and is related to the thermodynamic parameters s and σ from
the helix coil model9 as shown in eq 2.
Keq ) σsn - n
(2)
o
In this equation, s accounts for the enthalpic gain from
monomer-monomer interactions; no is equal to the number
of monomers required to form one turn of the helix, and σ
accounts for the entropic cost of sacrificing free rotation
between monomers to form the first turn of the helix. The
We concluded that 5 was a suitable â-turn mimic for use
in PE oligomers, while isomer 6 served as a control having
similar ring electronics but a disengaged hydrogen bond.
Next, we synthesized oligomers incorporating either the
â-turn mimic or the control unit (Scheme 1). Synthesis of
the oligomers began with acylation of 2-bromo-4-nitro-
aniline13 by acetic anhydride in the presence of catalytic
copper(II) trifluoromethanesulfonate.14 Reduction of the
nitroarene, followed by protection of the resulting aniline
as a bis-diethyltriazine and subsequent Pd-catalyzed cross-
coupling with trimethylsilylacetylene, gave amide monomer
7. Esterification of 2-iodo-4-nitrobenzoic acid15 gave the
methyl ester. Reduction of this second nitroarene, followed
by protection of the resulting aniline as a bis-diethyltriazine,
yielded methyl ester monomer 8. Coupling of monomer 7
with either 8 or 95 followed by deprotection of the bis-
diethyltriazine groups gave the corresponding iodides. Fi-
nally, Pd-catalyzed cross-coupling with trimethylsilyl-
acetylene yielded â-turn monomers 10 and 11. Coupling of
either monomer 10 or 11 with 2 equiv of chiral octamer
iodide 12 gave the desired octadecamers 1 and 2.
free energy change for the helix nucleation process (∆Gnuc
)
is given by -RTln(σ), while the free energy change for helix
propagation (∆Gprop) is given by -RT(n - no)ln(s).
Previous work in our group has demonstrated that the
thermodynamics of the folding reaction for oligomer 3 can
be altered through variations in chain length (n),5 side chain
polarity,4g and hydrophobic packing of the helical cavity.10
However, because only aromatic stacking interactions are
utilized for stabilizing the helical conformation, control over
the folding properties of oligomers having a homogeneous
backbone is limited. By using a combination of noncovalent
interactions, we demonstrate here an increased ability to
manipulate the equilibrium constant of the folding reaction.
On the basis of the value of ∆Gnuc for oligomers 3, we
calculate the free energy change associated with locking each
acetylene bond in the folded conformation to be ap-
proximately 0.9 kcal/mol.11 From this we predict that the
incorporation of a â-turn mimic having a hydrogen bond
bridging adjacent phenyl units would restrict rotation about
one acetylene bond. This would lower the value of ∆Gnuc
and increase the equilibrium constant for the folding reaction.
Diphenylacetylene is known to function as a â-turn unit
in artificial â-sheet 4,12 so we adapted the structure to give
5 as our model of a hydrogen bonded PE monomer. We were
able to obtain crystals of 5, and the X-ray structure revealed
that the molecule adopts the desired â-turn conformation with
an Ndonor-Oacceptor hydrogen bond length of 3.10 Å (Figure
1). NMR spectroscopy showed that the â-turn conformation
To compare the folding properties of octadecamers 1 and
2, UV absorption spectra of the two isomers were obtained
in a series of solvent mixtures ranging from pure acetonitrile
to pure chloroform. In acetonitrile, the PE backbone is poorly
(4) Examples of single-stranded oligomers that undergo cooperative
conformational transitions include: (a) Kirshenbaum, K.; Barron, A. E.;
Goldsmith, R. A.; Armand, P.; Bradley, E. K.; Truong, K. T. V.; Dill, K.
A.; Cohen, F. E.; Zuckermann, R. N. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1998,
95, 4303-4308. (b) Martinez de Ilarduya, A.; Alema´n, C.; Garc´ıa-Alvarez,
M.; Lo´pez-Carrasquero, F.; Mun˜oz-Guerra, S. Macromolecules 1999, 32,
3257-3263. (c) Cheng, J.; Deming, T. J. Macromolecules 2001, 34, 5169-
5174. (d) Wu, C. W.; Sanborn, T. J.; Huang, K.; Zuckermann, R. N.; Barron,
A. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 6778-6784. (e) Ferna´ndez-Sant´ın, J.
M.; Mun˜oz-Guerra, S.; Rodr´ıguez-Gala´n, A.; Aymam´ı, J.; Lloveras, J.;
Subirana, J. A. Macromolecules 1987, 20, 62-68. (f) Prince, R. B.; Moore,
J. S.; Brunsveld, L.; Meijer, E. W. Chem. Eur. J. 2001, 7, 4150-4154. (g)
Brunsveld, L.; Prince, R. B.; Meijer, E. W.; Moore, J. S. Org. Lett. 2000,
2, 1525-1528. (h) Gin, M. S.; Moore, J. S. Org. Lett. 2000, 2, 135-138.
(i) Petitjean, A.; Cuccia, L. A.; Lehn, J.-M.; Nierengarten, H.; Schmutz,
M. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 1195-1198.
(5) Prince, R. B.; Saven, J. G.; Wolynes, P. G.; Moore, J. S. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 3114-3121.
(6) Nelson, J. C.; Saven, J. G.; Moore, J. S.; Wolynes, P. G. Science
1997, 277, 1793-1796.
(7) Hill, D. J., Moore, J. S. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2002, 99, 5053-
5057.
(8) Defined according to classic polymer chemistry: Flory, P. J.
Principles of Polymer Chemistry; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY,
1953.
(9) Zimm, B. H.; Bragg, J. K. J. Chem. Phys. 1959, 31, 526-535.
(10) Prince, R. B. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana, 2000.
Figure 1. Model compound 5 and control isomer 6. X-ray structure
of 5 shows the hydrogen bonding interaction between adjacent units.
(11) See supplemental information
(12) Kemp, D. S.; Li, Z. Q. Tetrahedron Lett. 1995, 36, 4179-4180.
(13) Roche, D.; Prasad, K.; Repic, O.; Blacklock, T. J. Tetrahedron Lett.
2000, 41, 2083-2085.
(14) Saravanan, P.; Singh, V. K. Tetrahedron Lett. 1999, 40, 2611-
was retained in solution, as the amide N-H proton of 5 was
shifted 1.42 ppm in chloroform and 0.97 ppm in acetonitrile
relative to the amide N-H proton of control compound 6.
2614.
(15) Katritzky, A. R.; Savage, G. P.; Gallos, J. K.; Durst, H. D. Org.
Prep. Proced. Int. 1989, 21, 157-162.
4664
Org. Lett., Vol. 4, No. 26, 2002