4.6 Article

Proton Affinity and Zwitterion Stability: New Results from Infrared Spectroscopy and Theory of Cationized Lysine and Analogues in the Gas Phase

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
卷 113, 期 2, 页码 431-438

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp807470p

关键词

-

资金

  1. Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappeklijk Onderzoek
  2. National Science Foundation [CHE-0718790, CHE-9909502]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The gas-phase structures of alkali metal cationized lysine (Lys), (alpha-N-methyllysine (NMeLys), and epsilon-N,N-dimethyllysine (Lys(Me)(2)) are investigated using infrared multiple photon dissociation (IRMPD) spectroscopy utilizing light generated by a free electron laser and ab initio calculations. The proton affinities of the compounds span a range of similar to 20 kJ/mol. For NMeLys circle M+, experiment and theory indicate that NMeLys is nonzwitterionic for M = Li and zwitterionic for M = Na and K. For Lys(Me)2 circle M+, experiment and theory indicate that Lys(Me)(2) is zwitterionic for M = Li, Na, and K. This is the first spectroscopic observation of the zwitterionic form of an amino acid complexed with Li+. The results are compared with IRMPD spectra reported previously for Lys and epsilon-N-methyllysine (Lys(Me)) complexed with Li, Na, and K, and new calculations performed at higher levels of theory for those ions. The combined experimental and theoretical results indicate that protonation in the zwitterionic forms of the these amino acids is favored at the more basic methylated amine site, but that any relationship between the proton affinity of the amino acid and the relative zwitterion stability of the alkali metal cationized amino acid is only indirect. These results provide additional evidence that proton affinities are not a reliable indicator of zwitterion stability for cationized amino acids because side chains can have very different effects on the stability of different conformers in the neutral, protonated, and metal cationized forms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据