2OTf]2+, [MG2 2 3OTf]3+ and [MG2 2 4OTf]4+ at m/z = 1794
units in the other subcavity to form stronger hydrogen bonds
with the second 9.
In conclusion, the metallomacrocycle having two interactive
binding sites has been prepared for the first time by the
coordination-mediated self-assembly. The macrocycle shows
high homotropic cooperativity and is considered to be a new
type of artificial homotropic allosteric model.
(7%), 1146 (25%) and 823 (32%), respectively.11
1
To determine the binding affinities, the H NMR titration
experiments were performed in 3% (v/v) CD3CN–CDCl3 at 23
± 1 °C, and time-averaged resonances for the free and the
complexed species were observed under the titration conditions.
As the guest 9 was added, two NH signals of 1 were gradually
downfield shifted from 9.44 and 9.31 ppm to 10.35 and 10.22
ppm (Fig. 1b), indicative of hydrogen bond formation. In
contrast, the chemical shift changes were negligible (Dd < 0.1
ppm) when a monoamide, N,N-dimethylbenzamide, was added
under the same conditions. It is also worthwhile noting that the
aryl signal of the bound 9 was considerably upfield-shifted (Dd
> 1.0 ppm) relative to that of the free 9. These observations are
consistent with the proposed structure of the complex shown in
Scheme 2, where 9 is diagonally located inside the binding
subcavities by the formation of four hydrogen bonds.
The titration curves were slightly sigmoid in the initial stage
and analyzed with the HOSTEST program12 of a 1 : 2 (host :
guest) binding isotherm (Fig. 1b). Both titration curves from
NH1 and NH2 gave identical association constants within
experimental error ( < 5%), indicating that two NH’s are
participated in the same binding event. The macroscopic
association constants of K1 ( = [MG1]/[1][9]) and K2 ( =
[MG2]/[MG1][9]) were found to be 180 ± 5 M21 and 450 ± 20
M21, respectively.13 Considering the relationship of K2 = 1/4
K1 for noncooperative binding,10 the magnitude of the associa-
tion constants obtained here reflects a high positive cooper-
ativity between two binding sites. Hill plots10 also support the
positive cooperative bindings. The Hill coefficient h was
determined to be approximately 1.8 for this system. One
plausible explanation for this positive cooperativity is that the
first 9 binding to one subcavity possibly optimizes the distance
between two diagonally positioned pyridinedicarboxamide
This work was financially supported by the Korea Science
and Engineering Foundation (R02-2002-000-00115-0).
Notes and references
1 (a) For reviews see: P. J. Stang and B. Olenyuk, Acc. Chem. Res., 1997,
30, 502; (b) M. Fujita, Chem. Soc. Rev., 1998, 27, 417; (c) R. V. Slone,
K. D. Benkstein, S. Bélanger, J. T. Hupp, I. A. Guzei and A. L.
Rheingold, Coord. Chem. Rev., 1998, 171, 221; (d) S. Leininger, B.
Olenyuk and P. J. Stang, Chem. Rev., 2000, 100, 853; (e) G. F. Swiegers
and T. J. Malefetse, Chem. Rev., 2000, 100, 3483; (f) M. Fujita, K.
Umemoto, M. Yoshizawa, N. Fujita, T. Kusukawa and K. Biradha,
Chem. Commun., 2001, 509; (g) S.-S. Sun and A. J. Lees, Coord. Chem.
Rev., 2002, 230, 171.
2 (a) Some selected examples of binding studies using metallomacro-
cycles: M. Fujita, J. Yazaki and K. Ogura, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1990, 112,
5645; (b) S. B. Lee, S. Hwang, D. S. Chung, H. Yun and J.-I. Hong,
Tetrahedron Lett., 1998, 39, 873; (c) J. A. Whiteford, P. J. Stang and S.
D. Huang, Inorg. Chem., 1998, 37, 5595; (d) K. D. Benkstein, J. T. Hupp
and C. L. Stern, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2000, 39, 2891; (e) S.-S. Sun
and A. J. Lees, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2000, 122, 8956.
3 (a) For reviews on the artificial allosteric models, see: J. Jr. Rebek, Acc.
Chem. Res., 1984, 17, 258; (b) S. Shinkai, M. Ikeda, A. Sugasaki and M.
Takeuchi, Acc. Chem. Res., 2001, 34, 494; (c) M. Takeuchi, M. Ikeda,
A. Sugasaki and S. Shinkai, Acc. Chem. Res., 2001, 34, 865.
4 (a) P. J. Stang and D. H. Cao, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1994, 116, 4981; (b)
P. J. Stang, D. H. Cao, S. Saito and A. M. Arif, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1995,
117, 6273.
5 (a) E. E. Schrier, J. Chem. Educ., 1968, 45, 176; (b) C. T. Seto and G.
M. Whitesides, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1993, 115, 1330; (c) A. S. Shetty, J.
Zhang and J. S. Moore, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1996, 118, 1019.
6 T. D. Lash, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2000, 39, 1763.
7 (a) J. Rebek, Jr., T. Costello, L. Marshall, R. Wattley, R. C. Gadwood
and K. Onan, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1985, 107, 7481; (b) C. A. Hunter and
D. H. Purvis, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl., 1992, 31, 792; (c) M.
Takeuchi, T. Shioya and T. M. Swager, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2001,
40, 3372; (d) J. L. Sessler, H. Maeda, T. Mizuno, V. M. Lynch and H.
Furuta, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2002, 124, 13474; (e) R. Mungaroo and J. C.
Sherman, Chem. Commun., 2002, 1672.
8 MacroModel program with MM3* force field was used. For details, see
ESI†.
9 (a) K.-S. Jeong, Y. L. Cho, J. U. Song, H.-Y. Chang and M.-G. Choi, J.
Am. Chem. Soc., 1998, 120, 10982; (b) K.-S. Jeong, Y. L. Cho, S.-Y.
Chang, T.-Y. Park and J. U. Song, J. Org. Chem., 1999, 64, 9459; (c) K.-
S. Jeong, J. W. Lee, T.-Y. Park and S.-Y. Chang, Chem. Commun.,
1999, 2069.
10 (a) K. A. Connors, Binding Constants, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1987; (b) H.-J. Schneider and A. K. Yatsimirsky, Principles and
Methods in Supramolecular Chemistry, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
2000.
11 The identical ESI-mass spectrum was obtained in 50% CH3CN–CHCl3
(See ESI†).
12 C. S. Wilcox and N. M. Glagovich, HOSTEST, v5.60, Department of
Chemistry, The University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997.
Analyses of titration data with EQNMR gave essentially identical
results; M. J. Hynes, J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 1993, 311. We thank
Prof. Wilcox and Prof. Hynes for allowing generously us to use their
programs.
13 The titration experiments were duplicated. The reported association
constants are averages of four values obtained with both NH’s.
Scheme 2
CHEM. COMMUN., 2003, 2026–2027
2027