There
have been many studies on the preparation of cocrystals based
on the synthon structures, but the synthons cannot completely guarantee
the formation of cocrystals. On the basis of the widespread presence
of the amino-pyridine synthon, we selected nimesulide (NMS) as the
host component and a series of pyridine analogues (pyrazine (PYE),
4,4′-bipyridine (BP), trans-1,2-bis(4-pyridyl)ethylene
(BPE), 1,2-bis(4-pyridyl)ethyne (BPY), 1,2-bis(4-pyridyl)ethane (BPA),
and 1,3-bis(4-pyridyl)propane (BPP)) as coformers and thoroughly explored
the difference in the ability of cocrystal formation. We successfully
obtained four new cocrystals of NMS-BP/BPE/BPA/BPY, while cocrystals
of NMS and PYE/BPP were not identified. By means of structural analysis
and theoretical computation, we believe that PYE, with the weakest
H-bond acceptor capacity and insufficient benzene ring, has difficulty
in constructing a three-dimensional structure with NMS through effective
N–H···N H-bonds and π–π stacking.
Molecular flexibility could be a great resistance to form a cocrystal
between BPP and NMS. Through quantitative calculation of Ridge and
Lasso regression, it is found that the molecular electrostatic potential
(MESP), h_ema (sum of hydrogen bond acceptor strengths), Kier flex
(molecular flexibility), and the horizontal distance of two N atom
projections of coformers have a descending effect on the cocrystal
formation.