Divalent binding of a bis(adamantyl)-functionalized calix[4]arene to β-cyclodextrin-based hosts: An experimental and theoretical study on multivalent binding in solution and at self-assembled monolayers

Journal of the American Chemical Society

Volumn 126, Issue 21, 2004, Pages 6627-6636

  Mulder, Alart ^a   Auletta, Tommaso ^a   Sartori, Andrea ^a,b   Del Ciotto, Susanna ^b   Casnati, Alessandro ^b   Ungaro, Rocco ^b   Huskens, Jurriaan ^a   Reinhoudt, David N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PARMA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL BONDS; GOLD; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; SELF ASSEMBLY;

BINDING CONSTANT; DIVALENT BINDING;

DIMERS;

ADAMANTANE DERIVATIVE; BETA CYCLODEXTRIN; CALIXARENE; EDETIC ACID;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL BINDING; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; EXPERIMENTAL MODEL; HYDROPHOBICITY; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; MOLECULAR MODEL;

EID: 2542511511     PISSN: 00027863     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ja0317168     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Arias, F.; Godinez, L. A.; Wilson, S. R.; Kaifer, A. E.; Echegoyen, L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 6086-6087.
2. Miura, Y.; Kimura, S. Langmuir 1998, 14, 2761-2767.
3. Mammen, M.; Choi, S.-K.; Whitesides, G. M. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1998, 37, 2754-2794.
4. (a) Dietrich, C.; Schmitt, L.; Tampé, R. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1995, 92, 9014-9018.
5. (b) Thess, A.; Hutschenreiter, S.; Hofmann, M.; Tampé, R.; Baumeister, W.; Guckenberger, R. J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 36 231-36 328.
6. Fragoso, A.; Caballero, J.; Almirall, E.; Villalonga, R.; Cao, R. Langmuir 2002, 18, 5051-5054.
7. Banerjee, I. A.; Yu, L.; Matsui, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 9542-9543.
8. Huskens, J.; Deij, M. A.; Reinhoudt, D. N. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 4467-4471.
9. Auletta, T.; Dordi, B.; Mulder, A.; Sartori, A.; Onclin, S.; Bruinink C. M.; Péter, M.; Nijhuis, C. A.; Beijleveld, H.; Schönherr, H.; Vancso, G. J.; Casnati, A.; Ungaro, R.; Ravoo, B. J.; Huskens, J.; Reinhoudt, D. N. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2004, 43, 369-373.
10. -1 (Portmann, A. J.; Levison, S. A.; Dandliker, W. B. Immunochemistry 1975, 12, 461-466).
11. -1 (Portmann, A. J.; Levison, S. A.; Dandliker, W. B. Immunochemistry 1975, 12, 461-466).
12. For an extensive review on binding affinities and the comparison of cyclodextrin-guest interactions with biomolecular interactions see: Houk, K. N. ; Leach, A. G.; Kim, S. P.; Zhang, X. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 4872-4897.
13. For a general review on cyclodextrins see Chem. Rev. 1998, 98, volume 5.
14. For a list with typical guest molecules see Rekharsky, M. V.; Inoue, Y. Chem. Rev. 1998, 98, 1880-1901.
15. Gargano, J. M.; Ngo, T.; Kim, Y.; Acheson, D. W. K.; Lees, W. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 12 909-12 910.
16. Michels, J. J.; Huskens, J.; Reinhoudt, D. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 2056-2064.
17. Beulen, M. W. J.; Bügler, J.; de Jong, M. R.; Lammerink, B.; Huskens, J.; Schönherr, H.; Vancso, G. J.; Boukamp, B. A.; Wieder, H.; Offenhäuser, A.; Knoll, W.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M.; Reinhoudt, D. N. Chem. Eur. J. 2000, 6, 1176-1183.
18. Verboom, W.; Datta, S.; Asfari, Z.; Harkema, S.; Reinhoudt, D. N. J. Org. Chem. 1992, 57, 5394-5398.
19. Lenferink, A. T. M.; Kooyman, R. P. H.; Greve, J. Sens. Act. B 1991, 3, 261-265.
20. Beulen, M. W. J.; Bügler, J.; Lammerink, B.; Geurts, F. A. J.; Biemond, E. M. E. F.; van Leerdam, K. G. C.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M.; Engbersen, J. F. J.; Reinhoudt, D. N. Langmuir 1998, 14, 6424-6429.
21. Schönherr, H.; Beulen, M. W. J.; Bügler, J.; Huskens, J.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M.; Reinhoudt, D. N.; Vancso, G. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 4963-4967.
22. de Jong, M. R.; Huskens, J.; Reinhoudt, D. N. Chem. Eur. J. 2001, 7, 4164-4170.
23. Zapotoczny, S.; Auletta, T.; De Jong, M. R.; Schönherr, H.; Huskens, J.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M.; Reinhoudt, D. N.; Vancso, G. J. Langmuir 2002, 18, 6988-6994.
24. Van Bommel, K. J. C.; Metselaar, G. A.; Verboom, W.; Reinhoudt, D. N. J. Org. Chem. 2001, 66, 5405-5412.
25. Arduini, A.; Fanni, S.; Manfredi, G.; Ungaro, S.; Sicuri, A. R.; Ugozzoli, F. J. Org. Chem. 1995, 60, 1448.
26. Iwanowicz, E. J.; Poss, M. A.; Lin, J. Synth. Commun. 1993, 23, 1443.
27. Kim, K. S.; Qian, L. Tetrahedron Lett. 1993, 34, 7677.
28. °
29. Rao, J.; Lahiri, J.; Weis, R. M.; Whitesides, G. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 2698-2710.
30. Kramer, R. H.; Karpen, J. W. Nature, 1998, 395, 710-713.
31. Kitov, P. I.; Shimizu, H.; Homans, S. W.; Bundle, D. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 3284-3294.
32. Winnik, M. A. Chem. Rev. 1981, 81, 491-524.
33. For the concept of EM applied to reaction kinetics see for example: (a) Kirby, J. A. Adv. Phys. Org. Chem. 1980, 17, 183-278.
34. (b) Galli, C.; Mandolini, L. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2000, 3117-3125. For the concept of EM applied to self-assembly in solution see for example: (c) Ercolani, G. J. Phys. Chem. B. 2003, 107, 5052-5057.
35. (b) Galli, C.; Mandolini, L. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2000, 3117-3125. For the concept of EM applied to self-assembly in solution see for example: (c) Ercolani, G. J. Phys. Chem. B. 2003, 107, 5052-5057.
36. Mandolini, L. Adv. Phys. Org. Chem. 1986, 22, 1-111.
37. eff is also used in this manuscript for those cases where the effective concentration is calculated from the observed and intrinsic binding constants.
38. Kuhn, W. Kolloid Z. 1934, 68, 2-15.
39. Jacobson H.; Stockmayer, W. H. J. Phys. Chem. 1950, 18, 1600-1606.
40. eff is expected to be 9 mM (when corrected for the statistical factor 2 higher probability of ring-opening in our divalent complex).
41. This concept has also been applied successfully to the pentavalent binding to toxins. (a) Fan, E.; Zhang, Z.; Minke, W. E.; Hou, Z.; Verlinde, C. L. M. J.; Hol, W. G. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 2663-2664.
42. (b) Merrit, E. A.; Zhang, Z.; Pickens, J. C.; Ahn, M.; Hol, W. G. J.; Fan, E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 8818-8824.
43. i,s values.
44. Major, R. C.; Zhu, X. Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 123, 8454-8455.
45. (a) Rao, J.; Yan, L.; Xu, B.; Whitesides, G. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 2629-2630.
46. (b) Rao, J.; Yan, L.; Lahiri, J.; Whitesides, G. M.; Weis, R. M.; Warren, H. S. Chem. Biol. 1999, 6, 353-359.
47. The statistical factor for the first interaction at the surface is 2 as it accounts for the interaction of a divalent guest molecule with a single host site at the surface.
48. eff,max can be approximated from macrocyclization theory to be 13 × 0.0245 = 0.32 M, taking into account the accessibility of approximately 13 CD cavities with an effective concentration of 0.0245 M when assuming 30 rotatable bonds (see ref 30b).
49. LM stem purely from the treatment of the data with divalent and monovalent models, respectively. To affirm this, under the experimental conditions employed here, there is a clear mathematical relationship between the two parameters, as given in eq 11.
50. A general model for multivalent binding on surfaces will be presented: Huskens, J.; Mulder, A.; Auletta, T.; Nijhuis, C. A.; Ludden, M. J. W.; Reinhoudt, D. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 6784-6797.