3]+ are
consistent with a tBuISQ− radical, it was not possible to rule out
a neutral iminobenzoquinonate ligand (tBuIBQ) due to sizable
uncertainties in the bond distances.
We therefore turned to DFT calculations to further explore
the electronic structure of [3]+. The resulting geometry-
optimized model, [3DFT]+, exhibits good agreement with the
crystallographic data, although the DFT structure is more dis-
torted toward the trigonal-bipyramidal limit (τ = 0.64; Table S3).
The computed Fe−ligand bond distances nicely match the
experimental values (rms deviation = 0.022 Å), indicating that
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
■
We thank Dr. Brian Bennett for generously allowing us to
perform EPR experiments at the National Biomedical EPR
Center (supported by NIH P41 Grant EB001980), and for
assistance with the simulation. We are also grateful to the NSF
(CAREER CHE-1056845) and Marquette University for
financial support.
REFERENCES
■
(1) (a) Costas, M.; Mehn, M. P.; Jensen, M. P.; Que, L. Jr. Chem.
Rev. 2004, 104, 939−986. (b) Vaillancourt, F. H.; Bolin, J. T.; Eltis, L.
D. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. 2006, 41, 241−267. (c) Lipscomb, J. D.
Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2008, 18, 644−649.
(2) (a) Li, X. W.; Guo, M.; Fan, J.; Tang, W. Y.; Wang, D. Q.; Ge, H. H.;
Rong, H.; Teng, M. K.; Niu, L. W.; Liu, Q.; Hao, Q. Protein Sci. 2006, 15,
761−773. (b) Zhang, Y.; Colabroy, K. L.; Begley, T. P.; Ealick, S. E.
Biochemistry 2005, 44, 7632−7643.
(3) (a) Bassan, A.; Borowski, T.; Siegbahn, P. E. M. Dalton Trans.
2004, 3153−3162. (b) Siegbahn, P. E. M.; Haeffner, F. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2004, 126, 8919−8932.
(4) Deeth, R. J.; Bugg, T. D. H. J. Biol. Inorg. Chem. 2003, 8, 409−
418.
the calculation converges to the correct S = 2 electronic
+
configuration. Comparison of [3DFT
]
and 2B reveals more
pronounced “quinoid” character in the O,N-donor ligand of the
former. Using the experimentally derived correlations of bond
distances and ligand oxidation states recently published by
Brown, the O,N-donor ligand of [3DFT]+ has an oxidation state
of −0.35(5) (i.e., partway between ISQ1− and IBQ0).19
Moreoever, the highest-occupied spin-down MO (β-HOMO)
of [3]+ contains roughly equal Fe and ligand character (47 and
42%, respectively), and the β-LUMO is evenly delocalized over
the two units (Figure S4). Thus, the DFT results suggest that
the electronic structure of [3]+ lies between the Fe3+−tBuISQ
(5) Spence, E. L.; Langley, G. J.; Bugg, T. D. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1996, 118, 8336−8343.
(6) Kovaleva, E. G.; Lipscomb, J. D. Science 2007, 316, 453−457.
(7) Poddel’sky, A. I.; Cherkasov, V. K.; Abakumov, G. A. Coord.
Chem. Rev. 2009, 253, 291−324.
(8) Chun, H.; Bill, E.; Bothe, E.; Weyhermuller, T.; Wieghardt, K.
Inorg. Chem. 2002, 41, 5091−5099.
(9) (a) Min, K. S.; Weyhermuller, T.; Wieghardt, K. Dalton Trans.
2003, 1126−1132. (b) Min, K. S.; Weyhermuller, T.; Wieghardt, K.
Dalton Trans. 2004, 178−186.
5462
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja212163t | J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 5460−5463