Supramolecular hydrogen bonding of [5,10,15,20‐tetrakis(4‐carboxyphenyl)porphyrinato]palladium(II) in the presence of competing solvents

The title porphyrin compound forms hydrogen‐bonded adducts with methanol (1:1), [Pd(C₄₈H₂₈N₄O₈)]·CH₄O, (I), and with water and N,N‐dimethylformamide (1:4:4), [Pd(C₄₈H₂₈N₄O₈)]·4C₃H₇NO·4H₂O, (II). In (I), the metalloporphyrin unit lies across a mirror plane in Cmca, while in (II), this unit lies across an inversion center in P. Extended supramolecular hydrogen‐bonded arrays are formed in (I) by intermolecular interactions between the carboxylic acid functions, either directly or through the methanol species. These layers have a wavy topology and large interporphyrin pores, which are filled in the crystal structure by double interpenetration as well as enclathration of additional non‐interacting nitrobenzene solvent molecules. The supramolecular aggregation in (II) can be characterized by cascaded porphyrin layers, wherein adjacent porphyrin molecules are hydrogen bonded to one another through molecules of water that are incorporated into the hydrogen‐bonding scheme. Molecules of dimethylformamide partly solvate the carboxylic acid groups and fill the interporphyrin space in the crystal structure.     

Pseudopolymorphs of 2,6‐diaminopyrimidin‐4‐one and 2‐amino‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐4‐one: one or two tautomers present in the same crystal

The derivatives of pyrimidin‐4‐one can adopt either a 1H‐ or a 3H‐tautomeric form, which affects the hydrogen‐bonding interactions in cocrystals with compounds containing complementary functional groups. In order to study their tautomeric preferences, we crystallized 2,6‐diaminopyrimidin‐4‐one and 2‐amino‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐4‐one. During various crystallization attempts, four structures of 2,6‐diaminopyrimidin‐4‐one were obtained, namely solvent‐free 2,6‐diaminopyrimidin‐4‐one, C₄H₆N₄O, (I), 2,6‐diaminopyrimidin‐4‐one–dimethylformamide–water (3/4/1), C₄H₆N₄O·1.33C₃H₇NO·0.33H₂O, (Ia), 2,6‐diaminopyrimidin‐4‐one dimethylacetamide monosolvate, C₄H₆N₄O·C₄H₉NO, (Ib), and 2,6‐diaminopyrimidin‐4‐one–N‐methylpyrrolidin‐2‐one (3/2), C₄H₆N₄O·1.5C₅H₉NO, (Ic). The 2,6‐diaminopyrimidin‐4‐one molecules exist only as 3H‐tautomers. They form ribbons characterized by R²₂(8) hydrogen‐bonding interactions, which are further connected to form three‐dimensional networks. An intermolecular N—H...N interaction between amine groups is observed only in (I). This might be the reason for the pyramidalization of the amine group. Crystallization experiments on 2‐amino‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐4‐one yielded two isostructural pseudopolymorphs, namely 2‐amino‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐4(3H)‐one–2‐amino‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐4(1H)‐one–dimethylacetamide (1/1/1), C₅H₇N₃O·C₅H₇N₃O·C₄H₉NO, (IIa), and 2‐amino‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐4(3H)‐one–2‐amino‐6‐methylpyrimidin‐4(1H)‐one–N‐methylpyrrolidin‐2‐one (1/1/1), C₅H₇N₃O·C₅H₇N₃O·C₅H₉NO, (IIb). In both structures, a 1:1 mixture of 1H‐ and 3H‐tautomers is present, which are linked by three hydrogen bonds similar to a Watson–Crick C–G base pair.     

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.     

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.     

Sulfur as hydrogen‐bond acceptor in cocrystals of 2‐thio‐modified thymine

Doubly and triply hydrogen‐bonded supramolecular synthons are of particular interest for the rational design of crystal and cocrystal structures in crystal engineering since they show a high robustness due to their high stability and good reliability. The compound 5‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil (2‐thiothymine) contains an ADA hydrogen‐bonding site (A = acceptor and D = donor) if the S atom is considered as an acceptor. We report herein the results of cocrystallization experiments with the coformers 2,4‐diaminopyrimidine, 2,4‐diamino‐6‐phenyl‐1,3,5‐triazine, 6‐amino‐3H‐isocytosine and melamine, which contain complementary DAD hydrogen‐bonding sites and, therefore, should be capable of forming a mixed ADA–DAD N—H…S/N—H…N/N—H…O synthon (denoted synthon 3s_{N·S;N·N;N·O}), consisting of three different hydrogen bonds with 5‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil. The experiments yielded one cocrystal and five solvated cocrystals, namely 5‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil–2,4‐diaminopyrimidine (1/2), C₅H₆N₂OS·2C₄H₆N₄, (I), 5‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil–2,4‐diaminopyrimidine–N,N‐dimethylformamide (2/2/1), 2C₅H₆N₂OS·2C₄H₆N₄·C₃H₇NO, (II), 5‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil–2,4‐diamino‐6‐phenyl‐1,3,5‐triazine–N,N‐dimethylformamide (2/2/1), 2C₅H₆N₂OS·2C₉H₉N₅·C₃H₇NO, (III), 5‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil–6‐amino‐3H‐isocytosine–N,N‐dimethylformamide (2/2/1), (IV), 2C₅H₆N₂OS·2C₄H₆N₄O·C₃H₇NO, (IV), 5‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil–6‐amino‐3H‐isocytosine–N,N‐dimethylacetamide (2/2/1), 2C₅H₆N₂OS·2C₄H₆N₄O·C₄H₉NO, (V), and 5‐methyl‐2‐thiouracil–melamine (3/2), 3C₅H₆N₂OS·2C₃H₆N₆, (VI). Synthon 3s_{N·S;N·N;N·O} was formed in three structures in which two‐dimensional hydrogen‐bonded networks are observed, while doubly hydrogen‐bonded interactions were formed instead in the remaining three cocrystals whereby three‐dimensional networks are preferred. As desired, the S atoms are involved in hydrogen‐bonding interactions in all six structures, thus illustrating the ability of sulfur to act as a hydrogen‐bond acceptor and, therefore, its value for application in crystal engineering.     

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.     

Hydrogen‐bonded complexes of 2‐pyridone with centrosymmetric and non‐centrosymmetric dicarboxylic acids

2‐Pyridone (2‐oxo­pyrimidine) forms hydrogen‐bonded com­plexes with di­carboxyl­ic acids, the molar ratio of 2‐pyridone/di­carboxyl­ic acid being 2:1 for the complexes with oxalic acid (ethanedioic acid), 2C₅H₅NO·C₂H₂O₄, (I), and trans‐β‐hydro­muconic acid (trans‐hex‐3‐enedioic acid), 2C₅H₅NO·C₆H₈O₄, (II), and 1:1 for the complexes with trans‐glutaconic acid (trans‐pent‐2‐enedioic acid), C₅H₅NO·C₅H₆O₄, (III), and l ‐­tartaric acid (l ‐2,3‐di­hydroxy­butane­dioic acid), C₅H₅NO·C₄H₆O₆·H₂O, (IV). Common features in the hydrogen‐bonding patterns were found for the centrosymmetric and non‐centrosymmetric acids, respectively. The 2‐pyridone mol­ecule takes the lactam form in these crystals.     

Five pseudopolymorphs of 6‐amino‐2‐thiouracil: absence of N—H...S hydrogen bonds

In order to study the preferred hydrogen‐bonding pattern of 6‐amino‐2‐thiouracil, C₄H₅N₃OS, (I), crystallization experiments yielded five different pseudopolymorphs of (I), namely the dimethylformamide disolvate, C₄H₅N₃OS·2C₃H₇NO, (Ia), the dimethylacetamide monosolvate, C₄H₅N₃OS·C₄H₉NO, (Ib), the dimethylacetamide sesquisolvate, C₄H₅N₃OS·1.5C₄H₉NO, (Ic), and two different 1‐methylpyrrolidin‐2‐one sesquisolvates, C₄H₅N₃OS·1.5C₅H₉NO, (Id) and (Ie). All structures contain R₂¹(6) N—H...O hydrogen‐bond motifs. In the latter four structures, additional R₂²(8) N—H...O hydrogen‐bond motifs are present stabilizing homodimers of (I). No type of hydrogen bond other than N—H...O is observed. According to a search of the Cambridge Structural Database, most 2‐thiouracil derivatives form homodimers stabilized by an R₂²(8) hydrogen‐bonding pattern, with (i) only N—H...O, (ii) only N—H...S or (iii) alternating pairs of N—H...O and N—H...S hydrogen bonds.     

Three new olanzapine structures: the acetic acid monosolvate,and the propan‐2‐ol and propan‐2‐one hemisolvate monohydrates

The crystal structures of three new solvates of olanzapine [systematic name: 2‐methyl‐4‐(4‐methylpiperazin‐1‐yl)‐10H‐thieno[2,3‐b][1,5]benzodiazepine], namely olanzapine acetic acid monosolvate, C₁₇H₂₀N₄S·C₂H₄O₂, (I), olanzapine propan‐2‐ol hemisolvate monohydrate, C₁₇H₂₀N₄S·0.5C₃H₈O·H₂O, (II), and olanzapine propan‐2‐one hemisolvate monohydrate, C₁₇H₂₀N₄S·0.5C₃H₆O·H₂O, (III), are presented and compared with other known olanzapine forms. There is a fairly close resemblance of the molecular conformation for all studied analogues. The crystal structures are built up through olanzapine dimers, which are characterized via C—H...π interactions between the aliphatic fragment (1‐methylpiperazin‐4‐yl) and the aromatic fragment (benzene system). All solvent (guest) molecules participate in hydrogen‐bonding networks. The crystal packing is sustained via intermolecular N_host—H...O_guest, O_guest—H...N_host, O_guest—H...O_guest and C_host—H...O_guest hydrogen bonds. It should be noted that the solvent propan‐2‐ol in (II) and propan‐2‐one in (III) show orientational disorder. The propan‐2‐ol molecule lies close to a twofold axis, while the propan‐2‐one molecule resides strictly on a twofold axis through the carbonyl C atom. In both cases, the water molecules present positional disorder of the H atoms.     

Three sterically hindered 6‐amino‐5‐cyano‐2‐methyl‐4‐(1‐naphthyl)‐4H‐pyran‐3‐carboxylate derivatives

In the title compounds, 2‐methoxyethyl 6‐amino‐5‐cyano‐2‐methyl‐4‐(1‐naphthyl)‐4H‐pyran‐3‐carboxylate, C₂₁H₂₀N₂O₄, (II), isopropyl 6‐amino‐5‐cyano‐2‐methyl‐4‐(1‐naphthyl)‐4H‐pyran‐3‐carboxylate, C₂₁H₂₀N₂O₃, (III), and ethyl 6‐amino‐5‐cyano‐2‐methyl‐4‐(1‐naphthyl)‐4H‐pyran‐3‐carboxylate, C₂₀H₁₈N₂O₃, (IV), the heterocyclic pyran ring adopts a flattened boat conformation. In (II) and (III), the carbonyl group and a double bond of the heterocyclic ring are mutually anti, but in (IV) they are mutually syn. The ester O atoms in (II) and (III) and the carbonyl O atom in (IV) participate in intramolecular C—H...O contacts to form six‐membered rings. The dihedral angles between the naphthalene substituent and the closest four atoms of the heterocyclic ring are 73.3 (1), 71.0 (1) and 74.3 (1)° for (II)–(IV), respectively. In all three structures, only one H atom of the NH₂ group takes part in N—H...O [in (II) and (III)] or N—H...N [in (IV)] intermolecular hydrogen bonds, and chains [in (II) and (III)] or dimers [in (IV)] are formed. In (II), weak intermolecular C—H...O and C—H...N hydrogen bonds, and in (III) intermolecular C—H...O hydrogen bonds link the chains into ladders along the a axis.     

Three novel topologically different metal–organic frameworks built from 3‐nitro‐4‐(pyridin‐4‐yl)benzoic acid

The design and synthesis of metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) have attracted much interest due to the intriguing diversity of their architectures and topologies. However, building MOFs with different topological structures from the same ligand is still a challenge. Using 3‐nitro‐4‐(pyridin‐4‐yl)benzoic acid (HL) as a new ligand, three novel MOFs, namely poly[[(N,N‐dimethylformamide‐κO)bis[μ₂‐3‐nitro‐4‐(pyridin‐4‐yl)benzoato‐κ³O,O′:N]cadmium(II)] N,N‐dimethylformamide monosolvate methanol monosolvate], {[Cd(C₁₂H₇N₂O₄)₂(C₃H₇NO)]·C₃H₇NO·CH₃OH}_n, ( 1 ), poly[[(μ₂‐acetato‐κ²O:O′)[μ₃‐3‐nitro‐4‐(pyridin‐4‐yl)benzoato‐κ³O:O′:N]bis[μ₃‐3‐nitro‐4‐(pyridin‐4‐yl)benzoato‐κ⁴O,O′:O′:N]dicadmium(II)] N,N‐dimethylacetamide disolvate monohydrate], {[Cd₂(C₁₂H₇N₂O₄)₃(CH₃CO₂)]·2C₄H₉NO·H₂O}_n, ( 2 ), and catena‐poly[[[diaquanickel(II)]‐bis[μ₂‐3‐nitro‐4‐(pyridin‐4‐yl)benzoato‐κ²O:N]] N,N‐dimethylacetamide disolvate], {[Ni(C₁₂H₇N₂O₄)₂(H₂O)₂]·2C₄H₉NO}_n, ( 3 ), have been prepared. Single‐crystal structure analysis shows that the Cd^II atom in MOF ( 1 ) has a distorted pentagonal bipyramidal [CdN₂O₅] coordination geometry. The [CdN₂O₅] units as 4‐connected nodes are interconnected by L^? ligands to form a fourfold interpenetrating three‐dimensional (3D) framework with a dia topology. In MOF ( 2 ), there are two crystallographically different Cd^II ions showing a distorted pentagonal bipyramidal [CdNO₆] and a distorted octahedral [CdN₂O₄] coordination geometry, respectively. Two Cd^II ions are connected by three carboxylate groups to form a binuclear [Cd₂(COO)₃] cluster. Each binuclear cluster as a 6‐connected node is further linked by acetate groups and L^? ligands to produce a non‐interpenetrating 3D framework with a pcu topology. MOF ( 3 ) contains two crystallographically distinct Ni^II ions on special positions. Each Ni^II ion adopts an elongated octahedral [NiN₂O₄] geometry. Each Ni^II ion as a 4‐connected node is linked by L^? ligands to generate a two‐dimensional network with an sql topology, which is further stabilized by two types of intermolecular OW—HW…O hydrogen bonds to form a 3D supramolecular framework. MOFs ( 1 )–( 3 ) were also characterized by powder X‐ray diffraction, IR spectroscopy and thermogravimetic analysis. Furthermore, the solid‐state photoluminescence of HL and MOFs ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) have been investigated. The photoluminescence of MOFs ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) are enhanced and red‐shifted with respect to free HL. The gas adsorption investigation of MOF ( 2 ) indicates a good separation selectivity (71) of CO₂/N₂ at 273 K (i.e. the amount of CO₂ adsorption is 71 times higher than N₂ at the same pressure).     

Hydrogen‐bonded assemblies of 20‐(4‐pyridyl)porphyrin‐54,104,154‐tribenzoic acid with dimethyl sulfoxide and 4‐acetylpyridine in their dimethyl sulfoxide and tetrahydrofuran solvates

Crystals of the title compounds, 20‐(4‐pyridyl)porphyrin‐5⁴,10⁴,15⁴‐tribenzoic acid–dimethyl sulfoxide (2/5), C₄₆H₂₉N₅O₆·2.5C₂H₆OS, (I), and 20‐(4‐pyridyl)porphyrin‐5⁴,10⁴,15⁴‐tribenzoic acid–4‐acetylpyridine–tetrahydrofuran (1/2/10), C₄₆H₂₉N₅O₆·2C₇H₇NO·10C₄H₈O, (II), consist of hydrogen‐bonded supramolecular chains of porphyrin units solvated by molecules of dimethyl sulfoxide [in (I)] and 4‐acetylpyridine [in (II)]. In (I), these chains consist of heterogeneous arrays with alternating porphyrin and dimethyl sulfoxide species, being sustained by COOH...O=S hydrogen bonds. They adopt a zigzag geometry and link on both sides to additional molecules of dimethyl sulfoxide. In (II), the chains consist of homogeneous linear supramolecular arrays of porphyrin units, which are directly connected to one another via COOH...N(pyridyl) hydrogen bonds. As in the previous case, these arrays are solvated on both sides by molecules of the 4‐acetylpyridine ligand via similar COOH(porphyrin)...N(ligand) hydrogen bonds. The two crystal structures contain wide interporphyrin voids, which accommodate disordered/diffused solvent molecules, viz. dimethyl sulfoxide in (I) and tetrahydrofuran in (II).     

Supramolecular aggregation in three 4‐aryl‐6‐(1H‐indol‐3‐yl)‐3‐methyl‐1‐phenyl‐1H‐pyrazolo[3,4‐b]pyridine‐5‐carbonitriles

Both 6‐(1H‐indol‐3‐yl)‐3‐methyl‐4‐(4‐methylphenyl)‐1‐phenyl‐1H‐pyrazolo[3,4‐b]pyridine‐5‐carbonitrile and 6‐(1H‐indol‐3‐yl)‐3‐methyl‐4‐(4‐methoxyphenyl)‐1‐phenyl‐1H‐pyrazolo[3,4‐b]pyridine‐5‐carbonitrile crystallize from dimethylformamide solutions as stoichiometric 1:1 solvates, viz. C₂₉H₂₁N₅·C₃H₇NO, (I), and C₂₉H₂₁N₅O·C₃H₇NO, (II), respectively; however, 6‐(1H‐indol‐3‐yl)‐3‐methyl‐1‐phenyl‐4‐(3,4,5‐trimethoxyphenyl)‐1H‐pyrazolo[3,4‐b]pyridine‐5‐carbonitrile, C₃₁H₂₅N₅O₃, (III), crystallizes in the unsolvated form. The heterocyclic components of (I) are linked by C—H...π(arene) hydrogen bonds to form cyclic centrosymmetric dimers, from which the solvent molecules are pendent, linked by N—H...O hydrogen bonds. In (II), the heterocyclic components are linked by a combination of C—H...N and C—H...π(arene) hydrogen bonds into chains containing two types of centrosymmetric ring, and the pendent solvent molecules are linked to these chains by N—H...O hydrogen bonds. Molecules of (III) are linked into simple C(12) chains by an N—H...O hydrogen bond, and these chains are weakly linked into pairs by an aromatic π–π stacking interaction.     

Red,orange and yellow crystals of 4,5‐­bis(4‐methoxy­phenyl)‐2‐(3‐nitro­phenyl)‐1H‐imidazole

Red non‐solvate crystals of the title compound from ethanol, C₂₃H₁₉N₃O₄, orange solvate crystals from tert‐butanol, C₂₃H₁₉N₃O₄·C₄H₁₀O, yellow solvate crystals from dioxane–water, C₂₃H₁₉N₃O₄·0.5C₄H₈O₂, and intense yellow solvate crystals from benzene–N,N′‐dimethylformamide, C₂₃H₁₉N₃O₄·C₆H₆, differ from each other in their molecular conformation and hydrogen‐bonding scheme. The bathochromic shifts of the crystal color are explained by the molecular planarity and charge‐transfer effect among the imidazole mol­ecules.     

A new two‐dimensional ZnII coordination polymer constructed by a multidentate N‐heterocyclic ligand and 5‐carboxybenzene‐1,3‐dicarboxylate

In the coordination polymer, poly[[{μ‐1‐[(1H‐benzimidazol‐2‐yl)methyl]‐1H‐imidazole‐κ²N:N′}(μ‐5‐carboxybenzene‐1,3‐dicarboxylato‐κ²O¹:O³)zinc(II)] dimethylformamide monosolvate pentahydrate], {[Zn(C₉H₄O₆)(C₁₁H₁₀N₄)]·C₃H₇NO·5H₂O}_n, the Zn^II ion is coordinated by two N atoms from two symmetry‐related 1‐[(1H‐benzimidazol‐2‐yl)methyl]‐1H‐imidazole (bmi) ligands and two O atoms from two symmetry‐related 5‐carboxybenzene‐1,3‐dicarboxylate (Hbtc²⁻) ligands in a slightly distorted tetrahedral geometry. The Zn^II ions are bridged by Hbtc²⁻ and bmi ligands, leading to a 4‐connected two‐dimensional network with the topological notation (4⁴.6²). Adjacent layers are further connected by 12 kinds of hydrogen bonds and also by π–π interactions, resulting in a three‐dimensional supramolecular architecture in the solid state.     

Brucinium 3,5‐dinitro­benzoate methanol solvate,methanol disolvate and trihydrate

Crystals of brucinium 3,5‐dinitro­benzoate methanol solvate, C₂₃H₂₇N₂O₄⁺·C₇H₃N₂O₆⁻·CH₃OH, (I), brucinium 3,5‐dinitro­benzoate methanol disolvate, C₂₃H₂₇N₂O₄⁺·C₇H₃N₂O₆⁻·2CH₃OH, (II), and brucinium 3,5‐dinitro­benzoate trihydrate, C₂₃H₂₇N₂O₄⁺·C₇H₃N₂O₆⁻·3H₂O, (III), were obtained from methanol [for (I) and (II)] or ethanol solutions [for (III)]. The brucinium cations and 3,5‐dinitro­benzoate anions are linked by ionic N—H⁺⋯O⁻ hydrogen bonds. In the crystals of (I), (II) and (III), the brucinium cations exhibit different modes of packing, viz. corrugated ribbons, pillars and corrugated monolayer sheets, respectively. While in (III), the amide O atom of the brucinium cation participates in O—H⋯O hydrogen bonds, in which water mol­ecules are the donors, in (I) and (II), the amide O atom of the brucinium cation is involved in weak C—H⋯O hydrogen bonds and other brucinium cations are the donors.     

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).     

Four N7‐benzyl‐substituted 4,5,6,7‐tetrahydro‐1H‐pyrazolo[3,4‐b]pyridine‐5‐spiro‐1′‐cyclohexane‐2′,6′‐diones as ethanol hemisolvates: similar molecular constitutions but different crystal structures

3‐tert‐Butyl‐7‐(4‐chlorobenzyl)‐4′,4′‐dimethyl‐1‐phenyl‐4,5,6,7‐tetrahydro‐1H‐pyrazolo[3,4‐b]pyridine‐5‐spiro‐1′‐cyclohexane‐2′,6′‐dione ethanol hemisolvate, C₃₀H₃₄ClN₃O₂·0.5C₂H₆O, (I), its 7‐(4‐bromobenzyl)‐ analogue, C₃₀H₃₄BrN₃O₂·0.5C₂H₆O, (II), and its 7‐(4‐methylbenzyl)‐ analogue, C₃₁H₃₇N₃O₂·0.5C₂H₆O, (III), are isomorphous, with the ethanol component disordered across a twofold rotation axis in the space group C2/c. In the corresponding 7‐[4‐(trifluoromethyl)benzyl]‐ compound, C₃₁H₃₄F₃N₃O₂·0.5C₂H₆O, (IV), the ethanol component is disordered across a centre of inversion in the space group P. In each of (I)–(IV), the reduced pyridine ring adopts a half‐chair conformation. The heterocyclic components in (I)–(III) are linked into centrosymmetric dimers by a single C—H...π interaction, with the half‐occupancy ethanol component linked to the dimer by a combination of C—H...O and O—H...π(arene) hydrogen bonds. The heterocyclic molecules in (IV) are linked into chains of centrosymmetric rings by C—H...O and C—H...π hydrogen bonds, again with the half‐occupancy ethanol component pendent from the chain. The significance of this study lies in the isomorphism of the related derivatives (I)–(III), in the stoichiometric hemisolvation by ethanol, where the disordered solvent molecule is linked to the heterocyclic component by a two‐point linkage, and in the differences between the crystal structures of (I)–(III) and that of (IV).     

A one‐dimensional coordination polymer of 5‐[(imidazol‐1‐yl)methyl]benzene‐1,3‐dicarboxylic acid with CuII cations

5‐[(Imidazol‐1‐yl)methyl]benzene‐1,3‐dicarboxylic acid (H₂L) was synthesized and the dimethylformamide‐ and dimethylacetamide‐solvated structures of its adducts with Cu^II, namely catena‐poly[[copper(II)‐bis[μ‐3‐carboxy‐5‐[(imidazol‐1‐yl)methyl]benzoato]] dimethylformamide disolvate], {[Cu(C₁₂H₉N₂O₄)₂]·2C₃H₇NO}_n, (I), and catena‐poly[[copper(II)‐bis[μ‐3‐carboxy‐5‐[(imidazol‐1‐yl)methyl]benzoato]] dimethylacetamide disolvate], {[Cu(C₁₂H₉N₂O₄)₂]·2C₄H₉NO}_n, (II), the formation of which are associated with mono‐deprotonation of H₂L. The two structures are isomorphous and isometric. They consist of one‐dimensional coordination polymers of the organic ligand with Cu^II in a 2:1 ratio, [Cu(μ‐HL)₂]_n, crystallizing as the dimethylformamide (DMF) or dimethylacetamide (DMA) disolvates. The Cu^II cations are characterized by a coordination number of six, being located on centres of crystallographic inversion. In the polymeric chains, each Cu^II cation is linked to four neighbouring HL⁻ ligands, and the organic ligand is coordinated via Cu—O and Cu—N bonds to two Cu^II cations. In the corresponding crystal structures of (I) and (II), the coordination chains, aligned parallel to the c axis, are further interlinked by strong hydrogen bonds between the noncoordinated carboxy groups in one array and the coordinated carboxylate groups of neighbouring chains. Molecules of DMF and DMA (disordered) are accommodated at the interface between adjacent polymeric assemblies. This report provides the first structural evidence for the formation of coordination polymers with H₂Lvia multiple metal–ligand bonds through both carboxylate and imidazole groups.     

Three‐dimensional networks in bis(imidazolium) 2,2′‐dithiodibenzoate and 4‐methylimidazolium 2‐[(2‐carboxyphenyl)disulfanyl]benzoate

Cocrystallization of imidazole or 4‐methylimidazole with 2,2′‐dithiodibenzoic acid from methanol solution yields the title 2:1 and 1:1 organic salts, 2C₃H₅N₂⁺·C₁₄H₁₀O₄S₂²⁻, (I), and C₄H₇N₂⁺·C₁₄H₁₀O₄S₂⁻, (II), respectively. Compound (I) crystallizes in the monoclinic C2/c space group with the mid‐point of the S—S bond lying on a twofold axis. The component ions in (I) are linked by intermolecular N—H...O hydrogen bonds to form a two‐dimensional network, which is further linked by C—H...O hydrogen bonds into a three‐dimensional network. In contrast, by means of N—H...O, N—H...S and O—H...O hydrogen bonds, the component ions in (II) are linked into a tape and adjacent tapes are further linked by π–π, C—H...O and C—H...π interactions, resulting in a three‐dimensional network.