2017
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-00081-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reciprocal carbonyl–carbonyl interactions in small molecules and proteins

Abstract: Carbonyl-carbonyl n→π* interactions where a lone pair (n) of the oxygen atom of a carbonyl group is delocalized over the π* orbital of a nearby carbonyl group have attracted a lot of attention in recent years due to their ability to affect the 3D structure of small molecules, polyesters, peptides, and proteins. In this paper, we report the discovery of a “reciprocal” carbonyl-carbonyl interaction with substantial back and forth n→π* and π→π* electron delocalization between neighboring carbonyl groups. We have … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
89
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 84 publications
(98 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
8
89
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…There is substantial donor–acceptor orbital overlap that is, the overlap between the oxygen lone pair orbital (n) with the antibonding sigma orbital of C‐Z (σ*). The n O →σ* C‐Z interaction energies are very similar to those of two n→π* interaction energies observed through reciprocal C=O⋅⋅⋅C=O interaction . Hence, we would like to draw attention to the fact that one n O →σ* C‐Z interaction is equivalent to two n→π* interactions, thus confirming that C‐bonds are strong and viable in proteins.…”
Section: Figuresupporting
confidence: 68%
“…There is substantial donor–acceptor orbital overlap that is, the overlap between the oxygen lone pair orbital (n) with the antibonding sigma orbital of C‐Z (σ*). The n O →σ* C‐Z interaction energies are very similar to those of two n→π* interaction energies observed through reciprocal C=O⋅⋅⋅C=O interaction . Hence, we would like to draw attention to the fact that one n O →σ* C‐Z interaction is equivalent to two n→π* interactions, thus confirming that C‐bonds are strong and viable in proteins.…”
Section: Figuresupporting
confidence: 68%
“…This is likely the result of a carbonyl-carbonyl stacking interaction. Such interactions have been found in other small molecules and the secondary structures of proteins, and are the result of n → π* and π → π* interactions [17]. There is also a short contract between H3 and C11 (2.817 Å).…”
Section: Hirshfeld Surface Analysismentioning
confidence: 77%
“…Two or three cumulative n → π * strengthening may explain discussed difference in the calculated value for the dimer and the observed magnitude for the oligomers in solution. Reciprocal carbonyl-carbonyl interactions recently discovered in polyproline II (PPII) helices (Rahim et al, 2017 ) may also be factor of the stabilization of E isomers.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%