4.8 Article

Competition of Charge- versus Radical-Directed Fragmentation of Gas-Phase Protonated Cysteine Sulfinyl Radicals

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 135, 期 16, 页码 6226-6233

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja4008744

关键词

-

资金

  1. Purdue Research Fund
  2. NSF [CHE-1248613]
  3. Midwest Crossroads Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) Program of Purdue University
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Chemistry [1248613] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fragmentation behavior of various cysteine sulfinyl ions (intact, N-acetylated, and O-methylated), new members of the gas-phase amino acid radical ion family, was investigated by low-energy collision-induced dissociation (CID). The dominant fragmentation channel for the protonated cysteine sulfinyl radicals ((SO center dot)Cys) was the radical-directed C-alpha-C-beta homolytic cleavage, resulting in the formation of glycyl radical ions and loss of CH2SO. This channel, however, was not observed for protonated N-acetylated cysteine sulfinyl radicals (Ac-(SO center dot)Cys); instead, charge-directed H2O loss followed immediately by SH loss prevailed. Counterintuitively, the H2O loss did not derive from the carboxyl group but involved the sulfinyl oxygen, a proton, and a C-beta hydrogen atom. Theoretical calculations suggested that N-acetylation significantly increases the barrier (similar to 14 kcal mal(-1)) for the radical-directed fragmentation channel because of its reduced capability to stabilize the thus-formed glycyl radical ions via the captodative effect. N-Acetylation also assists in moving the proton to the sulfinyl site, which reduces the barrier for H2O loss. Our studies demonstrate that for cysteine sulfinyl radical ions, the stability of the product ions (glycyl radical ions) and the location of the charge (proton) can significantly modulate the competition between radical- and charge-directed fragmentation.

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