Three cocrystals and a cocrystal salt of pyrimidin‐2‐amine and glutaric acid

Four new cocrystals of pyrimidin‐2‐amine and propane‐1,3‐dicarboxylic (glutaric) acid were crystallized from three different solvents (acetonitrile, methanol and a 50:50 wt% mixture of methanol and chloroform) and their crystal structures determined. Two of the cocrystals, namely pyrimidin‐2‐amine–glutaric acid (1/1), C₄H₅N₃·C₆H₈O₄, (I) and (II), are polymorphs. The glutaric acid molecule in (I) has a linear conformation, whereas it is twisted in (II). The pyrimidin‐2‐amine–glutaric acid (2/1) cocrystal, 2C₄H₅N₃·C₆H₈O₄, (III), contains glutaric acid in its linear form. Cocrystal–salt bis(2‐aminopyrimidinium) glutarate–glutaric acid (1/2), 2C₄H₆N₃⁺·C₆H₆O₄²⁻·2C₆H₈O₄, (IV), was crystallized from the same solvent as cocrystal (II), supporting the idea of a cocrystal–salt continuum when both the neutral and ionic forms are present in appreciable concentrations in solution. The diversity of the packing motifs in (I)–(IV) is mainly caused by the conformational flexibility of glutaric acid, while the hydrogen‐bond patterns show certain similarities in all four structures.     

3‐Cyano‐6‐hydroxy‐4‐methyl‐2‐pyridone: two new pseudopolymorphs and two cocrystals with products of an in situ nucleophilic aromatic substitution

Four crystal structures of 3‐cyano‐6‐hydroxy‐4‐methyl‐2‐pyridone (CMP), viz. the dimethyl sulfoxide monosolvate, C₇H₆N₂O₂·C₂H₆OS, (1), the N,N‐dimethylacetamide monosolvate, C₇H₆N₂O₂·C₄H₉NO, (2), a cocrystal with 2‐amino‐4‐dimethylamino‐6‐methylpyrimidine (as the salt 2‐amino‐4‐dimethylamino‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐1‐ium 5‐cyano‐4‐methyl‐6‐oxo‐1,6‐dihydropyridin‐2‐olate), C₇H₁₃N₄⁺·C₇H₅N₂O₂⁻, (3), and a cocrystal with N,N‐dimethylacetamide and 4,6‐diamino‐2‐dimethylamino‐1,3,5‐triazine [as the solvated salt 2,6‐diamino‐4‐dimethylamino‐1,3,5‐triazin‐1‐ium 5‐cyano‐4‐methyl‐6‐oxo‐1,6‐dihydropyridin‐2‐olate–N,N‐dimethylacetamide (1/1)], C₅H₁₁N₆⁺·C₇H₅N₂O₂⁻·C₄H₉NO, (4), are reported. Solvates (1) and (2) both contain the hydroxy group in a para position with respect to the cyano group of CMP, acting as a hydrogen‐bond donor and leading to rather similar packing motifs. In cocrystals (3) and (4), hydrolysis of the solvent molecules occurs and an in situ nucleophilic aromatic substitution of a Cl atom with a dimethylamino group has taken place. Within all four structures, an R₂²(8) N—H...O hydrogen‐bonding pattern is observed, connecting the CMP molecules, but the pattern differs depending on which O atom participates in the motif, either the ortho or para O atom with respect to the cyano group. Solvents and coformers are attached to these arrangements via single‐point O—H...O interactions in (1) and (2) or by additional R₄⁴(16) hydrogen‐bonding patterns in (3) and (4). Since the in situ nucleophilic aromatic substitution of the coformers occurs, the possible Watson–Crick C–G base‐pair‐like arrangement is inhibited, yet the cyano group of the CMP molecules participates in hydrogen bonds with their coformers, influencing the crystal packing to form chains.     

Temperature‐induced pseudopolymorphism of molecular salts from a pyridyl bis‐urea macrocycle and naphthalene‐1,5‐disulfonic acid

Molecular salts, often observed as cocrystals, play an important role in the fields of pharmaceutics and materials science, where salt formation is used to tune the properties of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and improve the stability of solid‐state materials. Salt formation via a proton‐transfer reaction typically alters hydrogen‐bonding motifs and influences supramolecular assembly patterns. We report here the molecular salts formed by the pyridyl bis‐urea macrocycle 3,5,13,15,21,22‐hexaazatricyclo[15.3.1.1^7,11]docosa‐1(21),7(22),8,10,17,19‐hexaene‐4,14‐dione, ( 1 ), and naphthalene‐1,5‐disulfonic acid (H₂NDS) as two salt cocrystal solvates, namely 4,14‐dioxo‐3,5,13,15,21,22‐hexaazatricyclo[15.3.1.1^7,11]docosa‐1(21),7(22),8,10,17,19‐hexaene‐21,22‐diium naphthalene‐1,5‐disulfonate dimethyl sulfoxide disolvate, C₁₆H₂₀N₆O₂²⁺·C₁₀H₆O₆S₂²⁻·2C₂H₆OS, ( 2 ), and the corresponding monosolvate, C₁₆H₂₀N₆O₂²⁺·C₁₀H₆O₆S₂²⁻·C₂H₆OS, ( 3 ). This follows the ΔpK_a rule such that there is a proton transfer from H₂NDS to ( 1 ), forming the reported molecular salts through hydrogen bonding. Prior to salt formation, ( 1 ) is relatively planar and assembles into columnar structures. The salt cocrystal solvates were obtained upon slow cooling of dimethyl sulfoxide–acetonitrile solutions of the molecular components from two temperatures (363 and 393 K). The proton transfer to ( 1 ) significantly alters the conformation of the macrocycle, changing the formerly planar macrocycle into a step‐shaped conformation with trans–cis urea groups in ( 2 ) or into a bowl‐shape conformation with trans–trans urea groups in ( 3 ).     

Cocrystals of the antimalarial drug 11‐azaartemisinin with three alkenoic acids of 1:1 or 2:1 stoichiometry

The stoichiometry, X‐ray structures and stability of four pharmaceutical cocrystals previously identified from liquid‐assisted grinding (LAG) of 11‐azaartemisinin (11‐Aza; systematic name: 1,5,9‐trimethyl‐14,15,16‐trioxa‐11‐azatetracyclo[10.3.1.0^4,13.0^8,13]hexadecan‐10‐one) with trans‐cinnamic (Cin), maleic (Mal) and fumaric (Fum) acids are herein reported. trans‐Cinnamic acid, a mono acid, forms 1:1 cocrystal 11‐Aza:Cin ( 1 , C₁₅H₂₃NO₄·C₉H₈O₂). Maleic acid forms both 1:1 cocrystal 11‐Aza:Mal ( 2 , C₁₅H₂₃NO₄·C₄H₄O₄), in which one COOH group is involved in self‐catenation, and 2:1 cocrystal 11‐Aza₂:Mal ( 3 , 2C₁₅H₂₃NO₄·C₄H₄O₄). Its isomer, fumaric acid, only affords 2:1 cocrystal 11‐Aza₂:Fum ( 4 ). All cocrystal formation appears driven by acid–lactam R₂²(8) heterosynthons with short O—H…O=C hydrogen bonds [O…O = 2.56 (2) Å], augmented by weaker C=O…H—N contacts. Despite a better packing efficiency, cocrystal 3 is metastable with respect to 2 , probably due to a higher conformational energy for the maleic acid molecule in its structure. In each case, the microcrystalline powders from LAG were useful in providing seeding for the single‐crystal growth.     

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.     

Electrostatic properties of the pyrimethamine–2,4‐dihydroxybenzoic acid cocrystal in methanol studied using transferred electron‐density parameters

The crystal structure of the cocrystal salt form of the antimalarial drug pyrimethamine with 2,4‐dihydroxybenzoic acid in methanol [systematic name: 2,4‐diamino‐5‐(4‐chlorophenyl)‐6‐ethylpyrimidin‐1‐ium 2,4‐dihydroxybenzoate methanol monosolvate, C₁₂H₁₄ClN₄⁺·C₇H₅O₄⁻·CH₃OH] has been studied using X‐ray diffraction data collected at room temperature. The crystal structure was refined using the classical Independent Atom Model (IAM) and the Multipolar Atom Model by transferring electron‐density parameters from the ELMAM2 database. The Cl atom was refined anharmonically. The results of both refinement methods have been compared. The intermolecular interactions have been characterized on the basis of Hirshfeld surface analysis and topological analysis using Bader's theory of Atoms in Molecules. The results show that the molecular assembly is built primarily on the basis of charge transfer between 2,4‐dihydroxybenzoic acid and pyrimethamine, which results in strong intermolecular hydrogen bonds. This fact is further validated by the calculation of the electrostatic potential based on transferred electron‐density parameters.     

Structure and electrostatic properties of the pyrimethamine–3,5‐dihydroxybenzoic acid cocrystal in water solvent studied using transferred electron‐density parameters

Pyrimethamine is an antimalarial drug. The cocrystal salt form of pyrimethamine with 3,5‐dihydroxybenzoic acid in water solvent has been synthesized, namely 2,4‐diamino‐5‐(4‐chlorophenyl)‐6‐ethylpyrimidin‐1‐ium 3,5‐dihydroxybenzoate hemihydrate, C₁₂H₁₄ClN₄⁺·C₇H₅O₄^?·0.5H₂O. X‐ray diffraction data were collected at room temperature. Refinement of the crystal structure was carried out using the classical Independent Atom Model (IAM), while the electrostatic properties were studied by transferring electron‐density parameters from an electron‐density database. The Cl atom was refined anharmonically. The results of both refinement methods were compared. Topological analyses were carried out using Bader's theory of Atoms in Molecules (AIM). The three‐dimensional Hirshfeld surface analysis and the two‐dimensional fingerprint maps of individual molecules revealed that the crystal structures are dominated by H…O/O…H and H…H contacts. Other close contacts are also present, including weak C…H/H…C contacts. Charge transfer between the pyrimethamine and 3,5‐dihydroxybenzoic acid molecules results in a molecular assembly based on strong intermolecular hydrogen bonds. This is further validated by the calculation of the electrostatic potential based on transferred electron‐density parameters. The current work proves the significance of the transferability principle in studying the electron‐density‐derived properties of molecules in cases where high‐resolution diffraction data at low temperature are not available.     

Supramolecular architectures in the salt trimethoprimium ferrocene‐1‐carboxylate and the cocrystal 4‐amino‐5‐chloro‐2,6‐dimethylpyrimidine–ferrocene‐1‐carboxylic acid (1/1)

In the salt trimethoprimium ferrocenecarboxylate [systematic name: 2,4‐diamino‐5‐(3,4,5‐trimethoxybenzyl)pyrimidin‐1‐ium ferrocene‐1‐carboxylate], (C₁₄H₁₉N₄O₃)[Fe(C₅H₅)(C₆H₄O₂)], (I), of the antibacterial compound trimethoprim, the carboxylate group interacts with the protonated aminopyrimidine group of trimethoprim via two N—H…O hydrogen bonds, generating a robust R ₂²(8) ring motif (heterosynthon). However, in the cocrystal 4‐amino‐5‐chloro‐2,6‐dimethylpyrimidine–ferrocene‐1‐carboxylic acid (1/1), [Fe(C₅H₅)(C₆H₅O₂)]·C₆H₈ClN₃, (II), the carboxyl–aminopyrimidine interaction [R ₂²(8) motif] is absent. The carboxyl group interacts with the pyrimidine ring via a single O—H…N hydrogen bond. The pyrimidine rings, however, form base pairs via a pair of N—H…N hydrogen bonds, generating an R ₂²(8) supramolecular homosynthon. In salt (I), the unsubstituted cyclopentadienyl ring is disordered over two positions, with a refined site‐occupation ratio of 0.573 (10):0.427 (10). In this study, the two five‐membered cyclopentadienyl (Cp) rings of ferrocene are in a staggered conformation, as is evident from the C…Cg …Cg …C pseudo‐torsion angles, which are in the range 36.13–37.53° for (I) and 22.58–23.46° for (II). Regarding the Cp ring of the minor component in salt (I), the geometry of the ferrocene ring is in an eclipsed conformation, as is evident from the C…Cg …Cg …C pseudo‐torsion angles, which are in the range 79.26–80.94°. Both crystal structures are further stabilized by weak π–π interactions.     

The challenging case of the theophylline–benzamide cocrystal

Theophylline has been used as an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in the treatment of pulmonary diseases, but due to its low water solubility reveals very poor bioavailability. Based on its different hydrogen‐bond donor and acceptor groups, theophylline is an ideal candidate for the formation of cocrystals. The crystal structure of the 1:1 benzamide cocrystal of theophylline, C₇H₈N₄O₂·C₇H₇NO, was determined from synchrotron X‐ray powder diffraction data. The compound crystallizes in the tetragonal space group P4₁ with four independent molecules in the asymmetric unit. The molecules form a hunter's fence packing. The crystal structure was confirmed by dispersion‐corrected DFT calculations. The possibility of salt formation was excluded by the results of Raman and ¹H solid‐state NMR spectroscopic analyses.     

6‐Chloroisocytosine and 5‐bromo‐6‐methylisocytosine: again,one or two tautomers present in the same crystal?

It is well known that pyrimidin‐4‐one derivatives are able to adopt either the 1H‐ or the 3H‐tautomeric form in (co)crystals, depending on the coformer. As part of ongoing research to investigate the preferred hydrogen‐bonding patterns of active pharmaceutical ingredients and their model systems, 2‐amino‐6‐chloropyrimidin‐4‐one and 2‐amino‐5‐bromo‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐4‐one have been cocrystallized with several coformers and with each other. Since Cl and Br atoms both have versatile possibilities to interact with the coformers, such as via hydrogen or halogen bonds, their behaviour within the crystal packing was also of interest. The experiments yielded five crystal structures, namely 2‐aminopyridin‐1‐ium 2‐amino‐6‐chloro‐4‐oxo‐4H‐pyrimidin‐3‐ide–2‐amino‐6‐chloropyrimidin‐4(3H)‐one (1/3), C₅H₇N₂⁺·C₄H₃ClN₃O⁻·3C₄H₄ClN₃O, (Ia), 2‐aminopyridin‐1‐ium 2‐amino‐6‐chloro‐4‐oxo‐4H‐pyrimidin‐3‐ide–2‐amino‐6‐chloropyrimidin‐4(3H)‐one–2‐aminopyridine (2/10/1), 2C₅H₇N₂⁺·2C₄H₃ClN₃O⁻·10C₄H₄ClN₃O·C₅H₆N₂, (Ib), the solvent‐free cocrystal 2‐amino‐5‐bromo‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐4(3H)‐one–2‐amino‐5‐bromo‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐4(1H)‐one (1/1), C₅H₆BrN₃O·C₅H₆BrN₃O, (II), the solvate 2‐amino‐5‐bromo‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐4(3H)‐one–2‐amino‐5‐bromo‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐4(1H)‐one–N‐methylpyrrolidin‐2‐one (1/1/1), C₅H₆BrN₃O·C₅H₆BrN₃O·C₅H₉NO, (III), and the partial cocrystal 2‐amino‐5‐bromo‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐4(3H)‐one–2‐amino‐5‐bromo‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐4(1H)‐one–2‐amino‐6‐chloropyrimidin‐4(3H)‐one (0.635/1/0.365), C₅H₆BrN₃O·C₅H₆BrN₃O·C₄H₄ClN₃O, (IV). All five structures show R₂²(8) hydrogen‐bond‐based patterns, either by synthon 2 or by synthon 3, which are related to the Watson–Crick base pairs.     

The hydrogen‐bonded complex bis(tert‐butylammonium) 2,6‐dichlorophenolate 2,4‐dichlorophenol–2,4‐dichlorophenolate tetrahydrofuran disolvate containing a chiral R53(10) hydrogen‐bonded ring as a supramolecular synthon

A fixed hydrogen‐bonding motif with a high probability of occurring when appropriate functional groups are involved is described as a `supramolecular hydrogen‐bonding synthon'. The identification of these synthons may enable the prediction of accurate crystal structures. The rare chiral hydrogen‐bonding motif R₅³(10) was observed previously in a cocrystal of 2,4,6‐trichlorophenol, 2,4‐dichlorophenol and dicyclohexylamine. In the title solvated salt, 2C₄H₁₂N⁺·C₆H₃Cl₂O⁻·(C₆H₃Cl₂O⁻·C₆H₄Cl₂O)·2C₄H₈O, five components, namely two tert‐butylammonium cations, one 2,4‐dichlorophenol molecule, one 2,4‐dichlorophenolate anion and one 2,6‐dichlorophenolate anion, are bound by N—H…O and O—H…O hydrogen bonds to form a hydrogen‐bonded ring, with the graph‐set motif R₅³(10), which is further associated with two pendant tetrahydrofuran molecules by N—H…O hydrogen bonds. The hydrogen‐bonded ring has internal symmetry, with a twofold axis running through the centre of the 2,6‐dichlorophenolate anion, and is isostructural with a previous and related structure formed from 2,4‐dichlorophenol, dicyclohexylamine and 2,4,6‐trichlorophenol. In the title crystal, helical columns are built by the alignment and twisting of the chiral hydrogen‐bonded rings, along and across the c axis, and successive pairs of rings are associated with each other through C—H…π interactions. Neighbouring helical columns are inversely related and, therefore, no chirality is sustained, in contrast to the previous case.     

Cocrystals of 6‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil: presence of the acceptor–donor–acceptor/donor–acceptor–donor synthon

The results of seven cocrystallization experiments of the antithyroid drug 6‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil (MTU), C₅H₆N₂OS, with 2,4‐diaminopyrimidine, 2,4,6‐triaminopyrimidine and 6‐amino‐3H‐isocytosine (viz. 2,6‐diamino‐3H‐pyrimidin‐4‐one) are reported. MTU features an ADA (A = acceptor and D = donor) hydrogen‐bonding site, while the three coformers show complementary DAD hydrogen‐bonding sites and therefore should be capable of forming an ADA/DAD N—H...O/N—H...N/N—H...S synthon with MTU. The experiments yielded one cocrystal and six cocrystal solvates, namely 6‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil–2,4‐diaminopyrimidine–1‐methylpyrrolidin‐2‐one (1/1/2), C₅H₆N₂OS·C₄H₆N₄·2C₅H₉NO, (I), 6‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil–2,4‐diaminopyrimidine (1/1), C₅H₆N₂OS·C₄H₆N₄, (II), 6‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil–2,4‐diaminopyrimidine–N,N‐dimethylacetamide (2/1/2), 2C₅H₆N₂OS·C₄H₆N₄·2C₄H₉NO, (III), 6‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil–2,4‐diaminopyrimidine–N,N‐dimethylformamide (2/1/2), C₅H₆N₂OS·0.5C₄H₆N₄·C₃H₇NO, (IV), 2,4,6‐triaminopyrimidinium 6‐methyl‐2‐thiouracilate–6‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil–N,N‐dimethylformamide (1/1/2), C₄H₈N₅⁺·C₅H₅N₂OS⁻·C₅H₆N₂OS·2C₃H₇NO, (V), 6‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil–6‐amino‐3H‐isocytosine–N,N‐dimethylformamide (1/1/1), C₅H₆N₂OS·C₄H₆N₄O·C₃H₇NO, (VI), and 6‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil–6‐amino‐3H‐isocytosine–dimethyl sulfoxide (1/1/1), C₅H₆N₂OS·C₄H₆N₄O·C₂H₆OS, (VII). Whereas in cocrystal (I) an R₂²(8) interaction similar to the Watson–Crick adenine/uracil base pair is formed and a two‐dimensional hydrogen‐bonding network is observed, the cocrystals (II)–(VII) contain the triply hydrogen‐bonded ADA/DAD N—H...O/N—H...N/N—H...S synthon and show a one‐dimensional hydrogen‐bonding network. Although 2,4‐diaminopyrimidine possesses only one DAD hydrogen‐bonding site, it is, due to orientational disorder, triply connected to two MTU molecules in (III) and (IV).     

New hydrophobic L‐amino acid salts: maleates of L‐leucine,L‐isoleucine and L‐norvaline

Crystals of maleates of three amino acids with hydrophobic side chains [L‐leucenium hydrogen maleate, C₆H₁₄NO₂⁺·C₄H₃O₄⁻, (I), L‐isoleucenium hydrogen maleate hemihydrate, C₆H₁₄NO₂⁺·C₄H₃O₄⁻·0.5H₂O, (II), and L‐norvalinium hydrogen maleate–L‐norvaline (1/1), C₅H₁₁NO₂⁺·C₄H₃O₄⁻·C₅H₁₂NO₂, (III)], were obtained. The new structures contain C₂²(12) chains, or variants thereof, that are a common feature in the crystal structures of amino acid maleates. The L‐leucenium salt is remarkable due to a large number of symmetrically non‐equivalent units (Z′ = 3). The L‐isoleucenium salt is a hydrate despite the fact that L‐isoleucine is a nonpolar hydrophobic amino acid (previously known amino acid maleates formed hydrates only with lysine and histidine, which are polar and hydrophilic). The L‐norvalinium salt provides the first example where the dimeric cation L‐Nva...L‐NvaH⁺ was observed. All three compounds have layered noncentrosymmetric structures. Preliminary tests have shown the presence of the second harmonic generation (SGH) effect for all three compounds.     

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.     

Ditopic halogen bonding with bipyrimidines and activated pyrimidines

The potential of pyrimidines to serve as ditopic halogen‐bond acceptors is explored. The halogen‐bonded cocrystals formed from solutions of either 5,5′‐bipyrimidine (C₈H₆N₄) or 1,2‐bis(pyrimidin‐5‐yl)ethyne (C₁₀H₆N₄) and 2 molar equivalents of 1,3‐diiodotetrafluorobenzene (C₆F₄I₂) have a 1:1 composition. Each pyrimidine moiety acts as a single halogen‐bond acceptor and the bipyrimidines act as ditopic halogen‐bond acceptors. In contrast, the activated pyrimidines 2‐ and 5‐{[4‐(dimethylamino)phenyl]ethynyl}pyrimidine (C₁₄H₁₃N₃) are ditopic halogen‐bond acceptors, and 1:1 halogen‐bonded cocrystals are formed from 1:1 mixtures of each of the activated pyrimidines and either 1,2‐ or 1,3‐diiodotetrafluorobenzene. A 1:1 cocrystal was also formed between 2‐{[4‐(dimethylamino)phenyl]ethynyl}pyrimidine and 1,4‐diiodotetrafluorobenzene, while a 2:1 cocrystal was formed between 5‐{[4‐(dimethylamino)phenyl]ethynyl}pyrimidine and 1,4‐diiodotetrafluorobenzene.     

Chiral anionic layers in tartramide spiroborate salts and variable solvation for [NR4][B(TarNH2)2] (R = Et,Pr or Bu)

The spiroborate anion, namely, 2,3,7,8‐tetracarboxamido‐1,4,6,9‐tetraoxa‐5λ⁴‐boraspiro[4.4]nonane, [B(TarNH₂)₂]^?, derived from the diol l ‐tartramide TarNH₂, [CH(O)(CONH₂)]₂, shows a novel self‐assembly into two‐dimensional (2D) layer structures in its salts with alkylammonium cations, [NR₄]⁺ (R = Et, Pr and Bu), and sparteinium, [HSpa]⁺, in which the cations and anions are segregated. The structures of four such salts are reported, namely, the tetrapropylazanium salt, C₁₂H₂₈N⁺·C₈H₁₂BN₄O₈^?, the tetraethylazanium salt hydrate, C₈H₂₀N⁺·C₈H₁₂BN₄O₈^?·6.375H₂O, the tetrabutylazanium salt as the ethanol monosolvate hemihydrate, C₁₆H₃₆N⁺·C₈H₁₂BN₄O₈^?·C₂H₅OH·0.5H₂O, and the sparteinium (7‐aza‐15‐azoniatetracyclo[7.7.1.0^2,7.0^10,15]heptadecane) salt as the ethanol monosolvate, C₁₅H₂₇N₂⁺·C₈H₁₂BN₄O₈^?·C₂H₅OH. The 2D anion layers have preserved intermolecular hydrogen bonding between the amide groups and a typical metric repeat of around 10 × 15 Å. The constraint of matching the interfacial area organizes the cations into quite different solvated arrangements, i.e. the [NEt₄] salt is highly hydrated with around 6.5H₂O per cation, the [NPr₄] salt apparently has a good metric match to the anion layer and is unsolvated, whilst the [NBu₄] salt is intermediate and has EtOH and H₂O in its cation layer, which is similar to the arrangement for the chiral [HSpa]⁺ cation. This family of salts shows highly organized chiral space and offers potential for the resolution of both chiral cations and neutral chiral solvent molecules.     

Cocrystal of the [MnIV(C2H7N5)3]4+ ion and biguanidium: a double hydrogen‐bond interaction with guanidinium‐recognizing anions

Biguanidium tris­(biguanide‐κ²N²,N⁴)­manganese(IV) hexanitrate, (C₂H₉N₅)[Mn(C₂H₇N₅)₃](NO₃)₆, is a cocrystal of the [Mn^IV(C₂H₇N₅)₃]⁴⁺ ion and biguanidium. The cocrystal exhibits a double hydrogen‐bonding interaction between the biguanide and nitrate groups, which is rarely observed in crystal structures but is proposed as a recognition mode for guanidinium‐recognizing anionic groups in biological systems. In this cocrystal structure, biguanide moieties exist both as divalent cations and as neutral mol­ecules.     

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.     

Multicomponent pharmaceutical cocrystals: furosemide and pentoxifylline

The combination of the active pharmaceutical ingredients furosemide [4‐chloro‐2‐(furan‐2‐ylmethylamino)‐5‐sulfamoylbenzoic acid] and pentoxifylline [3,7‐dimethyl‐1‐(5‐oxohexyl)‐3,7‐dihydro‐1H‐purine‐2,6‐dione] produces a 1:1 cocrystal, C₁₂H₁₁ClN₂O₅S·C₁₃H₁₈N₄O₃, (I), a 1:1 cocrystal hydrate, C₁₂H₁₁ClN₂O₅S·C₁₃H₁₈N₄O₃·H₂O, (II), and a 1:1 cocrystal acetone solvate, C₁₂H₁₁ClN₂O₅S·C₁₃H₁₈N₄O₃·C₂H₆O, (III). These structures exhibit the presence of a rarely encountered synthon with the graph set R₂²(7). All potential hydrogen‐bond donors of furosemide participate in hydrogen‐bond formation in (I)–(III). However, only two hydrogen‐bond acceptors of furosemide are active in (I) and (II), and only one is active in (III). Four hydrogen‐bond acceptors of pentoxifylline are active in (II), three in (I) and two in (III). These observations are in good agreement with the calculated packing indexes of 69.5, 69.6 and 68.8% for (II), (I) and (III), respectively.     

Cocrystals of 1,4‐diethynylbenzene with 1,3‐diacetylbenzene and benzene‐1,4‐dicarbaldehyde exhibiting strong nonconventional alkyne–carbonyl C—H…O hydrogen bonds between the components

Weak interactions between organic molecules are important in solid‐state structures where the sum of the weaker interactions support the overall three‐dimensional crystal structure. The sp‐C—H…N hydrogen‐bonding interaction is strong enough to promote the deliberate cocrystallization of a series of diynes with a series of dipyridines. It is also possible that a similar series of cocrystals could be formed between molecules containing a terminal alkyne and molecules which contain carbonyl O atoms as the potential hydrogen‐bond acceptor. I now report the crystal structure of two cocrystals that support this hypothesis. The 1:1 cocrystal of 1,4‐diethynylbenzene with 1,3‐diacetylbenzene, C₁₀H₆·C₁₀H₁₀O₂, (1), and the 1:1 cocrystal of 1,4‐diethynylbenzene with benzene‐1,4‐dicarbaldehyde, C₁₀H₆·C₈H₆O₂, (2), are presented. In both cocrystals, a strong nonconventional ethynyl–carbonyl sp‐C—H…O hydrogen bond is observed between the components. In cocrystal (1), the C—H…O hydrogen‐bond angle is 171.8 (16)° and the H…O and C…O hydrogen‐bond distances are 2.200 (19) and 3.139 (2) Å, respectively. In cocrystal (2), the C—H…O hydrogen‐bond angle is 172.5 (16)° and the H…O and C…O hydrogen‐bond distances are 2.25 (2) and 3.203 (2) Å, respectively.