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.     

A 1:1 cocrystal of fluconazole with salicylic acid

The interaction of the antifungal pharmaceutical agent fluconazole with salicylic acid in acetonitrile solution yields the 1:1 cocrystal 2‐(2,4‐difluorophenyl)‐1,3‐bis(1H‐1,2,4‐triazol‐1‐yl)propan‐2‐ol–2‐hydroxybenzoic acid (1/1), C₁₃H₁₂F₂N₆O·C₇H₆O₃. The asymmetric unit consists of one molecule of fluconazole and one molecule of salicylic acid, both in their neutral forms. Both crystal agents form head‐to‐tail hydrogen‐bonded dimers, which are further connected into hydrogen‐bonded extended zigzag tapes propagating along the ac diagonal.     

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).     

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.     

Multicomponent solid forms of the uric acid reabsorption inhibitor lesinurad and cocrystal polymorphs with urea: DFT simulation and solubility study

Lesinurad (systematic name: 2‐{[5‐bromo‐4‐(4‐cyclopropylnaphthalen‐1‐yl)‐4H‐1,2,4‐triazol‐3‐yl]sulfanyl}acetic acid, C₁₇H₁₄BrN₃O₂S) is a selective uric acid reabsorption inhibitor related to gout, which exhibits poor aqueous solubility. High‐throughput solid‐form screening was performed to screen for new solid forms with improved pharmaceutically relevant properties. During polymorph screening, we obtained two solvates with methanol (CH₃OH) and ethanol (C₂H₅OH). Binary systems with caffeine (systematic name: 3,7‐dihydro‐1,3,7‐trimethyl‐1H‐purine‐2,6‐dione, C₈H₁₀N₄O₂) and nicotinamide (C₆H₆N₂O), polymorphs with urea (CH₄N₂O) and eutectics with similar drugs, like allopurinol and febuxostat, were prepared using the crystal engineering approach. All these novel solid forms were confirmed by XRD, DSC and FT–IR. The crystal structures were solved by single‐crystal and powder X‐ray diffraction. The crystal structures indicate that the lesinurad molecule is highly flexible and the triazole moiety, along with the rotatable thioacetic acid (side chain) and cyclopropane ring, is almost perpendicular to the planar naphthalene moiety. The carboxylic acid–triazole heterosynthon in the drug is interrupted by the presence of methanol and ethanol molecules in their crystal structures and forms intermolecular macrocyclic rings. The caffeine cocrystal maintains the consistency of the acid–triazole heterosynthons as in the drug and, in addition, they are bound by several auxiliary interactions. In the binary system of nicotinamide and urea, the acid–triazole heterosynthon is replaced by an acid–amide synthon. Among the urea cocrystal polymorphs, Form I (P, 1:1) consists of an acid–amide (urea) heterodimer, whereas in Form II (P2₁/c, 2:2), both acid–amide heterosynthons and urea–urea dimers co‐exist. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations further support the experimentally observed synthon hierarchies in the cocrystals. Aqueous solubility experiments of lesinurad and its binary solids in pH 5 acetate buffer medium indicate the apparent solubility order lesinurad–urea Form I (43‐fold) > lesinurad–caffeine (20‐fold) > lesinurad–allopurinol (12‐fold) ? lesinurad–nicotinamide (11‐fold) > lesinurad, and this order is correlated with the crystal structures.     

Cocrystals of 2,6‐dichloroaniline and 2,6‐dichlorophenol plus three new pseudopolymorphs of their coformers

The structures of cocrystals of 2,6‐dichlorophenol with 2,4‐diamino‐6‐methyl‐1,3,5‐triazine, C₆H₄Cl₂O·C₄H₇N₅, (III), and 2,6‐dichloroaniline with 2,6‐diaminopyrimidin‐4(3H)‐one and N,N‐dimethylacetamide, C₆H₅Cl₂N·C₄H₆N₄O·C₄H₉NO, (V), plus three new pseudopolymorphs of their coformers, namely 2,4‐diamino‐6‐methyl‐1,3,5‐triazine–N,N‐dimethylacetamide (1/1), C₄H₇N₅·C₄H₉NO, (I), 2,4‐diamino‐6‐methyl‐1,3,5‐triazine–N‐methylpyrrolidin‐2‐one (1/1), C₄H₇N₅·C₅H₉NO, (II), and 6‐aminoisocytosine–N‐methylpyrrolidin‐2‐one (1/1), C₄H₆N₄O·C₅H₉NO, (IV), are reported. Both 2,6‐dichlorophenol and 2,6‐dichloroaniline are capable of forming definite synthon motifs, which usually lead to either two‐ or three‐dimensional crystal‐packing arrangements. Thus, the two isomorphous pseudopolymorphs of 2,4‐diamino‐6‐methyl‐1,3,5‐triazine, i.e. (I) and (II), form a three‐dimensional network, while the N‐methylpyrrolidin‐2‐one solvate of 6‐aminoisocytosine, i.e. (IV), displays two‐dimensional layers. On the basis of these results, attempts to cocrystallize 2,6‐dichlorophenol with 2,4‐diamino‐6‐methyl‐1,3,5‐triazine, (III), and 2,6‐dichloroaniline with 6‐aminoisocytosine, (V), yielded two‐dimensional networks, whereby in cocrystal (III) the overall structure is a consequence of the interaction between the two compounds. By comparison, cocrystal–solvate (V) is mainly built by 6‐aminoisocytosine forming layers, with 2,6‐dichloroaniline and the solvent molecules arranged between the layers.     

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.     

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.     

The cocrystal nicotinamide–succinic acid (2/1)

In the asymmetric unit of the crystal structure of nicotinamide–succinic acid (2/1), 2C₆H₆N₂O·C₄H₆O₄, there are two independent nicotinamide molecules in general positions and two half succinic acid molecules which lie about inversion centres. The structure contains acid–pyridine and amide–amide synthons with nicotinamide molecules forming ladders of alternating R₂²(8) and R₄²(8) rings linked through succinic acid to generate a corrugated hydrogen‐bonded sheet. This sheet is a common supramolecular unit found in other 2:1 nicotinamide–dicarboxylic acid cocrystals, but the presence of two crystallographically distinct nicotinamides with anti and syn conformations, forming two distinct sheets within the same structure, is a novel packing feature in this type of material.     

trans‐Chlorido(phenyl)bis(triphenylphosphine)nickel(II) and its 1:1 cocrystal with chloridobis(triphenylphosphine)nickel(I)

Two conformational polymorphs of trans‐chlorido(phenyl)bis(triphenylphosphine)nickel(II), [Ni(C₆H₅)Cl(C₁₈H₁₅P)₂], (1), viz. orange needle‐shaped crystals (form I) and brown prism‐shaped crystals (form II), were obtained under different crystallization conditions from a mixture of toluene and n‐hexane, and characterized by single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction at low temperature. These two forms were compared with that published previously [Zeller, Herdtweck & Strassner (2003). Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. pp. 1802–1806], characterized at room temperature. Additionally, blue–green prisms of a 1:1 cocrystal of complex (1) with chloridobis(triphenylphosphine)nickel(I), (2), viz.trans‐chlorido(phenyl)bis(triphenylphosphine)nickel(II)–chloridobis(triphenylphosphine)nickel(I) (1/1), [Ni(C₆H₅)Cl(C₁₈H₁₅P)₂]·[NiCl(C₁₈H₁₅P)₂], (3), were obtained concomitantly with form I. In forms I and II, as well as in the cocrystal, the overall crystal packings are determined by an energetic interplay between intramolecular torsions and weak intermolecular C—H...π and C—H...Cl interactions.     

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.     

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.     

Hydrogen‐bonded zigzag chains in 2,2′‐dithiodibenzoic acid–1,3‐di‐4‐pyridylpropane (1/1)

The title 1:1 cocrystal, C₁₄H₁₀O₄S₂·C₁₃H₁₄N₂ or H₂L·bpp, has the two components connected by O—H...N hydrogen bonds to generate a one‐dimensional zigzag chain running along the crystallographic a direction. These chains are further stacked into a three‐dimensional supramolecular network by weak C—H...O and C—H...π contacts. Comparison of the structural differences with previous findings suggests that deprotonated forms, hydrogen‐bonding sites and flexible ligand conformations become significant factors that influence the topological arrangement and binding stoichiometry of the resulting cocrystals.     

Cocrystals of 6‐propyl‐2‐thiouracil: N—H...O versus N—H...S hydrogen bonds

In order to investigate the relative stability of N—H...O and N—H...S hydrogen bonds, we cocrystallized the antithyroid drug 6‐propyl‐2‐thiouracil with two complementary heterocycles. In the cocrystal pyrimidin‐2‐amine–6‐propyl‐2‐thiouracil (1/2), C₄H₅N₃·2C₇H₁₀N₂OS, (I), the `base pair' is connected by one N—H...S and one N—H...N hydrogen bond. Homodimers of 6‐propyl‐2‐thiouracil linked by two N—H...S hydrogen bonds are observed in the cocrystal N‐(6‐acetamidopyridin‐2‐yl)acetamide–6‐propyl‐2‐thiouracil (1/2), C₉H₁₁N₃O₂·2C₇H₁₀N₂OS, (II). The crystal structure of 6‐propyl‐2‐thiouracil itself, C₇H₁₀N₂OS, (III), is stabilized by pairwise N—H...O and N—H...S hydrogen bonds. In all three structures, N—H...S hydrogen bonds occur only within R₂²(8) patterns, whereas N—H...O hydrogen bonds tend to connect the homo‐ and heterodimers into extended networks. In agreement with related structures, the hydrogen‐bonding capability of C=O and C=S groups seems to be comparable.     

Hydrogen‐bonded sheets in the 1:1 cocrystal of biphenyl‐4,4′‐dicarboxylic acid with 2,5‐di‐4‐pyrid­yl‐1,3,4‐oxadiazole

The combination of biphenyl‐4,4′‐dicarboxylic acid (H₂bpa) and the bent dipyridyl base 2,5‐di‐4‐pyridyl‐1,3,4‐oxadiazole (4‐bpo) in a 1:1 molar ratio leads to the formation of the mol­ecular cocrystal (H₂bpa)·(4‐bpo) or C₁₄H₁₀O₄·C₁₂H₈N₄O. The asymmetric unit contains one‐half of an H₂bpa unit lying across a centre of inversion and one‐half of a 4‐bpo mol­ecule lying across a twofold rotation axis. Inter­molecular O—H⋯N inter­actions connect the acid and base mol­ecules to form a one‐dimensional zigzag chain. Through further weak C—H⋯O hydrogen bonds between adjacent chains, a two‐dimensional sheet‐like supramolecular network is afforded. As an extended analogue of terephthalic acid (H₂tp), the backbone geometry of H₂bpa has an evident influence on the hydrogen‐bonding pattern of the title cocrystal compared with that of (H₂tp)·(4‐bpo).     

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.     

Crystal structures,thermal stabilities,and dissolution behaviours of tinidazole and the tinidazole–vanillic acid cocrystal: insights from energy frameworks

The crystal structures of the antimicrobial drug tinidazole [ TNZ ; systematic name: 1‐(2‐ethylsulfonylethyl)‐2‐methyl‐5‐nitroimidazole, C₈H₁₃N₃O₄S] and the 1:1 cocrystal of TNZ with the naturally occurring compound vanillic acid ( VA ; systematic name: 4‐hydroxy‐3‐methoxybenzoic acid, C₈H₈O₄), namely, the TNZ – VA cocrystal, were determined by single‐crystal X‐ray analysis at 100 K. The supramolecular structure of the TNZ – VA cocrystal is composed of a carboxylic acid dimer and an O—H…N(heterocycle) synthon in the form of layers made up of O—H…N and O—H…O hydrogen bonds. The layers are joined via C—H…O hydrogen bonds, π–π stacking and C—H…π interactions. The energy framework analysis, together with interaction energy calculations using the DLPNO‐CCSD(T) method, indicates that the TNZ – VA cocrystal inherits strong interactions from the TNZ and VA crystals, which accounts for the enhanced thermal stability and reduced dissolution rate. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first example of a cocrystal containing TNZ .     

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.     

A 2:1 sulfamethazine–theophylline cocrystal exhibiting two tautomers of sulfamethazine

In the title cocrystal, 4‐amino‐N‐(4,6‐dimethylpyrimidin‐2‐yl)benzenesulfonamide–4‐amino‐N‐(4,6‐dimethyl‐1,2‐dihydropyrimidin‐2‐ylidene)benzenesulfonamide–1,3‐dimethyl‐7H‐purine‐2,6‐dione (1/1/1), C₇H₈N₄O₂·2C₁₂H₁₄N₄O₂S, two sulfamethazine molecules cocrystallize with a single molecule of theophylline. Each molecule of sulfamethazine forms a hydrogen‐bonded ribbon along the b axis crosslinked by further hydrogen bonding. The two sulfamethazine molecules exhibit a hydrogen‐shift isomerization so that the crystal structure contains both tautomeric forms. Calculation of their relative energies showed that the tautomer protonated at the chain N atom is considerably more stable than the one where an N atom in the aromatic ring is protonated. The latter, here observed for the first time, is stabilized through strong intermolecular interactions with the theophylline molecules.     

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.