Three 2‐amino­purine derivatives

The structure of 2‐amino‐6‐chloro­purine, C₅H₄ClN₅, (I), comprises a flat mol­ecule, with all possible strong hydrogen‐bond donors and acceptors involved in the hydrogen‐bonding network. The structures of 2‐amino‐6‐(4‐chloro­phenylsulfanyl)­purine hemihydrate, C₁₁H₈ClN₅S·0.5H₂O, (II), and 2‐amino‐6‐(4‐methylphenylsulfanyl)purine 0.33‐hydrate, C₁₂H₁₁N₅S·0.33H₂O, (III), have two and three unique mol­ecules, respectively, and one water mol­ecule in their asymmetric units. Both (II) and (III) exhibit elaborate hydrogen‐bonding networks that involve the S (for both) and Cl [for (II)] atoms in addition to the expected strong hydrogen‐bonding sites. Both structures also have offset‐stacking formations of the phenyl and purine rings.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

1‐(7‐Chloro‐1,4‐dihydroquinolin‐4‐ylidene)thiosemicarbazide and its hydrochloride: evidence for the existence of a stable imine tautomer in the solid state of 4‐aminoquinoline free bases,an anomalous case in nitrogen heterocycles

In the solid state, crystals of both 1‐(7‐chloro‐1,4‐dihydroquinolin‐4‐ylidene)thiosemicarbazide–methanol–water (2/1/1), 2C₁₀H₉ClN₄S·CH₃OH·H₂O, (I), and its hydrochloride salt {systematic name: [(7‐chloro‐1,4‐dihydroquinolin‐4‐ylidene)azaniumyl]thiourea chloride}, C₁₀H₁₀ClN₄S⁺·Cl⁻, (II), assume the imine tautomeric form, contrary to other 4‐amino‐7‐chloroquinolines. Of particular interest are the N—C bond lengths, which have appreciable double‐bond character, and the C—N—C aromatic ring bond angle. Both of these parameters have been studied extensively in 4‐amino‐substituted quinolines. The crystal structures of (I) and (II) in this study provide interesting examples of the amino–imino tautomerism which exists in this class of compound and is, to the best of our knowledge, hitherto unreported.     

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.     

Supramolecular hydrogen‐bonding patterns in salts of the antifolate drugs trimethoprim and pyrimethamine

Nine salts of the antifolate drugs trimethoprim and pyrimethamine, namely, trimethoprimium [or 2,4‐diamino‐5‐(3,4,5‐trimethoxybenzyl)pyrimidin‐1‐ium] 2,5‐dichlorothiophene‐3‐carboxylate monohydrate (TMPDCTPC, 1:1), C₁₄H₁₉N₄O₃⁺·C₅HCl₂O₂S⁻, ( I ), trimethoprimium 3‐bromothiophene‐2‐carboxylate monohydrate, (TMPBTPC, 1:1:1), C₁₄H₁₉N₄O₃⁺·C₅H₂BrO₂S⁻·H₂O, ( II ), trimethoprimium 3‐chlorothiophene‐2‐carboxylate monohydrate (TMPCTPC, 1:1:1), C₁₄H₁₉N₄O₃⁺·C₅H₂ClO₂S⁻·H₂O, ( III ), trimethoprimium 5‐methylthiophene‐2‐carboxylate monohydrate (TMPMTPC, 1:1:1), C₁₄H₁₉N₄O₃⁺·C₆H₅O₂S⁻·H₂O, ( IV ), trimethoprimium anthracene‐9‐carboxylate sesquihydrate (TMPAC, 2:2:3), C₁₄H₁₉N₄O₃⁺·C₁₅H₉O₂⁻·1.5H₂O, ( V ), pyrimethaminium [or 2,4‐diamino‐5‐(4‐chlorophenyl)‐6‐ethylpyrimidin‐1‐ium] 2,5‐dichlorothiophene‐3‐carboxylate (PMNDCTPC, 1:1), C₁₂H₁₄ClN₄⁺·C₅HCl₂O₂S⁻, ( VI ), pyrimethaminium 5‐bromothiophene‐2‐carboxylate (PMNBTPC, 1:1), C₁₂H₁₄ClN₄⁺·C₅H₂BrO₂S⁻, ( VII ), pyrimethaminium anthracene‐9‐carboxylate ethanol monosolvate monohydrate (PMNAC, 1:1:1:1), C₁₂H₁₄ClN₄⁺·C₁₅H₉O₂⁻·C₂H₅OH·H₂O, ( VIII ), and bis(pyrimethaminium) naphthalene‐1,5‐disulfonate (PMNNSA, 2:1), 2C₁₂H₁₄ClN₄⁺·C₁₀H₆O₆S₂²⁻, ( IX ), have been prepared and characterized by single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction. In all the crystal structures, the pyrimidine N1 atom is protonated. In salts ( I )–( III ) and ( VI )–( IX ), the 2‐aminopyrimidinium cation interacts with the corresponding anion via a pair of N—H…O hydrogen bonds, generating the robust R₂²(8) supramolecular heterosynthon. In salt ( IV ), instead of forming the R₂²(8) heterosynthon, the carboxylate group bridges two pyrimidinium cations via N—H…O hydrogen bonds. In salt ( V ), one of the carboxylate O atoms bridges the N1—H group and a 2‐amino H atom of the pyrimidinium cation to form a smaller R₂¹(6) ring instead of the R₂²(8) ring. In salt ( IX ), the sulfonate O atoms mimic the role of carboxylate O atoms in forming an R₂²(8) ring motif. In salts ( II )–( IX ), the pyrimidinium cation forms base pairs via a pair of N—H…N hydrogen bonds, generating a ring motif [R₂²(8) homosynthon]. Compounds ( II ) and ( III ) are isomorphous. The quadruple DDAA (D = hydrogen‐bond donor and A = hydrogen‐bond acceptor) array is observed in ( I ). In salts ( II )–( IV ) and ( VI )–( IX ), quadruple DADA arrays are present. In salts ( VI ) and ( VII ), both DADA and DDAA arrays co‐exist. The crystal structures are further stabilized by π–π stacking interactions [in ( I ), ( V ) and ( VII )–( IX )], C—H…π interactions [in ( IV )–( V ) and ( VII )–( IX )], C—Br…π interactions [in ( II )] and C—Cl…π interactions [in ( I ), ( III ) and ( VI )]. Cl…O and Cl…Cl halogen‐bond interactions are present in ( I ) and ( VI ), with distances and angles of 3.0020 (18) and 3.5159 (16) Å, and 165.56 (10) and 154.81 (11)°, respectively.     

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.     

2‐Pyridone–tartronic acid (1/1), 3‐hydroxy­pyridinium hydrogen tartronate and 4‐hydroxy­pyridinium hydrogen tartronate

Tartronic acid forms a hydrogen‐bonded complex, C₅H₅NO·C₃H₄O₅, (I), with 2‐pyridone, while it forms acid salts, namely 3‐hydroxy­pyridinium hydrogen tartronate, (II), and 4‐hy­droxy­pyridinium hydrogen tartronate, (III), both C₅H₆NO⁺·C₃H₃O₅⁻, with 3‐hydroxy­pyridine and 4‐hydroxy­pyridine, respectively. In (I), the pyridone mol­ecules and the acid mol­ecules form R(8) and R(10) hydrogen‐bonded rings, respectively, around the inversion centres. In (II) and (III), the cations and anions are linked by N—H⋯O and O—H⋯O hydrogen bonds to form a hydrogen‐bonded chain. In each of (I), (II) and (III), an intermolecular hydrogen bond is formed between a carboxyl group and the hydroxyl group attached to the central C atom, and in (I), the hydroxyl group participates in an intramolecular hydrogen bond with a carbonyl group. No intermolecular hydrogen bond is formed between the carboxyl groups in (I), or between the carboxyl and carboxyl­ate groups in (II) and (III).     

Hydrogen‐bonded structures of the 1:1 and 1:2 compounds of chloranilic acid with pyrrolidin‐2‐one and piperidin‐2‐one

In the four compounds of chloranilic acid (2,5‐dichloro‐3,6‐dihydroxycyclohexa‐2,5‐diene‐1,4‐dione) with pyrrolidin‐2‐one and piperidin‐2‐one, namely, chloranilic acid–pyrrolidin‐2‐one (1/1), C₆H₂Cl₂O₄·C₄H₇NO, (I), chloranilic acid–pyrrolidin‐2‐one (1/2), C₆H₂Cl₂O₄·2C₄H₇NO, (II), chloranilic acid–piperidin‐2‐one (1/1), C₆H₂Cl₂O₄·C₅H₉NO, (III), and chloranilic acid–piperidin‐2‐one (1/2), C₆H₂Cl₂O₄·2C₅H₉NO, (IV), the shortest interactions between the two components are O—H...O hydrogen bonds, which act as the primary intermolecular interaction in the crystal structures. In (II), (III) and (IV), the chloranilic acid molecules lie about inversion centres. For (III), this necessitates the presence of two independent acid molecules. In (I), there are two formula units in the asymmetric unit. The O...O distances are 2.4728 (11) and 2.4978 (11) Å in (I), 2.5845 (11) Å in (II), 2.6223 (11) and 2.5909 (10) Å in (III), and 2.4484 (10) Å in (IV). In the hydrogen bond of (IV), the H atom is disordered over two positions with site occupancies of 0.44 (3) and 0.56 (3). This indicates that proton transfer between the acid and base has partly taken place to form ion pairs. In (I) and (II), N—H...O hydrogen bonds, the secondary intermolecular interactions, connect the pyrrolidin‐2‐one molecules into a dimer, while in (III) and (IV) these hydrogen bonds link the acid and base to afford three‐ and two‐dimensional hydrogen‐bonded networks, respectively.     

Comparison of the hydrogen‐bond patterns in 2‐amino‐1,3,4‐thiadiazolium hydrogen oxalate, 2‐amino‐1,3,4‐thiadiazole–succinic acid (1/2), 2‐amino‐1,3,4‐thiadiazole–glutaric acid (1/1) and 2‐amino‐1,3,4‐thiadiazole–adipic acid (1/1)

The X‐ray single‐crystal structure determinations of the chemically related compounds 2‐amino‐1,3,4‐thiadiazolium hydrogen oxalate, C₂H₄N₃S⁺·C₂HO₄⁻, (I), 2‐amino‐1,3,4‐thiadiazole–succinic acid (1/2), C₂H₃N₃S·2C₄H₆O₄, (II), 2‐amino‐1,3,4‐thiadiazole–glutaric acid (1/1), C₂H₃N₃S·C₅H₈O₄, (III), and 2‐amino‐1,3,4‐thiadiazole–adipic acid (1/1), C₂H₃N₃S·C₆H₁₀O₄, (IV), are reported and their hydrogen‐bonding patterns are compared. The hydrogen bonds are of the types N—H...O or O—H...N and are of moderate strength. In some cases, weak C—H...O interactions are also present. Compound (II) differs from the others not only in the molar ratio of base and acid (1:2), but also in its hydrogen‐bonding pattern, which is based on chain motifs. In (I), (III) and (IV), the most prominent feature is the presence of an R₂²(8) graph‐set motif formed by N—H...O and O—H...N hydrogen bonds, which are present in all structures except for (I), where only a pair of N—H...O hydrogen bonds is present, in agreement with the greater acidity of oxalic acid. There are nonbonding S...O interactions present in all four structures. The difference electron‐density maps show a lack of electron density about the S atom along the S...O vector. In all four structures, the carboxylic acid H atoms are present in a rare configuration with a C—C—O—H torsion angle of ∼0°. In the structures of (II)–(IV), the C—C—O—H torsion angle of the second carboxylic acid group has the more common value of ∼|180|°. The dicarboxylic acid molecules are situated on crystallographic inversion centres in (II). The Raman and IR spectra of the title compounds are presented and analysed.     

A new solvate of furosemide with dimethylacetamide

The loop diuretic furosemide is used widely in the treatment of congestive heart failure and edema, and is practically insoluble in water. The physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of drugs can be modified by preparing the drug in an appropriate solid‐state form. A new solvate of furosemide with dimethylacetamide (DMA) {systematic name: 4‐chloro‐2‐[(furan‐2‐yl)methylamino]‐5‐sulfamoylbenzoic acid N,N‐dimethylacetamide disolvate}, C₁₂H₁₁ClN₂O₅S·2C₄H₉NO, (I), is reported. The channeled structure formed on slow crystallization contains DMA solvent molecules in its channels. This structure adds to the evidence of varied conformations observed across all known structures, so supporting the idea that this flexible molecule has conformational lability. The current structure also differs from those of other previously known furosemide solvates in the number of solvent molecules per furosemide molecule, viz. 2:1 instead of 1:1. Desolvation of (I) gives the most stable form of furosemide, i.e. Form I.     

Solvates of zafirlukast

The crystal structures of three solvates of zafirlukast [systematic name: cyclopentyl N‐{1‐methyl‐3‐[2‐methyl‐4‐(o‐tolylsulfonylaminocarbonyl)benzyl]‐1H‐indol‐5‐yl}carbamate], viz. the monohydrate, C₃₁H₃₃N₃O₆S·H₂O, (I), the methanol solvate, C₃₁H₃₃N₃O₆S·CH₃OH, (II), and the ethanol solvate, C₃₁H₃₃N₃O₆S·C₂H₅OH, (III), have been determined by single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction analysis. All three compounds crystallize in the monoclinic crystal system. Zafirlukast adopts a similar Z‐shaped conformation in all three solvates. The methanol and ethanol solvates are isostructural. The packing of the zafirlukast mol­ecules in all three crystal structures is similar and is expressed by hydrogen‐bonded mol­ecules that are related by translation, along (101) in (I) and along the b axis in (II) and (III). The methanol and ethanol solvent mol­ecules are hydrogen bonded to two mol­ecules of zafirlukast. The water mol­ecule, on the other hand, acts as a connector via hydrogen bonds between three mol­ecules of zafirlukast. The solvent mol­ecules are not released at temperatures below the melting points of the solvates.     

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.     

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.     

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 sheet structures in methyl 4‐(4‐chloroanilino)‐3‐nitrobenzoate and methyl 1‐benzyl‐2‐(4‐chlorophenyl)‐1H‐benzimidazole‐5‐carboxylate

In methyl 4‐(4‐chloroanilino)‐3‐nitrobenzoate, C₁₄H₁₁ClN₂O₄, (I), there is an intramolecular N—H...O hydrogen bond and the intramolecular distances provide evidence for electronic polarization of the o‐quinonoid type. The molecules are linked into sheets built from N—H...O, C—H...O and C—H...π(arene) hydrogen bonds, together with an aromatic π–π stacking interaction. The molecules of methyl 1‐benzyl‐2‐(4‐chlorophenyl)‐1H‐benzimidazole‐5‐carboxylate, C₂₂H₁₇ClN₂O₂, (II), are also linked into sheets, this time by a combination of C—H...π(arene) hydrogen bonds and aromatic π–π stacking interactions.     

Four cocrystals of thymine with phenolic coformers: influence of the coformer on hydrogen bonding

Cocrystals are molecular solids composed of at least two types of neutral chemical species held together by noncovalent forces. Crystallization of thymine [systematic name: 5‐methylpyrimidine‐2,4(1H,3H)‐dione] with four phenolic coformers resulted in cocrystal formation, viz. catechol (benzene‐1,2‐diol) giving thymine–catechol (1/1), C₅H₆N₂O₂·C₆H₆O₂, (I), resorcinol (benzene‐1,3‐diol) giving thymine–resorcinol (2/1), 2C₅H₆N₂O₂·C₆H₆O₂, (II), hydroquinone (benzene‐1,4‐diol) giving thymine–hydroquinone (2/1), 2C₅H₆N₂O₂·C₆H₆O₂, (III), and pyrogallol (benzene‐1,2,3‐triol) giving thymine–pyrogallol (1/2), C₅H₆N₂O₂·2C₆H₆O₃, (IV). The resorcinol molecule in (II) occupies a twofold axis, while the hydroquinone molecule in (III) is situated on a centre of inversion. Thymine–thymine base pairing is common across all four structures, albeit with different patterns. In (I)–(III), the base pair is propagated into an infinite one‐dimensional ribbon, whereas it exists as a discrete dimeric unit in (IV). In (I)–(III), the two donor N atoms and one carbonyl acceptor O atom of thymine are involved in thymine–thymine base pairing and the remaining carbonyl O atom is hydrogen bonded to the coformer. In contrast, in (IV), just one donor N atom and one acceptor O atom are involved in base pairing, and the remaining donor N atom and acceptor O atom of thymine form hydrogen bonds to the coformer molecules. Thus, the utilization of the donor and acceptor atoms of thymine in the hydrogen bonding is influenced by the coformers.     

5‐(2‐Chloro­phenyl­diazenyl)­salicyl­aldehyde and 4‐(2‐chloro­phenyl­diazenyl)‐2‐{[tris­(hydroxy­methyl)­methyl]­amino­methyl­ene}cyclo­hexa‐3,5‐dien‐1(2H)‐one

The mol­ecule of the former title compound, C₁₃H₉ClN₂O₂, (I), is nearly planar, with an intramolecular O⋯O hydrogen bond of 2.692 (2) Å. The latter title compound, C₁₇H₁₈ClN₃O₄, (II), exists in the keto–amine tautomeric form, with a strong intramolecular hydrogen bond of 2.640 (2) Å between the O and N atoms, the H atom being bonded to the N atom. The azo­benzene moieties of both mol­ecules have trans configurations, and the dihedral angle between the planes of the two aromatic rings is 4.1 (1)° in (I) and 9.9 (1)° in (II). The N—H⋯O hydrogen‐bonded rings are almost planar and coupled with the cyclo­hexa­diene rings in (II).