4.8 Article

Sterically controlled recognition of macromolecular sequence information by molecular tweezers

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 129, 期 51, 页码 16163-16174

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja0759996

关键词

-

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/C533526/1, EP/E00413X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. EPSRC [EP/E00413X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sequence-specific binding is demonstrated between pyrene-based tweezer molecules and soluble, high molar mass copolyimides. The binding involves complementary pi - pi stacking interactions, polymer chain-folding, and hydrogen bonding and is extremely sensitive to the steric environment around the pyromellitimide binding-site. A detailed picture of the intermolecular interactions involved has been obtained through single-crystal X-ray studies of tweezer complexes with model diimides. Ring-current magnetic shielding of polyimide protons by the pyrene '' arms '' of the tweezer molecule induces large complexation shifts of the corresponding H-1 NMR resonances, enabling specific triplet sequences to be identified by their complexation shifts. Extended comonomer sequences (triplets of triplets in which the monomer residues differ only by the presence or absence of a methyl group) can be '' read '' by a mechanism which involves multiple binding of tweezer molecules to adjacent diimide residues within the copolymer chain. The adjacent-binding model for sequence recognition has been validated by two conceptually different sets of tweezer binding experiments. One approach compares sequence-recognition events for copolyimides having either restricted or unrestricted triple-triplet sequences, and the other makes use of copolymers containing both strongly binding and completely nonbinding diimide residues. In all cases the nature and relative proportions of triple-triplet sequences predicted by the adjacent-binding model are fully consistent with the observed H-1 NMR data.

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