4.8 Article

Single-conformation ultraviolet and infrared spectroscopy of model synthetic foldamers:: β-peptides Ac-β3-hPhe-NHMe and Ac-β3-hTyr-NHMe

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 130, 期 14, 页码 4784-4794

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja078271y

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The conformational preferences and infrared and ultraviolet spectral signatures of two model beta-peptides, Ac-beta(3)-hPhe-NHMe (1) and Ac-beta(3)-hTyr-NHMe (2), have been explored under jet-cooled, isolated molecule conditions. The mass-resolved, resonant two-photon ionization spectra of the two molecules were recorded in the region of the SO-S, origin of the phenyl or phenol ring substituents, respectively. UV-UV hole-burning spectroscopy was used to determine that two conformations of 1 are present, with the transitions due to conformer A, with S-0-S-1 origin at 34431 cm(-1), being almost 20 times larger than those due to conformer B, with S-0-S-1 origin at 34404 cm(-1). Only one conformation of 2 was observed. Resonant ion-dip infrared spectroscopy provided single-conformation infrared spectra in the 3300-3700 cm(-1) region. The spectra of conformer A of both molecules have H-bonded and free amide NH stretch infrared transitions at 3400 and 3488 cm(-1), respectively, while conformer B of 1 possesses bands at 3417 and 3454 cm(-1). For comparison with experiment, full optimizations of all low-lying minima of 1 were carried out at the DFT B3LYP/6-31 +G* and RIMP2/aug-cc-pVDZ levels of theory, and single point MP2/6-31+G* calculations at the DFT geometries. On the basis of the comparison with previous studies in solution and the calculated results, conformer A of 1 and 2 were assigned to a C6 conformer, while conformer B of 1 was assigned to a unique C8 structure with a weak intramolecular H-bond. The reasons for the preference for C6 over C8 structures and the presence of only two conformations in the jet-cooled spectrum are discussed in light of the predictions from calculations.

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

4.8
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