COMMUNICATIONS
covered by the complex with 1, and the normalized current
values[17] for MOCSERs with complexes formed from 2, 3,
and 4 were 0.07, 0.38, and 0.50, respectively.
type of anchoring group dictate independently the activity of
the entire system.
In recent, preliminary, experiments we observed that dry
devices covered by complexes from 1 or 2 are much more
sensitive to NO7g) than to O27g) or CO7g). This result is
reasonable if one considers the weaker binding of O27g) and
CO7g) to iron7iii) porphyrins.[24] Experiments, designed to
sense NO exclusively in a biological environment of compet-
ing ligands, for example, other NOx species, are under way.
Two methods were used to release NO from the saturated
sample 7complex with 3, 5.0 ± 10.0 ppm NO) and to regenerate
the ability of the MOCSER to detect NO. In the first one, the
NO-saturated sample was taken out of the buffer solution,
dried in a stream of dry N2 for less than 15 seconds, and re-
immersed in a clean buffer solution. A current typical for the
NO-free system could then be measured. In the second
method, the NO-containing solution was replaced by a clean
buffer solution, and the current of the NO-free system was
reached within a few minutes 7t90 ꢀ 120 s). Subsequent ex-
posure of the samples to the same concentration of NO
resulted in the 7saturation) current being 70 ± 85% of the
original change, which demonstrates the system is reasonably
reversible under these conditions.
The system responds to NO mainly through the binding of
NO to the iron7iii) porphyrin moieties,[20] and not by direct
binding to the surface. The increase in current when the NO
binds to the derivatized surfaces results from a decreased
potential drop across the conducting GaAs layer 7of the
device). Such a decrease is explained by a change in the dipole
of the iron porphyrin/ligand complex following the replace-
ment of one coordinated imidazole ring by the NO radical
7stronger positive monopole at the binding group).[21]
Higher sensitivity was obtained for MOCSERs with the
nonsymmetric complex formed from 2 than with the complex
of 1, as deduced from the detection values of 2.0 ppm of NO.
This result can be understood from the greater ease by which
NO replaces the N-alkylimidazolyl ring of ligand 2 relative to
the imidazolyl ring of ligand 1 as a chelator to the FeIII center.
A similar process was observed earlier for replacement of the
coordinated N-alkylimidazole ring by O2.[22] Devices covered
by the complexes formed with ligand 3 are also more sensitive
to NO than those covered by complexes derived from 1. Since
the FeIII binding sites in the two complexes are the same, this
enhancement of the signal with 3 is attributed mainly to a
stronger binding of the dicarboxylate group to the surface,
relative to the binding of the disulfide group.[23] The tighter
mode of binding is expected to improve the electrical
communication between the anchoring site on the GaAs
surface and the NO binding site. Such communication can be
considered as signaling through the ligand skeleton, via its
anchor, to the surface.
Experimental Section
Synthesis: The synthesis of ligands 1 and 2 was described earlier,[8, 22] and
the detailed procedure to make ligands 3 and 4 will be described soon.[25]
Characterization of 3: IR 7KBr): uÄ 1652 7CONH), 1715 cmÀ1 7COOH);
1H NMR 7CD3OD): d 8.20 7s, 2H), 7.30 7s, 2H), 7.10 7s, 2H), 4.12 7br,
6H), 3.19 7t, J 7.0 Hz, 4H), 2.19 7t, J 6.5 Hz, 4H), 2.12 7t, J 6.5 Hz,
4H), 1.99 7quint, J 7.0 Hz, 4H), 1.30 7d, J 8.0 Hz, 6H); FAB-MS: m/z:
604.8 [M H] . 4: IR 7KBr): uÄ 1670 7CONH), 1716 cmÀ1 7COOH);
1H NMR 7CD3OD): d 7.76 7s, 2H), 7.18 7s, 1H), 6.99 7s, 1H), 6.90 7s, 1H),
4.24 7dq, 2H), 4.06 7t, J 6.5 Hz, 2H), 3.35 7t, J 7.0 Hz, 2H), 3.16 7t, J
7.0 Hz, 2H), 2.79 7t, J 7.0 Hz, 2H), 2.21 7br, 4H), 2.14 7br, 4H), 1.98
7quint, J 7.0 Hz, 2H), 1.26 ± 1.34 7dd, 6H); MS 7electrospray): m/z: 591.4
[M H] .
Complexes of each ligand with FeTPPCl were made by mixing 1/1 solutions
7>15 mm) in DMF 71 or 2), CHCl3/CH3OH 9/1 73), or CHCl3/2,2,2-
trifluoroethanol 7TFE) 8/2 74).
Sample preparation: Etched MOCSERs or GaAs substrates 7NH3/H2O
1/9) were immersed in solutions of freshly prepared ligand ± FeTPPCl
complexes overnight. The substrates were then rinsed by CHCl3/hexane
75% v/v, 1 or 2) or by CHCl3 73 or 4), and dried 7N2). To prevent leakage of
the electrical current through the conducting solution, the device was
encapsulated using epoxy, leaving a ªsensing windowº uncovered 7inset to
Figure 1). The linearity of the I-V characteristics was checked during the
measurements by a Keithley 236 Source Measure Unit.
Sensing NO by the derivatized MOCSERs: The NO-release solution was
prepared by dissolving a weighted amount of commercial 1-hydroxy-3-
methyl-3-7methylaminopropyl)-2-oxo-1-triazene 7Sigma) in a 0.01m solu-
tion of NaOH. These conditions for preparing the NO solution and for NO
injection are very similar to those previously described.[14] At basic pH
values the reagent is stable, and at physiological pH it releases 2.0 equiv-
alents of NO with first order kinetics having t1/2 10.1 min at 228C. As
shown in ref. [14] NO is the only nitrosyl compound obtained during
proteolysis.[14] After the MOCSER current had been stabilized in the
7pH 7.4) phosphate buffer solution, the precursor was injected, and the
saturation current was obtained within 10 min.
Received: May 17, 2000
Revised: September 5, 2000 [Z15136]
[1] L. Packer, Methods in Enzymology, Vol. 301, Academic Press, New
York, 1998.
[2] F. Murad, Angew. Chem. 1999, 38, 1976 ± 1989; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
1999, 111, 1856 ± 1868.
[3] See for example: T. Malinski, Z. Taha, Nature 1992, 358, 676 ± 678.
[4] V. Petrouless, B. A. Diner, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1990, 1015, 131 ±
140.
[5] H. Fujii, X. Wan, J. Zhong, L. J. Berliner, K. Yoshikawa, Magn. Reson.
Med. 1999, 42, 235 ± 239.
[6] K. Gartsman, D. Cahen, A. Kadyshevitch, J. Libman, T. Moav, R.
Naaman, A. Shanzer, V. Umansky, A. Vilan, Chem. Phys. lett. 1998,
283, 301 ± 306.
[7] A. Vilan, R. Ussyshkin, K. Gartsman, D. Cahen, R. Naaman, A.
Shanzer, J. Phys. chem. B 1998, 102, 3307± 3309.
[8] G. Ashkenasy, G. Kalyuzhny, J. Libman, I. Rubinstein, A. Shanzer,
Angew. Chem. 1999, 111, 1333 ± 1336; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1999, 38,
1257± 1261.
Devices covered by the complexes of 4 were found to be the
most sensitive to NO. By utilizing the complex formed with 4
we demonstrated simultaneously: a) a better NO binding to
FeTPPCl, relative to the complex with 3, occurs with the
nonsymmetric metalloporphyrin binding site, and b) an en-
hanced signaling to the GaAs surface via the dicarboxylic
anchors occurs, relative to that found in devices covered by
the complexes formed with 2. We note that the currents
obtained when MOCSERs covered by complexes derived
from 4 were exposed to NO are similar to the summation in
current obtained in the two separate measurements with
devices covered by the complexes derived from 2 or 3 7for
example, for 2.0 ppm of NO). This phenomenon suggests that
the symmetry of the metalloporphyrin binding site and the
[9] Very recently another hybrid system was reported for detecting
gaseous NO. The binding of NO to MIII porphyrins which had been
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2000, 39, No. 24
ꢀ WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH, D-69451 Weinheim, 2000
1433-7851/00/3924-4499 $ 17.50+.50/0
4499