Technical Support Forum Index
Technical Support Forum
Access ChemAxon scientists and developers here. For registration and login issues contact website support.

Support Ticket System is replacing forum

This forum was converted into a searchable archive. You cannot add posts here any more. For support please use our new Ticket System.

Create your first ticket
Prediction the log P for Pt(II) complexes
To watch this topic for replies  Register (enables digests) or give email address:
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Display posts from previous:   
    View previous topic :: View next topic    
Author Message
Kamil

Joined: 07 Jan 2015
Posts: 4

View user's profile

Back to top
Link to postPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:39 amPost subject: Prediction the log P for Pt(II) complexes Reply with quote

I found in some publication, that the authors calculated the log P values for the platinum(II) complexes, using Marvin Sketch. Now, I am trying to do the same thing, but is it now possible. Is it some kind of problems with my software or the authors lied??

thx  

Jozsef
ChemAxon personnel
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 568

View user's profile

Back to top
Link to postPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:55 amPost subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

Could you identify  the reference at issue?

Thanks.

Jozsi

Kamil

Joined: 07 Jan 2015
Posts: 4

View user's profile

Back to top
Link to postPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:30 pmPost subject: Reply with quote

Sure, that's the reference:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2013.07.004

Best Regards

 

Kamil

Jozsef
ChemAxon personnel
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 568

View user's profile

Back to top
Link to postPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:25 amPost subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

 

 Now, I am trying to do the same thing, but is it now possible. 

I was able to reproduce the calculated  logP values which are given in the "table 1" of the referenced paper.

For example the calculated logP of oxaliplatin is 1.73 as it is shown in  the paper. 

The right input structure of the oxaliplatin in  MarvinSketch and the calculated logP value is given on the attached figure.

Jozsi

Kamil

Joined: 07 Jan 2015
Posts: 4

View user's profile

Back to top
Link to postPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:31 amPost subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

 

but don't you forget about coordination bonds between platinum ion and nitrogens??

Please, look at this small window. Due to the lack of coordination bonds, there are NH groups in DACH instead of NH2. So the structure is incorrect.

Kamil

Jozsef
ChemAxon personnel
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 568

View user's profile

Back to top
Link to postPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:14 amPost subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

 

No, it is done intentionally because of  the coordination bond  which  is not accepted by the present version of the calculators.

Calculation will break in case a coordination bond drawn in the structure.

This is why  a simple single bond was drawn instead of  the "arrow bond "  on the attached MarvinSketch's  figure between the lone pair donors and the metal center.

This is the  "workaround" for handling of the coordination bond. Later this shortcoming will be fixed and the "H" atom count  will be correctly adjusted too.

Jozsi

Kamil

Joined: 07 Jan 2015
Posts: 4

View user's profile

Back to top
Link to postPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:28 pmPost subject: Reply with quote

Ok,

Now I understand everything. Thanks for your explanation. It is good to know that I can use log P prediction in my research.

 

Kamil

Christian

Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 3

View user's profile

Back to top
Link to postPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:27 pmPost subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

My question related to this thread:

I would like to predict the log P / log D for a coordination complex with keto groups as donors. When I draw a regular bond from the ketone oxygen to the metal Marvin assigns a negative charge to O and does not allow to predict the log P because it considers it an "Inconsistent molecular structure".

In the example above this problem did not occur because the amino donor had a proton that could be omitted to draw the bond without a negative bond to appear. How should I proceed? Using coordination bonds does not work either, as discussed above.

Do I need to use partial charges Pt(2+) and O(-) for the ketone, or should I even draw the ketone with only a single bond (C--O--M) instead of (C==O--M)? This way the simulation works but I wonder how reliable this is in representing my actual molecule?

Another thing I noticed is that the 3D geometry of the molecule is not correctly represented. Marvin draws the Pt complexes in a tetrahedral instead of square planar geometry. Does this affect the log P prediction?

Thank you,

Christian

jszegezdi

Joined: 25 Jan 2006
Posts: 34

View user's profile

Back to top
Link to postPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:06 pmPost subject: Reply with quote

Hi!

I would propose  to do these steps

1. delete the dative bonds from the structure

2. calculate the logP  (2.85) 

3. add a "ring formation" increment to the logP  (2.85 + 2 times 0.3 = 3.45)

The "0.3 logP unit increase/ new ring"  is an empirical value.

See the attached figure.

The 3D geometry is really bad. Luckily it is not taken into account in the logP calculation.

I hope it will be fixed by the "3D cleaner" developers. 

 

Jozsi

Christian

Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 3

View user's profile

Back to top
Link to postPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 8:05 pmPost subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Jozsi!

 

I've tried that for one of the molecules I'm working on (Zr-DFO) and compared it to the literature logP value:

 

Drawing only the three hydroxy Zr-O bonds and leaving the three dative =O-Zr bonds away, I got a clogP of -0.67.

If I add the empirical value for the three ring fomations this gives -0.67 + 3*0.3 = 0.23

The experimental value for this Zr-DFO complex, however, was reported as -2.83 (Pandya et al. 2015).

So I guess for this kind of complexes the calculations don't really work. Or is there another workaround that should be used?

Thank you!

 

Here's the literature reference mentioned above: Pandya et al. Chem. Commun. 2015, 51(12), 2301-2303.

jszegezdi

Joined: 25 Jan 2006
Posts: 34

View user's profile

Back to top
Link to postPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:00 amPost subject: Reply with quote

Hi!

The Zr chelator is desferrioxamine B (DFO). The DFO has an ionizable amine group.

The amino group will be  ionized at the experimental pH value, and this is why the logP will be decreased.

Look at the attached figure.   

 

For example : The "logP"  value of the modified "Zr -DFO"  is  -3.68 at pH = 7.

 

The "logP" of the  "Zr -DFO"  = -3.68 + 3x0.3 = -2.78  

 

If possible please check the experimental pH value and recalculate the "logP" value according to the logD curve.

 

Jozsi

 


Christian

Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 3

View user's profile

Back to top
Link to postPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:57 amPost subject: Reply with quote

Hi Jozsi,

Oh obviously, thank you for bringing my attention to this. With the charged amino group the value matches the experimental data much better.

 

Thank you!

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Page 1 of 1


To watch this topic for replies   Register (enables digests) or give email address  
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum