Dinuclear Zn(II) Complex-Catalyzed Cyclization
A R T I C L E S
Scheme 1 a
we report a detailed analysis that shows the energies associated
with the various steps of methoxide binding to the catalyst,
subsequent substrate binding, and activation energies for the
catalytic steps with substrates 4a-g which are compared with
the methoxide promoted reactions.
a S ) phosphodiester substrate, charges omitted for simplicity.
s
complex 1-Zn(II)2:(-OCH3) and sets the spH5 of the medium
at 9.4-9.8) where the second-order rate constant (k2obs) of 275,-
000 M-1 s-1 is several orders of magnitude larger than anything
reported to date for related catalysts in water.3a,6-8 This result
demands further investigation when viewed in the light of the
1-Zn(II)2:(-OCH3)-promoted catalysis of cleavage of a DNA
model, methyl p-nitrophenyl phosphate (3), where the plot of
2. Experimental
2.1. Materials. Methanol (99.8% anhydrous), sodium methoxide
(0.50 M solution in methanol, titrated against N/50 certified standard
aqueous HCl solution and found to be 0.49 M), tetrabutylammonium
hydroxide in methanol (1 M, titrated against N/50 certified standard
aqueous HCl solution and found to be 1.087 M), Zn(CF3SO3)2,
p-nitrophenol (98%), 4-chlorophenol (99+%), 3-nitrophenol (99%),
3-methyl-4-nitrophenol (98%), phenol (99%), 4-methoxyphenol (99%),
3-methoxyphenol (96%), triethylamine (g99.5%), propylene oxide
(ReagentPlus, 99%), phosphorus oxychloride (99%), and Ba(OH)2 were
purchased from Aldrich and used without further purification. HClO4
(70% aqueous solution, titrated to be 11.40 M) was purchased from
Acros Organics and used as supplied. The sodium salts of all the
2-hydroxylpropyl aryl phosphates were prepared by a modification9 of
a prior procedure.10 The corresponding disodium salts of the aryl
monophosphates required for the preparation of 4a-g were synthesized
kobs vs [1-Zn(II)2:(-OCH3)]free exhibited Michaelis-Menten
behavior with KM and kmax values of 0.37 ( 0.07 mM and (4.1
( 0.3) × 10-2 s-1, respectively.3a That two closely related
substrates exhibited such different kinetic behavior led us to
propose the mechanism given in Scheme 1 where the rate-
limiting step with 2 was its binding (k1 or k2), whereas in the
case of the slower-reacting 3 it was the chemical step of cleavage
of the bound substrate (kcat) to release p-nitrophenol.
We recently reported that the cleavages of 2 and 3 promoted
by the corresponding Cu(II)2 complex, 1-Cu(II)2:(-OCH3),3b
follow a pathway similar to the mechanism given in Scheme 1.
However, there are sufficient differences in the chemical,
physical, and coordination properties of the two metal ions that
one might wonder about the general similarity of their catalytic
processes. A better test for the proposed scheme requires study
of the 1-Zn(II)2:(-OCH3)-catalyzed cleavage of a series of
hydroxypropyl aryl phosphates where the rate of the chemical
cleavage step (kcat) can be altered by changing the nature of the
departing aryloxy group. In the following we report a kinetic
study of the cleavage of such a series of substrates (4a-g)
promoted by 1-Zn(II)2:(-OCH3) where there is a gradual change
according to a literature procedure.11 Each of 4a-g had 1H NMR, 31
P
NMR, and exact MS spectra consistent with those of the structure (see
the Supporting Information). 1,3-Bis-N1-(1,5,9-triazacyclododecyl)-
propane (1) was prepared as described.12 The dinuclear 1-Zn(II)2:(--
OCH3) complex was prepared as a 2.5 mM stock solution in anhydrous
methanol at 25 °C by sequential addition of aliquots of stock solutions
of sodium methoxide, 1,3-bis-N1-(1,5,9-triazacyclododecyl)propane, and
Zn(CF3SO3)2 such that the relative ratios were 1:1:2. This order of
addition is essential for the formation of the catalyst complex which
takes ∼40 min in methanol (as monitored by the change in catalytic
activity over time).
1
2.2. Methods. H NMR and 31P NMR spectra were determined at
+
400 and 162.04 MHz. The CH3OH2 concentrations were determined
potentiometrically using a combination glass electrode (Radiometer
model no. XC100-111-120-161) calibrated with certified standard
aqueous buffers (pH ) 4.00 and 10.00) as described in previous
papers.13 The sspH values in methanol were determined by subtracting
the correction constant of -2.2413a from the readings obtained from
the electrode, and the autoprotolysis constant for methanol was taken
to be 10-16.77 M2. The sspH values for the kinetic experiments were
simply measured from solutions containing the complex and generally
found to be in the range of 9.8 ( 0.2 at the concentrations of catalyst
employed. We have found that the addition of buffers to control the
from Michaelis-Menten kinetics to second-order kinetics as
s
s
the pKa of the leaving phenol group is decreased. In addition,
s
spH inhibits the catalytic reaction, probably due to the associated
counterions that bind to the catalyst, and thus, all the kinetic studies
were done under buffer-free conditions. The first and second macro-
(5) For the designation of pH in nonaqueous solvents we use the forms
recommended by the IUPAC, Compendium of Analytical Nomenclature:
DefinitiVe Rules 1997, 3rd ed.; Blackwell: Oxford, U.K. 1998. If one
calibrates the measuring electrode with aqueous buffers and then measures
-
s
scopic pKa values for 1:Zn2:(HOCH3) and 1:Zn2:(HOCH3)( OCH3)
s
(0.4 mM) were determined to be 9.41 ( 0.013b and 10.11 ( 0.01 from
duplicate measurements of the sspH at half neutralization, whereby the
[1-Zn(II)2:(-OCH3)]/[1-Zn(II)2:(HOCH3)] or [1-Zn(II)2:(-OCH3)2]/
the pH of an aqueous buffer solution, the term wwpH is used; if the
electrode is calibrated in water and the pH of the neat buffered methanol
solution is then measured, the term swpH is used; and if the electrode is
calibrated in the same solvent and the pH reading is made, then the term
sspH is used. Since the autoprotolysis constant of methanol is 10-16.77
,
(9) Tsang, J. S.; Neverov, A. A.; Brown, R. S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125,
1559.
neutral sspH is 8.4.
(6) Feng, G.; Mareque-Rivas, J. C.; Williams, N. H. Chem. Commun. 2006,
1845.
(10) Brown, D. M.; Usher, D. A. J. Chem. Soc. 1965, 6558.
(11) Williams, A.; Naylor, R. A. J. Chem. Soc. (B) 1971, 10, 1973.
(12) Kim, J.; Lim, H. Bull. Korean Chem. Soc. 1999, 20, 491.
(13) (a) Gibson, G.; Neverov, A. A.; Brown, R. S. Can. J. Chem. 2003, 81,
495. (b) Gibson, G. T. T.; Mohamed, M. F.; Neverov, A. A.; Brown, R. S.
Inorg. Chem. 2006, 45, 7891.
(7) Feng, G.; Natale, D.; Prabaharan, R.; Mareque-Rivas, J. C.; Williams, N.
H. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 7056.
(8) Iranzo, O.; Kovalevsky, A. Y.; Morrow, J. R.; Richard, J. P. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2003, 125, 1988.
9
J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 129, NO. 51, 2007 16239