4.6 Article

Fusiform-like metal-organic framework for enantioselective discrimination of tryptophan enantiomers

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 419, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2022.140409

关键词

Metal organic framework; Electrochemistry; Ligand exchange; Chiral recognition; Tryptophan

资金

  1. National Nature Science Founda-tions of China [21867015, 22065021]
  2. Key Research Program of Gansu Province [21YF5GA076]
  3. Province Nature Science Foundations of Gansu [20JR5RA453, 21JR7RA213]
  4. Hongliu Outstanding Youth Teacher Cultivate Project of Lanzhou Uni-versity of Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel metal organic framework structure (Phe-Cu-PTA) was developed for chiral recognition, which can effectively distinguish L-tryptophan and D-tryptophan enantiomers.
Construction of chiral electrochemical sensors for stereoselective recognition is of great significance in medicine and pharmacy. Compared with traditional chiral recognition materials, metal organic frameworks (MOFs) are undoubtedly a new type of materials for chiral recognition. Here, we report a novel MOFs structure (Phe-Cu-PTA) that formed by the metal ion Cu2+ and organic ligands [1.10-Pheanthroline (Phe), Terephthalic acid (PTA)], which was used to distinguish L-tryptophan and D-tryptophan (L/D-Trp) enantiomers. Differential pulse voltammetry (DPV) test results showed the ability of the Phe-Cu-PTA to recognize the Trp-enantiomers. Owing to the different steric configuration of the L/D-Trp-enantiomers, host (MOFs)-guest (Trp-isomers) interactions are different for L/D-Trp, the peak current values of L-Trp-and D-Trp-are obviously different, thereby effectively distinguishing the Trp-isomers. The results demonstrated that the developed MOFs (Phe-Cu-PTA) showed significantly higher binding force toward D-Trp-than L-Trp. Therefore, the proposed electrochemical chiral interface can be considered as a potential platform for enantiomeric recognition of chiral compounds.

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