4.4 Article

Double versus single helical structures of oligopyridine-dicarboxamide strands. Part 1: Effect of oligomer length

期刊

TETRAHEDRON
卷 60, 期 44, 页码 10029-10038

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tet.2004.07.078

关键词

helical structures; molecular recognition; Pi interactions; self-assembly

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oligoamides of 2,6-diaminopyridine and 2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid were previously shown to fold into single helical monomers and to hybridize into double helical dimers. A new series of these oligomers comprising 5 to 15 pyridine units, 4-decyloxy residues, and benzylcarbamate end groups were synthesized using a new convergent scheme that involves an early disymmetrization of the diamine and of the diacid. The hybridization of these compounds into double helices was studied by H-1 NMR spectroscopy in chloroform solutions at various temperatures. Somewhat unexpectedly, these studies revealed that dimerization increases with oligomer length up to a certain point, and then decreases down to undetectable levels for the longest strands. NMR studies show that both double helices and single helices become more stable when strand length increases. The measured values of enthalpy and entropy of hybridization for oligomers of various length show that the enthalpic gain constantly decreases with strand length. This can be interpreted as being the result of an increasing enthalpic price of the spring-like extension that the strand undergoes upon hybridization as its length increases. On the other hand, the entropic loss of hybridization also constantly decreases with strand length. Presumably, the helical preorganization of the monomers increases with strand length, which allows the longer strands to hybridize with a minimal loss of motional freedom, that is to say at a low entropic price. The competiton between these two factors results in a maximum of hybridization for the strands having an intermediate length. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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