4.6 Article

Structure and Reactivity of the Cysteine Methyl Ester Radical Cation

Journal

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 873-879

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.201002042

Keywords

cysteine; density functional calculations; gas-phase chemistry; IR spectroscopy; radical ions

Funding

  1. Northern Illinois University
  2. NSF-PIRE
  3. ARC Centre of Excellence in Free Radical Chemistry and Biotechnology
  4. Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO)
  5. National High Field FT-ICR Facility, Tallahassee, FL [CHE-9909502]
  6. National Science Foundation [CAREER-0239800, EIA-0216178, EPS-0236913]
  7. High-performance Computing Center (HIPECC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The structure and reactivity of the cysteine methyl ester radical cation, CysOMe(center dot+), have been examined in the gas phase using a combination of experiment and density functional theory (DFT) calculations. CysOMe(center dot+) undergoes rapid ion molecule reactions with dimethyl disulfide, ally! bromide, and allyl iodide, but is unreactive towards allyl chloride. These reactions proceed by radical atom or group transfer and are consistent with CysOMe(center dot+) possessing structure 1, in which the radical site is located on the sulfur atom and the amino group is protonated. This contrasts with DFT calculations that predict a captodative structure 2, in which the radical site is positioned on the a carbon and the carbonyl group is protonated, and that is more stable than 1 by 13.0 kJ mol(-1). To resolve this apparent discrepancy the gas-phase IR spectrum of CysOMe(center dot+) was experimentally determined and compared with the theoretically predicted IR spectra of a range of isomers. An excellent match was obtained for 1. DFT calculations highlight that although 1 is thermodynamically less stable than 2, it is kinetically stable with respect to rearrangement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available