Mechanochemical synthesis and X‐ray structural characterization of three 3‐nitrophenol cocrystals with three aminal cage azaadamantanes: the role of the stereoelectronic effect on intermolecular hydrogen‐bonding patterns

The structures of the cocrystalline adducts of 3‐nitrophenol (3‐NP) with 1,3,5,7‐tetraazatricyclo[3.3.1.1^3,7]decane [HMTA, ( 1 )] as the 2:1:1 hydrate, 2C₆H₅NO₃·C₆H₁₂N₄·H₂O, ( 1a ), with 1,3,6,8‐tetraazatricyclo[4.3.1.1^3,8]undecane [TATU ( 2 )] as the 2:1 cocrystal, 2C₆H₅NO₃·C₇H₁₄N₄, ( 2a ), and with 1,3,6,8‐tetraazatricyclo[4.4.1.1^3,8]dodecane [TATD, ( 3 )] as the 2:1 cocrystal, 2C₆H₅NO₃·C₈H₁₆N₄, ( 3a ), are reported. In the binary crystals ( 2a ) and ( 3a ), the 3‐nitrophenol molecules are linked via O—H…N hydrogen bonds into aminal cage azaadamantanes. In ( 1a ), the structure is stabilized by O—H…N and O—H…O hydrogen bonds, and generates ternary cocrystals. There are C—H…O hydrogen bonds present in all three cocrystals, and in ( 1a ), there are also C—H…O and C—H…π interactions present. The presence of an ethylene bridge in the structures of ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) defines the formation of a hydrogen‐bonded motif in the supramolecular architectures of ( 2a ) and ( 3a ). The differences in the C—N bond lengths of the aminal cage structures, as a result of hyperconjugative interactions and electron delocalization, were analysed. These three cocrystals were obtained by the solvent‐free assisted grinding method. Crystals suitable for single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction were grown by slow evaporation from a mixture of hexanes.     

Design of two series of 1:1 cocrystals involving 4‐amino‐5‐chloro‐2,6‐dimethylpyrimidine and carboxylic acids

Two series of a total of ten cocrystals involving 4‐amino‐5‐chloro‐2,6‐dimethylpyrimidine with various carboxylic acids have been prepared and characterized by single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction. The pyrimidine unit used for the cocrystals offers two ring N atoms (positions N1 and N3) as proton‐accepting sites. Depending upon the site of protonation, two types of cations are possible [Rajam et al. (2017). Acta Cryst. C 73 , 862–868]. In a parallel arrangement, two series of cocrystals are possible depending upon the hydrogen bonding of the carboxyl group with position N1 or N3. In one series of cocrystals, i.e. 4‐amino‐5‐chloro‐2,6‐dimethylpyrimidine–3‐bromothiophene‐2‐carboxylic acid (1/1), 1 , 4‐amino‐5‐chloro‐2,6‐dimethylpyrimidine–5‐chlorothiophene‐2‐carboxylic acid (1/1), 2 , 4‐amino‐5‐chloro‐2,6‐dimethylpyrimidine–2,4‐dichlorobenzoic acid (1/1), 3 , and 4‐amino‐5‐chloro‐2,6‐dimethylpyrimidine–2‐aminobenzoic acid (1/1), 4 , the carboxyl hydroxy group (–OH) is hydrogen bonded to position N1 (O—H…N1) of the corresponding pyrimidine unit (single point supramolecular synthon). The inversion‐related stacked pyrimidines are doubly bridged by the carboxyl groups via N—H…O and O—H…N hydrogen bonds to form a large cage‐like tetrameric unit with an R₄²(20) graph‐set ring motif. These tetrameric units are further connected via base pairing through a pair of N—H…N hydrogen bonds, generating R₂²(8) motifs (supramolecular homosynthon). In the other series of cocrystals, i.e. 4‐amino‐5‐chloro‐2,6‐dimethylpyrimidine–5‐methylthiophene‐2‐carboxylic acid (1/1), 5 , 4‐amino‐5‐chloro‐2,6‐dimethylpyrimidine–benzoic acid (1/1), 6 , 4‐amino‐5‐chloro‐2,6‐dimethylpyrimidine–2‐methylbenzoic acid (1/1), 7 , 4‐amino‐5‐chloro‐2,6‐dimethylpyrimidine–3‐methylbenzoic acid (1/1), 8 , 4‐amino‐5‐chloro‐2,6‐dimethylpyrimidine–4‐methylbenzoic acid (1/1), 9 , and 4‐amino‐5‐chloro‐2,6‐dimethylpyrimidine–4‐aminobenzoic acid (1/1), 10 , the carboxyl group interacts with position N3 and the adjacent 4‐amino group of the corresponding pyrimidine ring via O—H…N and N—H…O hydrogen bonds to generate the robust R₂²(8) supramolecular heterosynthon. These heterosynthons are further connected by N—H…N hydrogen‐bond interactions in a linear fashion to form a chain‐like arrangement. In cocrystal 1 , a Br…Br halogen bond is present, in cocrystals 2 and 3 , Cl…Cl halogen bonds are present, and in cocrystals 5 , 6 and 7 , Cl…O halogen bonds are present. In all of the ten cocrystals, π–π stacking interactions are observed.     

Cocrystals of the antibiotic trimethoprim with glutarimide and 3,3‐dimethylglutarimide held together by three hydrogen bonds

The antibiotic trimethoprim [5‐(3,4,5‐trimethoxybenzyl)pyrimidine‐2,4‐diamine] was cocrystallized with glutarimide (piperidine‐2,6‐dione) and its 3,3‐dimethyl derivative (4,4‐dimethylpiperidine‐2,6‐dione). The cocrystals, viz. trimethoprim–glutarimide (1/1), C₁₄H₁₈N₄O₃·C₅H₇NO₂, (I), and trimethoprim–3,3‐dimethylglutarimide (1/1), C₁₄H₁₈N₄O₃·C₇H₁₁NO₂, (II), are held together by three neighbouring hydrogen bonds (one central N—H...N and two N—H...O) between the pyrimidine ring of trimethoprim and the imide group of glutarimide, with an ADA/DAD pattern (A = acceptor and D = donor). These heterodimers resemble two known cocrystals of trimethoprim with barbituric acid and its 5,5‐diethyl derivative. Trimethoprim shows a conformation in which the planes of the pyrimidine and benzene rings are approximately perpendicular to one another. In its glutarimide coformer, five of the six ring atoms lie in a common plane; the C atom opposite the N atom deviates by about 0.6 Å. The crystal packing of each of the two cocrystals is characterized by an extended network of hydrogen bonds and contains centrosymmetrically related trimethoprim homodimers formed by a pair of N—H...N hydrogen bonds. This structural motif occurs in five of the nine published crystal structures in which neutral trimethoprim is present.     

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.     

Five pseudopolymorphs and a cocrystal of nitrofurantoin

The antibiotic nitrofurantoin {systematic name: (E)‐1‐[(5‐nitro‐2‐furyl)methylideneamino]imidazolidine‐2,4‐dione} is not only used for the treatment of urinary tract infections, but also illegally applied as an animal food additive. Since derivatives of 2,6‐diaminopyridine might serve as artificial receptors for its recognition, we crystallized one potential drug–receptor complex, nitrofurantoin–2,6‐diacetamidopyridine (1/1), C₈H₆N₄O₅·C₉H₁₁N₃O₂, (I·II). It is characterized by one N—H...N and two N—H...O hydrogen bonds and confirms a previous NMR study. During the crystallization screening, several new pseudopolymorphs of both components were obtained, namely a nitrofurantoin dimethyl sulfoxide monosolvate, C₈H₆N₄O₅·C₂H₆OS, (Ia), a nitrofurantoin dimethyl sulfoxide hemisolvate, C₈H₆N₄O₅·0.5C₂H₆OS, (Ib), two nitrofurantoin dimethylacetamide monosolvates, C₈H₆N₄O₅·C₄H₉NO, (Ic) and (Id), and a nitrofurantoin dimethylacetamide disolvate, C₈H₆N₄O₅·2C₄H₉NO, (Ie), as well as a 2,6‐diacetamidopyridine dimethylformamide monosolvate, C₉H₁₁N₃O₂·C₃H₇NO, (IIa). Of these, (Ia), (Ic) and (Id) were formed during cocrystallization attempts with 1‐(4‐fluorophenyl)biguanide hydrochloride. Obviously nitrofurantoin prefers the higher‐energy conformation in the crystal structures, which all exhibit N—H...O and C—H...O hydrogen‐bond interactions. The latter are especially important for the crystal packing. 2,6‐Diacetamidopyridine shows some conformational flexibility depending on the hydrogen‐bond pattern.     

Supramolecular hydrogen‐bonding patterns in two cocrystals of the N(7)–H tautomeric form of N6‐benzoyladenine: N6‐benzoyladenine–3‐hydroxypyridinium‐2‐carboxylate (1/1) and N6‐benzoyladenine–DL‐tartaric acid (1/1)

Two novel cocrystals of the N(7)—H tautomeric form of N⁶‐benzoyladenine (BA), namely N⁶‐benzoyladenine–3‐hydroxypyridinium‐2‐carboxylate (3HPA) (1/1), C₁₂H₉N₅O·C₆H₅NO₃, (I), and N⁶‐benzoyladenine–DL‐tartaric acid (TA) (1/1), C₁₂H₉N₅O·C₄H₆O₆, (II), are reported. In both cocrystals, the N⁶‐benzoyladenine molecule exists as the N(7)—H tautomer, and this tautomeric form is stabilized by intramolecular N—H...O hydrogen bonding between the benzoyl C=O group and the N(7)—H hydrogen on the Hoogsteen site of the purine ring, forming an S(7) motif. The dihedral angle between the adenine and phenyl planes is 0.94 (8)° in (I) and 9.77 (8)° in (II). In (I), the Watson–Crick face of BA (N6—H and N1; purine numbering) interacts with the carboxylate and phenol groups of 3HPA through N—H...O and O—H...N hydrogen bonds, generating a ring‐motif heterosynthon [graph set R₂²(6)]. However, in (II), the Hoogsteen face of BA (benzoyl O atom and N7; purine numbering) interacts with TA (hydroxy and carbonyl O atoms) through N—H...O and O—H...O hydrogen bonds, generating a different heterosynthon [graph set R₂²(4)]. Both crystal structures are further stabilized by π–π stacking interactions.     

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.     

Supramolecular architectures in two 1:1 cocrystals of 5‐fluorouracil with 5‐bromothiophene‐2‐carboxylic acid and thiophene‐2‐carboxylic acid

In solid‐state engineering, cocrystallization is a strategy actively pursued for pharmaceuticals. Two 1:1 cocrystals of 5‐fluorouracil (5FU; systematic name: 5‐fluoro‐1,3‐dihydropyrimidine‐2,4‐dione), namely 5‐fluorouracil–5‐bromothiophene‐2‐carboxylic acid (1/1), C₅H₃BrO₂S·C₄H₃FN₂O₂, (I), and 5‐fluorouracil–thiophene‐2‐carboxylic acid (1/1), C₄H₃FN₂O₂·C₅H₄O₂S, (II), have been synthesized and characterized by single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction studies. In both cocrystals, carboxylic acid molecules are linked through an acid–acid R ₂²(8) homosynthon (O—H…O) to form a carboxylic acid dimer and 5FU molecules are connected through two types of base pairs [homosynthon, R ₂²(8) motif] via a pair of N—H…O hydrogen bonds. The crystal structures are further stabilized by C—H…O interactions in (II) and C—Br…O interactions in (I). In both crystal structures, π–π stacking and C—F…π interactions are also observed.     

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.     

A concise and efficient synthesis of amino‐substituted (1H‐benzo[d]imidazol‐1‐yl)pyrimidine hybrids: synthetic sequence and the molecular and supramolecular structures of six examples

A concise and efficient synthesis of a series of amino‐substituted benzimidazole–pyrimidine hybrids has been developed, starting from the readily available N⁴‐(2‐aminophenyl)‐6‐methoxy‐5‐nitrosopyrimidine‐2,4‐diamine. In each of N⁵‐benzyl‐6‐methoxy‐4‐(2‐phenyl‐1H‐benzo[d]imidazol‐1‐yl)pyrimidine‐2,5‐diamine, C₂₅H₂₂N₆O, (I), 6‐methoxy‐N⁵‐(4‐methoxybenzyl)‐4‐[2‐(4‐methoxyphenyl)‐1H‐benzo[d]imidazol‐1‐yl]pyrimidine‐2,5‐diamine, C₂₇H₂₆N₆O₃, (III), 6‐methoxy‐N⁵‐(4‐nitrobenzyl)‐4‐[2‐(4‐nitrophenyl)‐1H‐benzo[d]imidazol‐1‐yl]pyrimidine‐2,5‐diamine, C₂₅H₂₀N₈O₅, (IV), the molecules are linked into three‐dimensional framework structures, using different combinations of N—H…N, N—H…O, C—H…O, C—H…N and C—H…π hydrogen bonds in each case. Oxidative cleavage of 6‐methoxy‐N⁵‐(4‐methylbenzyl)‐4‐[2‐(4‐methylphenyl)‐1H‐benzo[d]imidazol‐1‐yl]pyrimidine‐2,5‐diamine, (II), with diiodine gave 6‐methoxy‐4‐[2‐(4‐methylphenyl)‐1H‐benzo[d]imidazol‐1‐yl]pyrimidine‐2,5‐diamine, which crystallized as a monohydrate, C₁₉H₁₈N₆O·H₂O, (V), and reaction of (V) with trifluoroacetic acid gave two isomeric products, namely N‐{5‐amino‐6‐methoxy‐6‐[2‐(4‐methylphenyl)‐1H‐benzo[d]imidazol‐1‐yl]pyrimidin‐2‐yl}‐2,2,2‐trifluoroacetamide, which crystallized as an ethyl acetate monosolvate, C₂₁H₁₇F₃N₆O₂·C₄H₈O₂, (VI), and N‐{2‐amino‐6‐methoxy‐4‐[2‐(4‐methylphenyl)‐1H‐benzo[d]imidazol‐1‐yl]pyrimidin‐5‐yl}‐2,2,2‐trifluoroacetamide, which crystallized as a methanol monosolvate, C₂₁H₁₇F₃N₆O₂·CH₄O, (VIIa). For each of (V), (VI) and (VIIa), the supramolecular assembly is two‐dimensional, based on different combinations of O—H…N, N—H…O, N—H…N, C—H…O and C—H…π hydrogen bonds in each case. Comparisons are made with some related structures.     

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.     

Three new quinuclidine‐based structures: second harmonic generation response for 1,2‐bis(1‐azoniabicyclo[2.2.2]octan‐3‐ylidene)hydrazine dichloride

The crystal structures of three quinuclidine‐based compounds, namely (1‐azabicyclo[2.2.2]octan‐3‐ylidene)hydrazine monohydrate, C₇H₁₃N₃·H₂O ( 1 ), 1,2‐bis(1‐azabicyclo[2.2.2]octan‐3‐ylidene)hydrazine, C₁₄H₂₂N₄ ( 2 ), and 1,2‐bis(1‐azoniabicyclo[2.2.2]octan‐3‐ylidene)hydrazine dichloride, C₁₄H₂₄N₄²⁺·2Cl^? ( 3 ), are reported. In the crystal structure of 1 , the quinuclidine‐substituted hydrazine and water molecules are linked through N—H…O and O—H…N hydrogen bonds, forming a two‐dimensional array. The compound crystallizes in the centrosymmetric space group P2₁/c. Compound 2 was refined in the space group Pccn and exhibits no hydrogen bonding. However, its hydrochloride form 3 crystallizes in the noncentrosymmetric space group Pc. It shows a three‐dimensional network structure via intermolecular hydrogen bonding (N—H…C and N/C—H…Cl). Compound 3 , with its acentric structure, shows strong second harmonic activity.     

A novel hydrogen-bonding N-oxide–sulfonamide–nitro N—H…O synthon determining the architecture of benzenesulfonamide cocrystals

The structures of novel cocrystals of 4-nitropyridine N-oxide with benzenesulfonamide derivatives, namely, 4-nitrobenzenesulfonamide–4-nitropyridine N-oxide (1/1), C₅H₄N₂O₃·C₆H₆N₂O₄S, and 4-chlorobenzenesulfonamide–4-nitropyridine N-oxide (1/1), C₆H₆ClNO₂S·C₅H₄N₂O₃, are stabilized by N—H…O hydrogen bonds, with the sulfonamide group acting as a proton donor. The O atoms of the N-oxide and nitro groups are acceptors in these interactions. The latter is a double acceptor of bifurcated hydrogen bonds. Previous studies on similar crystal structures indicated competition between these functional groups in the formation of hydrogen bonds, with the priority being for the N-oxide group. In contrast, the present X-ray studies indicate the existence of a hydrogen-bonding synthon including N—H…O(N-oxide) and N—H…O(nitro) bridges. We present here a more detailed analysis of the N-oxide–sulfonamide–nitro N—H…O ternary complex with quantum theory computations and the Quantum Theory of Atoms in Molecules (QTAIM) approach. Both interactions are present in the crystals, but the O atom of the N-oxide group is found to be a more effective proton acceptor in hydrogen bonds, with an interaction energy about twice that of the nitro-group O atoms.     

Conversion of substituted 5‐aryloxypyrazolecarbaldehydes into reduced 3,4′‐bipyrazoles: synthesis and characterization,and the structures of four precursors and two products,and their supramolecular assembly in zero,one and two dimensions

The reaction of 5‐chloro‐3‐methyl‐1‐phenyl‐1H‐pyrazole‐4‐carbaldehyde with phenols under basic conditions yields the corresponding 5‐aryloxy derivatives; the subsequent reaction of these carbaldehydes with substituted acetophenones yields the corresponding chalcones, which in turn undergo cyclocondensation reactions with hydrazine in the presence of acetic acid to form N‐acetylated reduced bipyrazoles. Structures are reported for three 5‐aryloxycarbaldehydes and the 5‐piperidino analogue, and for two reduced bipyrazole products. 5‐(2‐Chlorophenoxy)‐3‐methyl‐1‐phenyl‐1H‐pyrazole‐4‐carbaldehyde, C₁₇H₁₃ClN₂O₂, (II), which crystallizes with Z′ = 2 in the space group P, exhibits orientational disorder of the carbaldehyde group in each of the two independent molecules. Each of 3‐methyl‐5‐(4‐nitrophenoxy)‐1‐phenyl‐1H‐pyrazole‐4‐carbaldehyde, C₁₇H₁₃N₃O₄, (IV), 3‐methyl‐5‐(naphthalen‐2‐yloxy)‐1‐phenyl‐1H‐pyrazole‐4‐carbaldehyde, C₂₁H₁₆N₂O₂, (V), and 3‐methyl‐1‐phenyl‐5‐(piperidin‐1‐yl)‐1H‐pyrazole‐4‐carbaldehyde, C₁₆H₁₉N₃O, (VI), (3RS)‐2‐acetyl‐5‐(4‐azidophenyl)‐5′‐(2‐chlorophenoxy)‐3′‐methyl‐1′‐phenyl‐3,4‐dihydro‐1′H,2H‐[3,4′‐bipyrazole] C₂₇H₂₂ClN₇O₂, (IX) and (3RS)‐2‐acetyl‐5‐(4‐azidophenyl)‐3′‐methyl‐5′‐(naphthalen‐2‐yloxy)‐1′‐phenyl‐3,4‐dihydro‐1′H,2H‐[3,4′‐bipyrazole] C₃₁H₂₅N₇O₂, (X), has Z′ = 1, and each is fully ordered. The new compounds have all been fully characterized by analysis, namely IR spectroscopy, ¹H and ¹³C NMR spectroscopy, and mass spectrometry. In each of (II), (V) and (IX), the molecules are linked into ribbons, generated respectively by combinations of C—H…N, C—H…π and C—Cl…π interactions in (II), C—H…O and C—H…π hydrogen bonds in (V), and C—H…N and C—H…O hydrogen bonds in (IX). The molecules of compounds (IV) and (IX) are both linked into sheets, by multiple C—H…O and C—H…π hydrogen bonds in (IV), and by two C—H…π hydrogen bonds in (IX). A single C—H…N hydrogen bond links the molecules of (X) into centrosymmetric dimers. Comparisons are made with the structures of some related compounds.     

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).     

Bis(4‐aminopyridine)silver(I) nitrate and tris(2,6‐diaminopyridine)silver(I) nitrate

The bis(4‐aminopyridine)silver(I) cation in [Ag(C₅H₆N₂)₂]NO₃ has the Ag atom on a twofold axis and displays an N—Ag—N angle of 174.43 (15)° and an Ag—N distance of 2.122 (3) Å. The two ligands are planar and the angle between the two ligand planes is 79.45 (9)°. The pyridine rings are stacked in piles with an interplanar distance of 3.614 (5) Å, a distance that strongly suggests that pyridine π–π interactions have an appreciable importance with respect to the non‐bonded crystal organization. The tris(2,6‐diaminopyridine)­silver(I) cation in [Ag(C₅H₇N₃)₃]NO₃ has Ag—N distances of 2.243 (2), 2.2613 (17) and 2.4278 (18) Å, and N—Ag—N angles of 114.33 (7), 134.91 (7) and 114.33 (7)°. The Ag⁺ ion is situated 0.1531 (2) Å from the plane defined by the three pyridine N atoms.     

Planarity of heteroaryldithiocarbazic acid derivatives showing tuberculostatic activity: structure–activity relationships

The search for new tuberculostatics is an important issue due to the increasing resistance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to existing agents and the resulting spread of the pathogen. Heteroaryldithiocarbazic acid derivatives have shown potential tuberculostatic activity and investigations of the structural aspects of these compounds are thus of interest. Three new examples have been synthesized. The structure of methyl 2‐[amino(pyridin‐3‐yl)methylidene]hydrazinecarbodithioate, C₈H₁₀N₄S₂, at 293 K has monoclinic (P2₁/n) symmetry. It is of interest with respect to antibacterial properties. The structure displays N—H…N and N—H…S hydrogen bonding. The structure of N′‐(pyrrolidine‐1‐carbonothioyl)picolinohydrazonamide, C₁₁H₁₅N₅S, at 100 K has monoclinic (P2₁/n) symmetry and is also of interest with respect to antibacterial properties. The structure displays N—H…S hydrogen bonding. The structure of (Z)‐methyl 2‐[amino(pyridin‐2‐yl)methylidene]‐1‐methylhydrazinecarbodithioate, C₉H₁₃N₄S₂, has triclinic (P) symmetry. The structure displays N—H…S hydrogen bonding.     

Supramolecular interactions in carboxylate and sulfonate salts of 2,6‐diamino‐4‐chloropyrimidinium

Two new salts, namely 2,6‐diamino‐4‐chloropyrimidinium 2‐carboxy‐3‐nitrobenzoate, C₄H₆ClN₄⁺·C₈H₄NO₆⁻, (I), and 2,6‐diamino‐4‐chloropyrimidinium p‐toluenesulfonate monohydrate, C₄H₆ClN₄⁺·C₇H₇O₃S⁻·H₂O, (II), have been synthesized and characterized by single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction. In both crystal structures, the N atom in the 1‐position of the pyrimidine ring is protonated. In salt (I), the protonated N atom and the amino group of the pyrimidinium cation interact with the carboxylate group of the anion through N—H…O hydrogen bonds to form a heterosynthon with an R ₂²(8) ring motif. In hydrated salt (II), the presence of the water molecule prevents the formation of the familiar R ₂²(8) ring motif. Instead, an expanded ring [i.e. R ₃²(8)] is formed involving the sulfonate group, the pyrimidinium cation and the water molecule. Both salts form a supramolecular homosynthon [R ₂²(8) ring motif] through N—H…N hydrogen bonds. The molecular structures are further stabilized by π–π stacking, and C=O…π, C—H…O and C—H…Cl interactions.     

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.     

Cocrystals of 2,3,5,6‐tetrafluorobenzene‐1,4‐diol with diaza aromatic compounds

2,3,5,6‐Tetrafluorobenzene‐1,4‐diol easily forms cocrystals with heteroaromatic bases containing the pyrazine unit. In the 1:1 complexes with pyrazine, C₆H₂F₄O₂·C₄H₄N₂, (I), and quinoxaline, C₆H₂F₄O₂·C₈H₆N₂, (II), the crystal components are linked via O—H...N hydrogen bonds into one‐dimensional chains. With the largest base, phenazine, the 1:2 benzenediol–phenazine complex, C₆H₂F₄O₂·2C₁₂H₈N₂, (III), was obtained, with the molecules linked via O—H...N interactions into a discrete heterotrimer. In all three cocrystals, the two types of molecules are organized into layers via softer C—H...O and C—H...F interactions and π–π stacking interactions, with stronger hydrogen bonds linking molecules of adjacent layers. In (II) and (III), molecules are arranged into heterostacks, whereas in (I) separate stacks are formed by the heterocyclic base and the benzenediol molecule.