4.5 Article

Guanine Tautomerism in Ionic Complexes with Ag+ Investigated by IRMPD Spectroscopy and Mass Spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 125, 期 26, 页码 7137-7146

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.1c03796

关键词

-

资金

  1. CONICET [PUE: 22920160100013CO]
  2. FONCyT [0276]
  3. SeCyT-UNC, MinCyTCordoba [PID-2018]
  4. EU [730872, 731077]
  5. Labex PALM [ANR-10-LABX-0039-PALM]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents IRMPD spectra of ionic complexes between guanine and silver, showing the presence of two isomers containing different keto-amino tautomers. Experimental results in aqueous solution are in agreement with calculated results, indicating coexistence of specific tautomers. Other tautomers' presence depends on the theoretical method for solvent effects.
In this paper, we present the IRMPD spectra of three ionic complexes between guanine (G) and silver (Ag+): [GAg-H2O](+), [GAgG](+) produced in the electrospray ionization source of the mass spectrometer, and [GAg]+ produced by collision induced dissociation of the [GAgG](+) complex. On the basis of the comparison of theoretically calculated IR spectra, we show that there are two isomers of each complex containing two different keto-amino (KA) tautomers of G (GKA(1,9) and GKA(1,7)). The observed isomers are the most stable structures in aqueous solution, and their experimentally estimated relative populations are in better agreement with the calculated relative populations in solution than in the gas phase, both at 298 K. We concluded that these observations suggest that GKA(1,9) and GKA(1,7) coexist in solution according to previous theoretical reports (Colominas, C.; et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 6811). We were unable to find any evidence of the presence of the GEA(9), GKA(3,7), GKA(3,9), or GKA(7,9), whose relative stabilities in solution are strongly dependent on the theoretical method used to account for the solvent effect (Hanus, M.; et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 7678).

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

4.5
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