A R T I C L E S
Lewis et al.
mechanism.38 The value of â ≈ 0.4 Å-1 for charge recombina-
tion in 5-7 is similar to the values reported by Shafirovich et
al.39 for hole transport from aminopurine cation radical to
guanine and by Takada et al. for naphthaldiimide/phenothiazine
systems separated by 4-8 A:T base pairs.36 The smaller slope
may reflect an increasing contribution of multistep hole hopping
to the charge recombination dynamics at longer distances.40 If
so, the onset of crossover occurs at much larger value of RDA
(five intervening base pairs or ca. 20 Å) than is the case for
charge separation. Abdel Malak et al. have recently reported a
crossover in mechanism for electron transfer across helical poly-
(proline) bridges from superexchange (â ) 1.4 Å-1) to hopping
(â ) 0.18 Å-1) that occurs at a donor-acceptor edge-to-edge
distance of ca. 20 Å.8
The occurrence of crossover from superexchange to hole
hopping at a longer distance for charge recombination than for
charge separation is a consequence of donor-bridge acceptor
energetics. Whereas reversible hole injection is approximately
isoergonic, hole trapping by Sd is estimated to be exergonic by
ca. 0.5 eV (Scheme 2a). Paulson et al. have recently reported
that rate constants for superexchange are only weekly dependent
upon the free energy for electron transfer, whereas rate constants
for hopping are strongly dependent upon the free energy
change.9 Thus, superexchange will dominate at short distances
when ∆Get is large, as it is for charge recombination in 2-4.
Å-1, consistent with a superexchange mechanism, as previously
proposed. The singlet acridinium acceptor Acr* studied by
Fukui and by Michel-Beyerle reportedly does not oxidize
neighboring A.4 Oxidation of G or Z by Acr* is strongly
distance dependent (â ≈ 1.4 Å-1), consistent with a super-
exchange mechanism. Values of â > 1 Å-1 have also been
reported for DNA-mediated photoinduced charge separation
between both intercalated and end-tethered donor-acceptor
pairs, which are not capable of hole injection.42
Hole injection for the stronger acceptor diphenylacetylene
dicarboxamide Dpa (Chart 2) is estimated to be exergonic by
∼0.1 eV. Rate constants for conversion of Dpa to Dpa-• are
independent of the presence of guanine, consistent with a
hopping mechanism for Dpa/G systems with 1-5 intervening
A:T base pairs.43 Reanalysis of the published results for these
systems indicates that hole trapping by guanine does occur
following hole injection and hole transport. Photoinduced charge
separation in systems having an intercalated ethidium acceptor
and deazaguanine donor is also reported to occur via hole
injection followed by irreversible hole trapping.5
The behavior of the Pa/Z and Dpa/G systems provides
examples of superexchange and hopping mechanisms, respec-
tively, whereas the Sa/Sd system exhibits crossover between
these two limiting mechanisms. Another likely example of
crossover is provided by the results of Wan et al. for photo-
induced electron transfer in systems possessing an aminopurine
(Ap) acceptor and guanine donor separated by several A:T base
pairs.6 An increase in Ap* lifetime with increasing Ap/G
separation is attributed to competing superexchange quenching
by G and A, but also could result from reversible hole injection
followed by distance-dependent charge trapping by G.
In summary, the coordinated application of several transient
spectroscopic methods has succeeded in disentangling for the
first time the complex kinetics of photoinduced charge separa-
tion and charge recombination in DNA. Charge separation is
found to occur via a single-step superexchange mechanism only
at short donor-acceptor distances. At longer distances, charge
separation occurs via a multistep mechanism: hole injection,
hole migration, and hole trapping. The superexchange, hole
migration, and charge recombination processes are all distance
dependent, whereas the hole injection process is independent
of donor-acceptor distance, but dependent upon its energetics.
The dynamics and mechanism of hole migration in A-tracts and
other base sequences are the subjects of continuing investigation.
Concluding Remarks
The observation of charge separation via a multistep hole
hopping mechanism for Sa/Sd hairpin systems possessing two
or more A:T base pairs necessitates reexamination of the
literature relating to the mechanism and dynamics of photo-
induced charge separation in donor-bridge-acceptor systems
with DNA bridges. The results of collaborative studies in our
laboratories indicate that charge separation in Sa/G systems with
two or more intervening A:T base pairs also occurs via hole
hopping rather than superexchange. A hole hopping mechanism
can also readily explain the observation of similar rate constants
for charge separation in Sa-linked hairpins possessing Sd, G,
GG, GGG, and Z hole traps.41 Increasing the depth of the hole
trap should have little effect on the dynamics of charge
separation in these systems. Rate constants reported in our
previous study of reversible hole transport between primary and
secondary hole traps are not dependent upon the assumed
mechanism for hole injection and thus should not require
revision.34
Acknowledgment. This research is supported by the Office
of Basic Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy under
Contract DE-FG02-96ER14604 (F.D.L.), Boston College (T.F.),
and the National Institutes of Health, Grant 5 R01 ES11589,
and the Kresge Foundation (V.S.).
The use of different singlet acceptors can affect the competi-
tion between superexchange versus hole hopping. Hole injection
for the weaker phenanthrenedicarboxamide acceptor Pa (Chart
2) is estimated to be endergonic by ∼0.25 eV.39 The distance
dependence of singlet quenching of Pa* by deazaguanine
separated by 1-3 A:T base pairs provides a value of â ) 1.1
Supporting Information Available: Fluorescence decay
traces for 3, transient absorption spectra for Sa and Sd, and
transient absorption spectra for 2-4 at delay times of 0.2-1.9
ns. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at
(38) Gray, H. B.; Winkler, J. R. In Electron Transfer in Chemistry; Balzani,
V., Ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2001; Vol. 3, pp 3-23.
(39) (a) Shafirovich, V. Y.; Dourandin, A.; Huang, W.; Luneva, N. P.; Geacintov,
N. E. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2000, 2, 4399-4408. (b) Shafirovich, V.
Y.; Geacintov, N. E. Top. Curr. Chem. 2004, 237, 129-157. (c) Shafirovich,
V. Y.; Geacintov, N. E. In Charge Transfer in DNA; Wagenknecht, H. A.,
Ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2005; pp 175-196.
(40) Takada, T.; Kawai, K.; Fujitsuka, M.; Majima, T. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 2004, 101, 14002-14006.
(41) (a) Lewis, F. D.; Liu, X.; Liu, J.; Hayes, R. T.; Wasielewski, M. R. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 12037-12038. (b) Lewis, F. D.; Liu, J.; Liu, X.;
Zuo, X.; Hayes, R. T.; Wasielewski, M. R. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002,
41, 1026-1028.
JA0540831
(42) (a) Harriman, A. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 945-949. (b) Barbara,
P. F.; Olson, E. J. C. AdV. Chem. Phys. 1999, 107, 647-676. (c) Meade,
T. J.; Kayyem, J. F. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1995, 34, 352-354.
(43) Lewis, F. D.; Liu, X.; Miller, S. E.; Hayes, R. T.; Wasielewski, M. R. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 14020-14026.
9
800 J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 128, NO. 3, 2006