4.8 Article

Two Synthetic Replicators Compete To Process a Dynamic Reagent Pool

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 141, 期 7, 页码 3059-3072

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.8b12077

关键词

-

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K503162/1]
  2. University of St Andrews

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Complementary building blocks, comprising a set of four aromatic aldehydes and a set of four nucleophiles-three anilines and one hydroxylamine-combine through condensation reactions to afford a dynamic covalent library (DCL) consisting of the eight starting materials and 16 condensation products. One of the aldehydes and, consequently, all of the DCL members derived from this compound bear an amidopyridine recognition site. Exposure of this DCL to two maleimides, M-P and M-m, each equipped with a carboxylic acid recognition site, results in the formation of a series of products through irreversible 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition reactions with the four nitrones present in the DCL. However, only the two cyclo-adducts in the product pool that incorporate both recognition sites, T-P and T-m, are self-replicators that can harness the DCL as feedstock for their own formation, facilitating their own synthesis via autocatalytic and cross-catalytic pathways. The ability of these replicators to direct their own formation from the components present in the dynamic reagent pool in response to the input of instructions in the form of preformed replicators is demonstrated through a series of quantitative F-19{H-1} NMR spectroscopy experiments. Simulations establish the critical relationships between the kinetic and thermodynamic parameters of the replicators, the initial reagent concentrations, and the presence or absence of the DCL and their influence on the competition between T-P and T-m. Thus, we establish the rules that govern the behavior of the competing replicators under conditions where their formation is coupled tightly to the processing of a DCL.

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