A pair of diastereomeric 1:1 salts of (S)‐ and (R)‐2‐methylpiperazine with (2S,3S)‐tartaric acid

The structures of diastereomeric pairs consisting of (S)‐ and (R)‐2‐methylpiperazine with (2S,3S)‐tartaric acid are both 1:1 salts, namely (S)‐2‐methylpiperazinium (2S,3S)‐tartrate dihydrate, C₅H₁₄N₂²⁺·C₄H₄O₆²⁻·2H₂O, (I), and (R)‐2‐methylpiperazinium (2S,3S)‐tartrate dihydrate, C₅H₁₄N₂²⁺·C₄H₄O₆²⁻·2H₂O, (II), which reveal the formation of well defined ammonium carboxylate salts linked via strong intermolecular hydrogen bonds. Unlike the situation in the more soluble salt (II), the alternating columns of tartrate and ammonium ions of the less soluble salt (I) are packed neatly in a grid around the a axis, which incorporates water molecules at regular intervals. The increased efficiency of packing for (I) is evident in its lower `packing coefficient', and the hydrogen‐bond contribution is stronger in the more soluble salt (II).     

Brucine salts of l‐α‐hydr­oxy acids: brucinium hydrogen (S)‐malate penta­hydrate and anhydrous brucinium hydrogen (2R,3R)‐tartrate at 130 K

The structures of two brucinium (2,3‐dimeth­oxy‐10‐oxostrychnidinium) salts of the α‐hydr­oxy acids l ‐malic acid and l ‐tartaric acid, namely brucinium hydrogen (S)‐malate penta­hydrate, C₂₃H₂₇N₂O₄⁺·C₄H₅O₅⁻·5H₂O, (I), and anhydrous brucinium hydrogen (2R,3R)‐tartrate, C₂₃H₂₇N₂O₄⁺·C₄H₅O₆⁻,(II), have been determined at 130 K. Compound (I) has two brucinium cations, two hydrogen malate anions and ten water mol­ecules of solvation in the asymmetric unit, and forms an extensively hydrogen‐bonded three‐dimensional framework structure. In compound (II), the brucinium cations form the common undulating brucine sheet substructures, which accommodate parallel chains of head‐to‐tail hydrogen‐bonded tartrate anion species in the inter­stitial cavities.     

A pair of diastereomeric 1:2 salts of (R)‐ and (S)‐2‐methylpiperazine with (2S,3S)‐tartaric acid

The crystal structures of a pair of diastereomeric 1:2 salts of (R)‐ and (S)‐2‐methylpiperazine with (2S,3S)‐tartaric acid, namely (R)‐2‐methylpiperazinediium bis[hydrogen (2S,3S)‐tartrate] monohydrate, (I), and (S)‐2‐methylpiperazinediium bis[hydrogen (2S,3S)‐tartrate] monohydrate, (II), both C₅H₁₄N₂²⁺·2C₄H₅O₆⁻·H₂O, each reveal the formation of well‐defined head‐to‐tail‐connected hydrogen tartrate chains; these chains are linked into a two‐dimensional sheet via intermolecular hydrogen bonds involving hydroxy groups and water molecules, resulting in a layer structure. The (R)‐2‐methylpiperazinediium ions lie between the hydrogen tartrate layers in the most stable equatorial conformation in (I), whereas in (II), these ions are in an unstable axial position inside the more interconnected layers and form a larger number of intermolecular hydrogen bonds than are observed in (I).     

Supramolecular hydrogen‐bonded networks in cytosinium succinate and cytosinium 4‐nitrobenzoate cytosine monohydrate

In cytosinium succinate (systematic name: 4‐amino‐2‐oxo‐2,3‐dihydropyrimidin‐1‐ium 3‐carboxypropanoate), C₄H₆N₃O⁺·C₄H₅O₄⁻, (I), the cytosinium cation forms one‐dimensional self‐assembling patterns by intermolecular N—H...O hydrogen bonding, while in cytosinium 4‐nitrobenzoate cytosine monohydrate [systematic name: 4‐amino‐2‐oxo‐2,3‐dihydropyrimidin‐1‐ium 4‐nitrobenzoate 4‐aminopyrimidin‐2(1H)‐one solvate monohydrate], C₄H₆N₃O⁺·C₇H₄NO₄⁻·C₄H₅N₃O·H₂O, (II), the cytosinium–cytosine base pair, held together by triple hydrogen bonds, leads to one‐dimensional polymeric ribbons via double N—H...O hydrogen bonds. This study illustrates clearly the different alignment of cytosine molecules in the crystal packing and their ability to form supramolecular hydrogen‐bonded networks with the anions.     

Proton‐transfer and non‐transfer in compounds of quinoline and quinaldic acid with l‐tartaric acid

The structures of two compounds of l ‐tartaric acid with quinoline, viz. the proton‐transfer compound quinolinium hydrogen (2R,3R)‐tartrate monohydrate, C₉H₈N⁺·C₄H₅O₆⁻·H₂O, (I), and the anhydrous non‐proton‐transfer adduct with quinaldic acid, bis­(quinolinium‐2‐carboxyl­ate) (2R,3R)‐tar­taric acid, 2C₁₀H₇NO₂·C₄H₆O₆, (II), have been determined at 130 K. Compound (I) has a three‐dimensional honeycomb substructure formed from head‐to‐tail hydrogen‐bonded hydrogen tartrate anions and water mol­ecules. The stacks of π‐bonded quinolinium cations are accommodated within the channels and are hydrogen bonded to it peripherally. Compound (II) has a two‐dimensional network structure based on pseudo‐centrosymmetric head‐to‐tail hydrogen‐bonded cyclic dimers comprising zwitterionic quinaldic acid species which are inter­linked by tartaric acid mol­ecules.     

Three‐dimensional hydrogen‐bonded structures in the 1:1 proton‐transfer compounds of l‐tartaric acid with the associative‐group monosubstituted pyridines 3‐aminopyridine, 3‐carboxypyridine (nicotinic acid) and 2‐carboxypyridine (picolinic acid)

The 1:1 proton‐transfer compounds of l ‐tartaric acid with 3‐aminopyridine [3‐aminopyridinium hydrogen (2R,3R)‐tartrate dihydrate, C₅H₇N₂⁺·C₄H₅O₆⁻·2H₂O, (I)], pyridine‐3‐carboxylic acid (nicotinic acid) [anhydrous 3‐carboxypyridinium hydrogen (2R,3R)‐tartrate, C₆H₆NO₂⁺·C₄H₅O₆⁻, (II)] and pyridine‐2‐carboxylic acid [2‐carboxypyridinium hydrogen (2R,3R)‐tartrate monohydrate, C₆H₆NO₂⁺·C₄H₅O₆⁻·H₂O, (III)] have been determined. In (I) and (II), there is a direct pyridinium–carboxyl N⁺—H...O hydrogen‐bonding interaction, four‐centred in (II), giving conjoint cyclic R₁²(5) associations. In contrast, the N—H...O association in (III) is with a water O‐atom acceptor, which provides links to separate tartrate anions through O_hydroxy acceptors. All three compounds have the head‐to‐tail C(7) hydrogen‐bonded chain substructures commonly associated with 1:1 proton‐transfer hydrogen tartrate salts. These chains are extended into two‐dimensional sheets which, in hydrates (I) and (III) additionally involve the solvent water molecules. Three‐dimensional hydrogen‐bonded structures are generated via crosslinking through the associative functional groups of the substituted pyridinium cations. In the sheet struture of (I), both water molecules act as donors and acceptors in interactions with separate carboxyl and hydroxy O‐atom acceptors of the primary tartrate chains, closing conjoint cyclic R₄⁴(8), R₃⁴(11) and R₃³(12) associations. Also, in (II) and (III) there are strong cation carboxyl–carboxyl O—H...O hydrogen bonds [O...O = 2.5387 (17) Å in (II) and 2.441 (3) Å in (III)], which in (II) form part of a cyclic R₂²(6) inter‐sheet association. This series of heteroaromatic Lewis base–hydrogen l ‐tartrate salts provides further examples of molecular assembly facilitated by the presence of the classical two‐dimensional hydrogen‐bonded hydrogen tartrate or hydrogen tartrate–water sheet substructures which are expanded into three‐dimensional frameworks via peripheral cation bifunctional substituent‐group crosslinking interactions.     

Supramolecular hydrogen‐bonded networks in cytosinium nicotinate monohydrate and cytosinium isonicotinate cytosine dihydrate

The title compounds are proton‐transfer compounds of cytosine with nicotinic acid [systematic name: 4‐amino‐2‐oxo‐2,3‐dihydropyrimidin‐1‐ium nicotinate monohydrate (cytosinium nicotinate hydrate), C₄H₆N₃O⁺·C₆H₄NO₂⁻·H₂O, (I)] and isonicotinic acid [systematic name: 4‐amino‐2‐oxo‐2,3‐dihydropyrimidin‐1‐ium isonicotinate–4‐aminopyrimidin‐2(1H)‐one–water (1/1/2) (cytosinium isonicotinate cytosine dihydrate), C₄H₆N₃O⁺·C₆H₄NO₂⁻·C₄H₅N₃O·2H₂O, (II)]. In (I), the cation and anion are interlinked by N—H...O hydrogen bonding to form a one‐dimensional tape. These tapes are linked through water molecules to form discrete double sheets. In (II), the cytosinium–cytosine base pairs are connected by triple hydrogen bonds, leading to one‐dimensional polymeric ribbons. These ribbons are further interconnected via nicotinate–water and water–water hydrogen bonding, resulting in an overall three‐dimensional network.     

6‐Propyl‐2‐thiouracil versus 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracil: enhancing the hydrogen‐bonded synthon motif by replacement of a methylene group with an O atom

The understanding of intermolecular interactions is a key objective of crystal engineering in order to exploit the derived knowledge for the rational design of new molecular solids with tailored physical and chemical properties. The tools and theories of crystal engineering are indispensable for the rational design of (pharmaceutical) cocrystals. The results of cocrystallization experiments of the antithyroid drug 6‐propyl‐2‐thiouracil (PTU) with 2,4‐diaminopyrimidine (DAPY), and of 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracil (MOMTU) with DAPY and 2,4,6‐triaminopyrimidine (TAPY), respectively, are reported. PTU and MOMTU show a high structural similarity and differ only in the replacement of a methylene group (–CH₂–) with an O atom in the side chain, thus introducing an additional hydrogen‐bond acceptor in MOMTU. Both molecules contain an ADA hydrogen‐bonding site (A = acceptor and D = donor), while the coformers DAPY and TAPY both show complementary DAD sites and therefore should be capable of forming a mixed ADA/DAD synthon with each other, i.e. N—H…O, N—H…N and N—H…S hydrogen bonds. The experiments yielded one solvated cocrystal salt of PTU with DAPY, four different solvates of MOMTU, one ionic cocrystal of MOMTU with DAPY and one cocrystal salt of MOMTU with TAPY, namely 2,4‐diaminopyrimidinium 6‐propyl‐2‐thiouracilate–2,4‐diaminopyrimidine–N,N‐dimethylacetamide–water (1/1/1/1) (the systematic name for 6‐propyl‐2‐thiouracilate is 6‐oxo‐4‐propyl‐2‐sulfanylidene‐1,2,3,6‐tetrahydropyrimidin‐1‐ide), C₄H₇N₄⁺·C₇H₉N₂OS⁻·C₄H₆N₄·C₄H₉NO·H₂O, (I), 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracil–N,N‐dimethylformamide (1/1), C₆H₈N₂O₂S·C₃H₇NO, (II), 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracil–N,N‐dimethylacetamide (1/1), C₆H₈N₂O₂S·C₄H₉NO, (III), 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracil–dimethyl sulfoxide (1/1), C₆H₈N₂O₂S·C₂H₆OS, (IV), 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracil–1‐methylpyrrolidin‐2‐one (1/1), C₆H₈N₂O₂S·C₅H₉NO, (V), 2,4‐diaminopyrimidinium 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracilate (the systematic name for 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracilate is 4‐methoxymethyl‐6‐oxo‐2‐sulfanylidene‐1,2,3,6‐tetrahydropyrimidin‐1‐ide), C₄H₇N₄⁺·C₆H₇N₂O₂S⁻, (VI), and 2,4,6‐triaminopyrimidinium 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracilate–6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracil (1/1), C₄H₈N₅⁺·C₆H₇N₂O₂S⁻·C₆H₈N₂O₂S, (VII). Whereas in (I) only an AA/DD hydrogen‐bonding interaction was formed, the structures of (VI) and (VII) both display the desired ADA/DAD synthon. Conformational studies on the side chains of PTU and MOMTU also revealed a significant deviation for cocrystals (VI) and (VII), leading to the desired enhancement of the hydrogen‐bond pattern within the crystal.     

Three‐dimensional networks in 5‐methylimidazolium 3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxybenzenesulfonate and bis(5‐methylimidazolium) 3‐carboxylato‐4‐hydroxybenzenesulfonate

The two title proton‐transfer compounds, 5‐methylimidazolium 3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxybenzenesulfonate, C₄H₇N₂⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻, (I), and bis(5‐methylimidazolium) 3‐carboxylato‐4‐hydroxybenzenesulfonate, 2C₄H₇N₂⁺·C₇H₅O₆S²⁻, (II), are each organized into a three‐dimensional network by a combination of X—H...O (X = O, N or C) hydrogen bonds, and π–π and C—H...π interactions.     

Streptidinium sulfate monohydrate

In streptidinium sulfate monohydrate {systematic name: 1,1′‐[(1S,3R,4S,6R)‐2,4,5,6‐tetrahydroxycyclohexane‐1,3‐diyl]diguanidinium sulfate monohydrate}, C₈H₂₀N₆O₄²⁺·SO₄²⁻·H₂O, at 100 (2) K, the components are arranged in double helices based on hydrogen bonds. One helix contains streptidinium cations and the other contains disordered sulfate anions and solvent water molecules. The helices are linked into a three‐dimensional hydrogen‐bonded network by O—H...O and N—H...O hydrogen bonds.     

Three‐dimensional hydrogen‐bonded framework structures in flunarizinium nicotinate and flunarizinediium bis(4‐toluenesulfonate) dihydrate

The structures of two salts of flunarizine, namely 1‐bis[(4‐fluorophenyl)methyl]‐4‐[(2E)‐3‐phenylprop‐2‐en‐1‐yl]piperazine, C₂₆H₂₆F₂N₂, are reported. In flunarizinium nicotinate {systematic name: 4‐bis[(4‐fluorophenyl)methyl]‐1‐[(2E)‐3‐phenylprop‐2‐en‐1‐yl]piperazin‐1‐ium pyridine‐3‐carboxylate}, C₂₆H₂₇F₂N₂⁺·C₆H₄NO₂⁻, (I), the two ionic components are linked by a short charge‐assisted N—H...O hydrogen bond. The ion pairs are linked into a three‐dimensional framework structure by three independent C—H...O hydrogen bonds, augmented by C—H...π(arene) hydrogen bonds and an aromatic π–π stacking interaction. In flunarizinediium bis(4‐toluenesulfonate) dihydrate {systematic name: 1‐[bis(4‐fluorophenyl)methyl]‐4‐[(2E)‐3‐phenylprop‐2‐en‐1‐yl]piperazine‐1,4‐diium bis(4‐methylbenzenesulfonate) dihydrate}, C₂₆H₂₈F₂N₂²⁺·2C₇H₇O₃S⁻·2H₂O, (II), one of the anions is disordered over two sites with occupancies of 0.832 (6) and 0.168 (6). The five independent components are linked into ribbons by two independent N—H...O hydrogen bonds and four independent O—H...O hydrogen bonds, and these ribbons are linked to form a three‐dimensional framework by two independent C—H...O hydrogen bonds, but C—H...π(arene) hydrogen bonds and aromatic π–π stacking interactions are absent from the structure of (II). Comparisons are made with some related structures.     

A structural hierarchy in the hydrogen‐bonded adduct N,N′‐di­methyl­piperazine–tartaric acid–water (1/2/2): an N‐component N‐dimensional structure (N = 3) with substructures having N = 1 and 2

In the hydrated adduct N,N′‐di­methyl­piperazine‐1,4‐diium bis(3‐carboxy‐2,3‐di­hydroxy­propanoate) dihydrate, [MeNH(CH₂CH₂)₂NHMe]²⁺·2(C₄H₅O₆)^?·2H₂O or C₆H₁₆N₂²⁺·2C₄H₅O₆^?·2H₂O, formed between racemic tartaric acid and N,N′‐di­methyl­piperazine (triclinic P, Z′ = 0.5), the cations lie across centres of inversion. The anions alone form chains, and anions and water mol­ecules together form sheets; the sheets are linked by the cations to form a pillared‐layer framework. The supramolecular architecture thus takes the form of a family of N‐dimensional N‐component structures having N = 1, 2 or 3.     

Hydro­gen bonding in proton‐transfer compounds of 5‐sulfosalicylic acid with bicyclic heteroaromatic Lewis bases

The crystal structures of quinolinium 3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxy­benzene­sulfonate trihydrate, C₉H₈N⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻·3H₂O, (I), 8‐hydroxy­quinolinium 3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxy­benzene­sulfonate monohydrate, C₉H₈NO⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻·H₂O, (II), 8‐amino­quinolinium 3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxy­benzene­sulfonate dihydrate, C₉H₉N₂⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻·2H₂O, (III), and 2‐carboxy­quinolinium 3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxy­benzene­sulfonate quinolinium‐2‐carboxylate, C₁₀H₈NO₂⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻·C₁₀H₇NO₂, (IV), four proton‐transfer compounds of 5‐sulfosalicylic acid with bicyclic heteroaromatic Lewis bases, reveal in each the presence of variously hydrogen‐bonded polymers. In only one of these compounds, viz. (II), is the protonated quinolinium group involved in a direct primary N⁺—H⋯O(sulfonate) hydrogen‐bonding interaction, while in the other hydrates, viz. (I) and (III), the water mol­ecules participate in the primary intermediate interaction. The quinaldic acid (quinoline‐2‐carboxylic acid) adduct, (IV), exhibits cation–cation and anion–adduct hydrogen bonding but no direct formal heteromolecular interaction other than a number of weak cation–anion and cation–adduct π–π stacking associations. In all other compounds, secondary interactions give rise to network polymer structures.     

Water‐induced pseudo‐quadruple hydrogen‐bonding motifs in xanthine–inorganic acid complexes

In xanthinium nitrate hydrate [systematic name: 2,6‐dioxo‐1,2,3,6‐tetrahydro‐9H‐purin‐7‐ium nitrate monohydrate], C₅H₅N₄O₂⁺·NO₃⁻·H₂O, (I), and xanthinium hydrogen sulfate hydrate [systematic name: 2,6‐dioxo‐1,2,3,6‐tetrahydro‐9H‐purin‐7‐ium hydrogen sulfate monohydrate], C₅H₅N₄O₂⁺·HSO₄⁻·H₂O, (II), the xanthine molecules are protonated at the imine N atom with the transfer of an H atom from the inorganic acid. The asymmetric unit of (I) contains a xanthinium cation, a nitrate anion and one water molecule, while that of (II) contains two crystallographically independent xanthinium cations, two hydrogen sulfate anions and two water molecules. A pseudo‐quadruple hydrogen‐bonding motif is formed between the xanthinium cations and the water molecules via N—H...O and O—H...O hydrogen bonds in both structures, and leads to the formation of one‐dimensional polymeric tapes. These cation–water tapes are further connected by the respective anions and aggregate into two‐dimensional hydrogen‐bonded sheets in (I) and three‐dimensional arrangements in (II).     

The effect of amino acid backbone length on molecular packing: crystalline tartrates of glycine, β‐alanine, γ‐aminobutyric acid (GABA) and dl‐α‐aminobutyric acid (AABA)

We report a novel 1:1 cocrystal of β‐alanine with dl ‐tartaric acid, C₃H₇NO₂·C₄H₆O₆, (II), and three new molecular salts of dl ‐tartaric acid with β‐alanine {3‐azaniumylpropanoic acid–3‐azaniumylpropanoate dl ‐tartaric acid–dl ‐tartrate, [H(C₃H₇NO₂)₂]⁺·[H(C₄H₅O₆)₂]⁻, (III)}, γ‐aminobutyric acid [3‐carboxypropanaminium dl ‐tartrate, C₄H₁₀NO₂⁺·C₄H₅O₆⁻, (IV)] and dl ‐α‐aminobutyric acid {dl ‐2‐azaniumylbutanoic acid–dl ‐2‐azaniumylbutanoate dl ‐tartaric acid–dl ‐tartrate, [H(C₄H₉NO₂)₂]⁺·[H(C₄H₅O₆)₂]⁻, (V)}. The crystal structures of binary crystals of dl ‐tartaric acid with glycine, (I), β‐alanine, (II) and (III), GABA, (IV), and dl ‐AABA, (V), have similar molecular packing and crystallographic motifs. The shortest amino acid (i.e. glycine) forms a cocrystal, (I), with dl ‐tartaric acid, whereas the larger amino acids form molecular salts, viz. (IV) and (V). β‐Alanine is the only amino acid capable of forming both a cocrystal [i.e. (II)] and a molecular salt [i.e. (III)] with dl ‐tartaric acid. The cocrystals of glycine and β‐alanine with dl ‐tartaric acid, i.e. (I) and (II), respectively, contain chains of amino acid zwitterions, similar to the structure of pure glycine. In the structures of the molecular salts of amino acids, the amino acid cations form isolated dimers [of β‐alanine in (III), GABA in (IV) and dl ‐AABA in (V)], which are linked by strong O—H…O hydrogen bonds. Moreover, the three crystal structures comprise different types of dimeric cations, i.e. (A…A)⁺ in (III) and (V), and A⁺…A⁺ in (IV). Molecular salts (IV) and (V) are the first examples of molecular salts of GABA and dl ‐AABA that contain dimers of amino acid cations. The geometry of each investigated amino acid (except dl ‐AABA) correlates with the melting point of its mixed crystal.     

Tolterodinium (+)‐(2R,3R)‐hydrogen tartrate

In the crystal structure of (R)‐N,N‐diisopropyl‐3‐(2‐hydroxy‐5‐methyl­phenyl)‐3‐phenyl­propyl­aminium (2R,3R)‐hydrogen tartrate, C₂₂H₃₂NO⁺·C₄H₅O₆⁻, the hydrogen tartrate anions are linked by O—H⋯O hydrogen bonds to form helical chains built from (9) rings. These chains are linked by the tolterodine molecules via N—H⋯O and O—H⋯O hydrogen bonds to form separate sheets parallel to the (101) plane.     

l‐Prolinium tartrate

In the title salt, C₅H₁₀NO₂⁺·C₄H₅O₆^?, proline exists as a cation and the tartaric acid as a semi‐tartrate anion. The semi‐tartrate ions form hydrogen‐bonded strings along the c axis. These strings are interconnected through the proline mol­ecules, forming a layered network parallel to the bc plane. The proline mol­ecules, however, do not directly interact among themselves, except for a weak C—H?O hydrogen bond.     

Almotriptan,an antimigraine agent,and its malate salt

The crystal structures of almotriptan {systematic name: N,N‐dimethyl‐2‐[5‐(pyrrolidin‐1‐ylsulfonylmethyl)‐1H‐indol‐3‐yl]ethanamine}, C₁₇H₂₅N₃O₂S, and almotriptan malate {systematic name: N,N‐dimethyl‐2‐[5‐(pyrrolidin‐1‐ylsulfonylmethyl)‐1H‐indol‐3‐yl]ethanaminium malate, C₁₇H₂₆N₃O₂S⁺·C₄H₅O₅⁻, a novel selective serotonin 1B/D agonist, have been determined in order to gain further insight into the structure–activity relationships of triptans. The two structures differ in the orientation of their sulfonylpyrrolidine side chains. A comparison with other triptans reveals that molecules of almotriptan, sumatriptan, zolmitriptan and rizatriptan can adopt two principal conformations. N—H...N, N—H...O and O—H...O hydrogen bonds are responsible for the molecular packing.     

Eight new crystal structures of 5‐(hydroxymethyl)uracil, 5‐carboxyuracil and 5‐carboxy‐2‐thiouracil: insights into the hydrogen‐bonded networks and the predominant conformations of the C5‐bound residues

In order to examine the preferred hydrogen‐bonding pattern of various uracil derivatives, namely 5‐(hydroxymethyl)uracil, 5‐carboxyuracil and 5‐carboxy‐2‐thiouracil, and for a conformational study, crystallization experiments yielded eight different structures: 5‐(hydroxymethyl)uracil, C₅H₆N₂O₃, (I), 5‐carboxyuracil–N,N‐dimethylformamide (1/1), C₅H₄N₂O₄·C₃H₇NO, (II), 5‐carboxyuracil–dimethyl sulfoxide (1/1), C₅H₄N₂O₄·C₂H₆OS, (III), 5‐carboxyuracil–N,N‐dimethylacetamide (1/1), C₅H₄N₂O₄·C₄H₉NO, (IV), 5‐carboxy‐2‐thiouracil–N,N‐dimethylformamide (1/1), C₅H₄N₂O₃S·C₃H₇NO, (V), 5‐carboxy‐2‐thiouracil–dimethyl sulfoxide (1/1), C₅H₄N₂O₃S·C₂H₆OS, (VI), 5‐carboxy‐2‐thiouracil–1,4‐dioxane (2/3), 2C₅H₄N₂O₃S·3C₆H₁₂O₃, (VII), and 5‐carboxy‐2‐thiouracil, C₁₀H₈N₄O₆S₂, (VIII). While the six solvated structures, i.e. (II)–(VII), contain intramolecular S(6) O—H…O hydrogen‐bond motifs between the carboxy and carbonyl groups, the usually favoured R₂²(8) pattern between two carboxy groups is formed in the solvent‐free structure, i.e. (VIII). Further R₂²(8) hydrogen‐bond motifs involving either two N—H…O or two N—H…S hydrogen bonds were observed in three crystal structures, namely (I), (IV) and (VIII). In all eight structures, the residue at the ring 5‐position shows a coplanar arrangement with respect to the pyrimidine ring which is in agreement with a search of the Cambridge Structural Database for six‐membered cyclic compounds containing a carboxy group. The search confirmed that coplanarity between the carboxy group and the cyclic residue is strongly favoured.     

Multicomponent crystals of erlotinib

Erlotinib [systematic name: N‐(3‐ethynylphenyl)‐6,7‐bis(2‐methoxyethoxy)quinazolin‐4‐amine], a small‐molecule epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, useful for the treatment of non‐small‐cell lung cancer, has been crystallized as erlotinib monohydrate, C₂₂H₂₃N₃O₄·H₂O, (I), the erlotinib hemioxalate salt [systematic name: 4‐amino‐N‐(3‐ethynylphenyl)‐6,7‐bis(2‐methoxyethoxy)quinazolin‐1‐ium hemioxalate], C₂₂H₂₄N₃O₄⁺·0.5C₂O₄²⁻, (II), and the cocrystal erlotinib fumaric acid hemisolvate dihydrate, C₂₂H₂₃N₃O₄·0.5C₄H₄O₄·2H₂O, (III). In (II) and (III), the oxalate anion and the fumaric acid molecule are located across inversion centres. The water molecules in (I) and (III) play an active role in hydrogen‐bonding interactions which lead to the formation of tetrameric and hexameric hydrogen‐bonded networks, while in (II) the cations and anions form a tetrameric hydrogen‐bonded network in the crystal packing. The title multicomponent crystals of erlotinib have been elucidated to study the assembly of molecules through intermolecular interactions, such as hydrogen bonds and aromatic π–π stacking.