COMMUNICATIONS
[1] a) J. J. Turner, Endeavour 1968, 27, 42 47; b) D. Kˆnigstein, M.
Jansen, Monatsh. Chem. 1996, 127, 1221 1227; c) T. Bremm, M.
Jansen, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 1992, 610, 64 66.
[13] Molecular calculations (MINDO), in which C2 symmetry was assumed
for the peroxodicarbonate group, failed to correctly postulate the
bond lengths and the dihedral angle.[14]
[2] a) D. Y. Naumov, A. V. Virovets, N. V. Podberezskaya, P. B. Novikov,
A. A. Politov, J. Struct. Chem. 1997, 38, 772 778; b) W. P. Griffith,
R. D. Powell, A. C. Skapski, Polyhedron 1988, 7, 1305 1310.
[3] a) E. J. Constam, A. von Hansen, Z. Elektrochem. 1896, 7, 137 144;
b) A. von Hansen, Z. Elektrochem. 1896, 7, 445 448; c) A. K.
Melnikov, T. P. Firsova, A. N. Molodkina, Russ. J. Inorg. Chem.
[14] C. Glidewell, J. Mol. Struct. 1980, 67, 35 44.
[15] a) J.-M. Savariault, M. S. Lehmann, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1980, 102,
1298 1303; b) Y. Idemoto, J. W. jr. Richardson, N. Koura, S. Kohara,
C.-K. Loong, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 1998, 59, 363 376; A. Y. Kosnikov,
V. L. Antonovsky, S. V. Lindeman, Y. T. Struchkov, I. P. Zyatkov,
Kristallografiya 1988, 33, 875 877.
¡
1962, 7, 637 640; d) P. A. Gigue re, D. Lemaire, Can. J. Chem. 1972,
[16] G. Jander, K. F. Jahr, Ma˚analyse, 15th ed., de Gruyter, Berlin, 1989,
pp. 197 198.
50, 1472 1477; e) D. P. Jones, W. P. Griffith, J. Chem. Soc. Dalton
Trans. 1980, 2526 2532.
[4] Early X-ray powder diffraction erperiments have been reported,
which failed to find the correct unit cell and X-ray density.[5]
[5] V. I. Sokol, V. M. Bakulina, E. Y. Filatov, T. P. Firsova, Russ. J. Inorg.
Chem. 1968, 13, 1211 1212.
[6] a) E. H. Riesenfeld, B. Reinhold, Ber. Dtsch. Chem. Ges. 1909, 42,
4377 4383; b) J. M. Adams, R. G. Pritchard, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B
1977, 33, 3650 3653.
[7] a) A. Adam, M. Mehta, Angew. Chem. 1998, 110, 1457 1459; Angew.
Chem. Int. Ed. 1998, 37, 1387 1388; b) A. Adam, M. Mehta, Z.
Kristallogr. 1998, Supplement Issue 15, 46.
[8] Interpretation of the IR data was based on the wrong molecular
symmetry; however, the postulation of a peroxodicarbonate anion was
correct.[3e]
Self-Assembled Receptors for Enantioselective
Recognition of Chiral Carboxylic Acids in a
Highly Cooperative Manner
Tsutomu Ishi-i, Mercedes Crego-Calama,
Peter Timmerman,* David N. Reinhoudt,* and
Seiji Shinkai
[9] a) Crystal structure data of K2C2O6: monoclinic, space group P21/c
(no. 14), a 838.05(1), b 1076.41(2), c 711.67(1) pm, b
111.24(0)8 V 598.4(2) Â 106 pm3, 1calcd 2.200 gcmÀ3
,
1measured
2.14(1) gcmÀ3 (He pycnometer, Micrometritics AccuPyc 1330 GB),
Z 4, m 55.04 cmÀ1. b) Devices for X-ray diffraction experiments:
Suny X3B1 beamline at National Synchroton Light Source, Brook-
haven National Laboratory, USA, double Si(111) monochromator,
and Ge(111) crystal analyzer, l 115.011(2) pm, Na(Tl)I scintillation
counter with pulse height discriminator, T À738C, 5.08 < 2V<
43.6798 in steps of 0.00382V, glass capillary of 0.7mm diameter; due
to decomposition even at low temperature, a second measurement for
structure refinement was performed at beamline B2 at the Hamburger
Synchrotronstrahlungslabor (HASYLAB) immediately after synthe-
sis of the material: Three-circle Huber goniometer, Ge(111) double
crystal monochromator, and Ge(111) crystal analyzer, l
112.074(2) pm, Na(Tl)I scintillation counter, T À1238C, 9.08 <
2V< 50.58 in steps of 0.00382V, glass capillary of 0.7mm diameter.
c) Structure determination process: Data reduction and background
modeling by using the GUFI program,[10] crystal structure solution by
global optimization with 15 parameters by using the DASH program
package,[11] two phases of Rietveld refinements by employing a model
for anisotropic micro-strain with potassium hydrogencarbonate as
second phase by using the GSAS program package,[12] Rp 0.193,
Rwp 0.246, RF 0.080, c2 0.84, number of reflections 281, number
of variables 35, number of refined atoms 10. The relatively high
weighted-profile R factor is due to the statistics of the observed step
scan intensities caused by limited time for measurement. d) Further
details on the crystal structure investigation may be obtained from the
Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe, 76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshaf-
en, Germany (fax: (49)7247-808-666; e-mail: crysdata@fiz-karls-
ruhe.de), on quoting the depository number CSD-412335.
One of the ultimate aims in molecular recognition is to
understand fully and mimic the exquisite selectivities so
eminently observed in natural receptors, such as antibodies
and enzymes. A first approach is to build synthetic receptors
by using rigid covalent scaffolds, to which are attached
functional groups that can bind their guest molecules by
multiple noncovalent interactions, such as hydrogen bonding,
p
p stacking, or metal coordination.[1] However, covalent
systems are often too rigid and unable to adapt their shape to
that of the guest, which can result in less than optimal binding
affinities and selectivities. Another important drawback of
covalent receptor molecules is their labor-intensive synthesis,
which leaves little potential for structural variations in the
scaffold.[2]
A different approach to shaping the binding site of an
artificial receptor is to bring together the different compo-
nents by multiple noncovalent interactions.[3, 4] This approach,
which more closely resembles Nature×s strategy, is currently
being investigated as a potential alternative to covalent
receptor molecules. A number of systems based on coordina-
tive metal ligand interactions[5] or hydrogen-bonding inter-
actions[6] have been investigated, and some show significant
structural selectivities.[7] However, in the majority of cases,
substrate selectivity is the result of shape complementarity
[10] R. Dinnebier, GUFI a program for measurement and evaluation of
powder patterns, Version 5.0, Heidelberger Geowiss. Abh. 68, Hei-
delberg, 1997.
[11] a) W. I. F. David, K. Shankland, N. Shankland, Chem. Commun.
1998, 931 932; b) J. W. Visser, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 1969, 2,
89 95; c) A. Le Bail, H. Duroy, J. L. Fourquet, Mater. Res. Bull.
1988, 23, 447 452; d) J. Rodriguez-Carvajal, Abstracts of the Satellite
Meeting on Powder Diffraction of the XV Congress of the IUCR, 1990,
p. 127.
[12] a) A. C. Larson, R. B. von Dreele, GSAS 1990, Version Sept. 1997, Los
Alamos National Laboratory Report LAUR 86 748; b) H. M.
Rietveld, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 1969, 2, 65 71; c) P. Thompson,
D. E. Cox, J. B. Hastings, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 1987, 20, 79 83;
d) L. W. Finger, D. E. Cox, A. P. Jephcoat, J. Appl. Crystallogr.
1994, 27, 892 900; e) P. W. Stephens, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 1999,
281 289.
[*] Dr. P. Timmerman, Prof. Dr. Ir. D. N. Reinhoudt, Dr. T. Ishi-i,
Dr. M. Crego-Calama
Laboratory of Supramolecular Chemistry and Technology
MESA Research Institute, University of Twente
PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede (The Netherlands)
Fax : (31)53-4894645
Prof. Dr. S. Shinkai
Chemotransfiguration Project
Japan Science and Technology Corporation (Japan)
Supporting information for this article is available on the WWW under
1924
¹ WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH, 69451 Weinheim, Germany, 2002
1433-7851/02/4111-1924 $ 20.00+.50/0
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2002, 41, No. 11