Formation, Spectroscopic Characterization, and Solution Stability of an [Fe<sub>4</sub>S<sub>4</sub>]<sup>2+</sup> Cluster Derived from β-Cyclodextrin Dithiolate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The formation and solution properties, including stability in mixed aqueous-Me(2)SO media, have been investigated for an [Fe(4)S(4)](2+) cluster derived from β-cyclodextrin (CD) dithiolate. Clusters of the type [Fe(4)S(4)(SAr)(4)](2-) (Ar = Ph, C(6)H(4)-3-F) are generated in Me(2)SO by redox reactions of [Fe(4)S(4)(SEt)(4)](2-) with 2 equiv of ArSSAr. An analogous reaction with the intramolecular disulfide of 6(A),6(D)-(3-NHCOC(6)H(4)-1-SH)(2)-6(A),6(D)-dideoxy-β-cyclodextrin (14), whose synthesis is described, affords a completely substituted cluster formulated as [Fe(4)S(4){β-CD-(1,3-NHCOC(6)H(4)S)(2)}(2)](2-) (15). Ligand binding is indicated by a circular dichroism spectrum and also by UV-visible and isotropically shifted (1)H NMR spectra and redox behavior convincingly similar to [Fe(4)S(4)(SPh)(4)](2-). One formulation of 15 is a single cluster to which two dithiolates are bound, each in bidentate coordination. With there being no proven precedent for this binding mode, we show that the cluster [Fe(4)S(4)(S(2)-m-xyl)(2)](2-) is a single cubane whose m-xylyldithiolate ligands are bound in a bidentate arrangement. This same structure type was proposed for a cluster formulated as [Fe(4)S(4){β-CD-(1,3-SC(6)H(4)S)(2)}(2)](2-) (16; Kuroda et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc.1988, 110, 4049-4050) and reported to be water-stable. Clusters 15 and 16 are derived from similar ligands differing only in the spacer group between the thiolate binding site and the CD platform. In our search for clusters stable in aqueous or organic-aqueous mixed solvents that are potential candidates for the reconstitution of scaffold proteins implicated in cluster biogenesis, 15 is the most stable cluster that we have thus far encountered under anaerobic conditions in the absence of added ligand.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".