Asymmetry and non-adiabaticity in fragmentation of disulfide bonds upon electron capture

ChemPhysChem

Volumn 11, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 2530-2538

  Gámez, José A ^a   Serrano Andrés, Luis ^b   Yáñez, Manuel ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Ab initio calculations; Bond theory; Disulfide bonds; Non adiabaticity; Substituent effects

Indexed keywords

CALCULATIONS; CHEMICAL ACTIVATION; COVALENT BONDS; DISSOCIATION; ELECTRONEGATIVITY; MOLECULAR ORBITALS; NEGATIVE IONS; SULFUR COMPOUNDS;

AB INITIO CALCULATIONS; BOND THEORY; DISULFIDE BONDS; NON-ADIABATICITY; SUBSTITUENT EFFECT;

ELECTRONS;

EID: 77955880505     PISSN: 14394235     EISSN: 14397641     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cphc.201000320     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. F. R. Ornellas, Chem. Phys. 2008, 344, 95-100.
2. V. Aquilanti, M. Ragni, A. C. P. Bitencourt, G. S. Maciel, F. V. Prudente, J. Phys. Chem. A 2009, 113, 3804-3813.
3. A. G. S. de Oliveira-Filho, Y. A. Aoto, F. R. Ornellas, J. Phys. Chem. A 2009, 113, 1397-1402.
4. J. J. Grabowski, L. Zhang, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1989, 111, 1193-1203.
5. G. W. Kurney, K. Trurnbull, Chem. Rev. 1982, 82, 333-357.
6. M. Meyer, J. Mol. Struct. 1992, 273, 99-121.
7. S. M. Bachrach, L. W. Demion, M. Luk, J. V. Miller, J. Phys. Chem. A 2004, 108, 4040-4046.
8. T. E. Creighton, Proteins: Structures and Molecular Properties, W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 2004.
9. W. J. Wedemeyer, E. Welker, M. Narayan, H. A. Scheraga, Biochemistry 2000, 39, 4207-4216.
10. J. J. Gorman, T. P. Wallis, J. J. Pitt, Mass Spectrom. Rev. 2002, 21, 183-216.
11. R. Bakhtiar, Z. Guan, Biotechnol. Lett. 2006, 28, 1047-1059.
12. R. A. Zubarev, N. A. Kruger, E. K. Fridiksson, M. A. Lewis, D. M. Horn, B. K. Carpenter, F. W. McLafferty, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 2857-2862.
13. P. A. Chrisman, S. A. McLuckey, J. Proteome Res. 2002, 1, 549-557.
14. A. Modelli, D. Jones, J. Phys. Chem. A 2006, 110, 10219-10224.
15. M. Yamaji, S. Tojo, K. Takehira, S. Tobita, M. Fujitsuka, T. Majima, J. Phys. Chem. A 2006, 110, 13487-13491.
16. E. Uggerud, Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 2004, 234, 45-50.
17. S. Antonello, K. Daasbjerg, H. Jensen, F. Taddei, F. Maran, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 14905-14916.
18. R. Benassi, F. Taddei, J. Phys. Chem. A 1998, 102, 6173-6180.
19. I. Anusiewicz, J. Berdys-Kochanska, J. Simons, J. Phys. Chem. A 2005, 109, 5801-5813.
20. M. Sobczyk, J. Simons, Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 2006, 253, 274-280.
21. S. Antonello, R. Benassi, G. Gavioli, F. Taddei, F. Maran, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 7529-7238.
22. J. A. Gámez, L. Serrano-Andrés, M. Yáñez, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2010, 12, 1042-1050.
23. J. Gräfenstein, E. Kraka, D. Cremer, J. Chem. Phys. 2004, 120, 528-538.
24. V. Polo, J. Gräfenstein, E. Kraka, D. Cremer, Chem. Phys. Lett. 2002, 352, 469-478.
25. J. Gräfenstein, E. Kraka, D. Cremer, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2004, 6, 1096-1112.
26. A. Cohen, P. Mori-Sánchez, W. Yang, Science 2008, 321, 792-794.
27. L. A. Curtiss, P. C. Redfren, K. Raghavachari, J. A. Pople, J. Chem. Phys. 1998, 109, 42-56.
28. B. Braïda, P. C. Hiberty, A. Savin, J. Phys. Chem. A 1998, 102, 7872-7877.
29. J. C. Rienstra-Kiracofe, G. S. Tschumper, H. F. Schaefer III, S. Nandi, G. B. Ellison, Chem. Rev. 2002, 102, 231-282.
30. J. M. van Doren, T. M. Miller, V. V. Viggiano, J. Chem. Phys. 2008, 128, 094310-094317.
31. M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, G. E. Scuseria, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, J. A. M., Jr, T. Vreven, K. N. Kudin, J. C. Burant, J. M. Millam, S. S. Iyengar, J. Tomasi, V. Barone, B. Mennucci, M. Cossi, G. Scalmani, N. Rega, G. A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, M. Hada, M. Ehara, K. Toyota, R. Fukuda, J. Hasegawa, M. Ishida, T. Nakajima, Y. Honda, O. Kitao, H. Nakai, M. Klene, X. Li, J. E. Knox, H. P. Hratchian, J. B. Cross, V. Bakken, C. Adamo, J. Jaramillo, R. Gomperts, R. E. Stratmann, O. Yazyev, A. J. Austin, R. Cammi, C. Pomelli, J. W. Ochterski, P. Y. Ayala, K. Morokuma, G. A. Voth, P. Salvador, J. J. Dannenberg, V. G. Zakrzewski, S. Dapprich, A. D. Daniels, M. C. Strain, O. Farkas, D. K. Malick, A. D. Rabuck, K. Raghavachari, J. B. Foresman, J. V. Ortiz, Q. Cui, A. G. Baboul, S. Clifford, J. Cioslowski, B. B. Stefanov, G. Liu, A. Liashenko, P. Piskorz, I. Komaromi, R. L. Martin, D. J. Fox, T. Keith, M. A. Al-Laham, C. Y. Peng, A. Nanayakkara, M. Challacombe, P. M. W. Gill, B. Johnson, W. Chen, M. W. Wong, C. Gonzalez, J. A. Pople in Gaussian 03 Revision E.01, Gaussian, Inc. Wallingford CT, 2004.
32. B. O. Roos, M. P. Fülscher, P.-A. Malmqvist, L. Serrano-Andrés, K. Pierloot, M. Merchán, Adv. Chem. Phys. 1996, 93, 219-331.
33. P.-O. Widmark, P.-A. Malmqvist, B. O. Roos, Theor. Chim. Acta 1990, 77, 291-306.
34. P. Finley, P.-A. Malmqvist, B. O. Roos, L. Serrano-Andrés, Chem. Phys. Lett. 1998, 288, 299-306.
35. L. Serrano-Andrés, M. Merchán, J. Mol. Struct. 2005, 729, 99-108.
36. V. Veryazov, P.-O. Widmark, L. Serrano-Andrés, R. Lindh, B. O. Roos, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2004, 100, 626-635.
37. R. Benassi, G. L. Fiandri, F. Taddei, Tetrahedron 1994, 50, 12469-12476.
38. M. Z. Hoffman, E. Hayon, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1972, 94, 7950-7957.
39. W. Karmann, A. Granzow, G. Missner, A. Henglien, Int. J. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 1969, 1, 395-405.
40. W. Karmann, G. Meissner, A. Henglein, Z. Naturforsch B 1967, 22, 273-278.
41. M. J. Lin, J. H. Lunsford, J. Phys. Chem. 1976, 80, 2015-2018.
42. S. P. Mezyk, Chem. Phys. Lett. 1995, 235, 89-93.
43. G. Mills, K. H. Schmidt, M. S. Matheson, D. Meisel, J. Phys. Chem. 1987, 91, 1590-1596.
44. J. W. Purdie, H. A. Gillis, N. V. Klassen, Can. J. Chem. 1973, 51, 3132-3142.
45. J. Zhu, K. Petit, A. O. Colson, S. DeBolt, M. D. Sevilla, J. Phys. Chem. 1991, 95, 3676-3681.
46. The agreement of both methods, MP2 and QCISD, at describing the potential energy surface (PES) is fairly reasonable. In general, MP2 energies are overestimated with regards to QCISD values. For both PESs the average deviation between the energies predicted by the two methods is 14 kJmolé1. Just for two structures the relative energy predicted by both methods are excessively far from this average value, differing nearly 30 kJmolé1. Therefore, MP2 is able to predict reasonable values compared to a highly-correlated, more computationally expensive method as QCISD but, in general, with values a bit higher.
47. E. Kraka, Y. He, D. Cremer, J. Phys. Chem. A 2001, 105, 3269-3276.
48. E. Kraka, D. Cremer, J. Koller, B. Plesničar, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 8462-8470.
49. The value of the T1 diagnosis for structure 1 is alarmingly high (0.041), although a CASSCF/CASPT2 re-optimization does not change the QCISD picture.