4.6 Article

Do Sulfonamides Interact with Aromatic Rings?

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 27, 期 18, 页码 5721-5729

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.202004732

关键词

aromatic compounds; molecular recognition; noncovalent interactions; polar– pi interactions; sulfonamides

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council [CSC201808440511]
  2. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)
  3. Spanish MINECO [PID2019-106830GB-I00, MDM-2017-0767]
  4. Generalitat de Catalunya [2017SGR348]
  5. Carlsberg Foundation [CF15-0675]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the interactions between sulfonamides and aromatic rings by analyzing 2,6-diarylbenzenesulfonamides, and shows that fine-tuning the aromatic character with substituents can linearly affect the acidity and proton affinity of sulfonamides. The study demonstrates that aromatic rings have the capacity to stabilize sulfonamides through through-space NH-pi interactions, which has implications for rational drug design targeting electron-rich aromatic rings in proteins.
Aromatic rings form energetically favorable interactions with many polar groups in chemical and biological systems. Recent molecular studies have shown that sulfonamides can chelate metal ions and form hydrogen bonds, however, it is presently not established whether the polar sulfonamide functionality also interacts with aromatic rings. Here, synthetic, spectroscopic, structural, and quantum chemical analyses on 2,6-diarylbenzenesulfonamides are reported, in which two flanking aromatic rings are positioned close to the central sulfonamide moiety. Fine-tuning the aromatic character by substituents on the flanking rings leads to linear trends in acidity and proton affinity of sulfonamides. This physical-organic chemistry study demonstrates that aromatic rings have a capacity to stabilize sulfonamides via through-space NH-pi interactions. These results have implications in rational drug design targeting electron-rich aromatic rings in proteins.

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