2018
DOI: 10.3390/magnetochemistry4040055
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

DFT Protocol for EPR Prediction of Paramagnetic Cu(II) Complexes and Application to Protein Binding Sites

Abstract: With the aim to provide a general protocol to interpret electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectra of paramagnetic copper(II) coordination compounds, density functional theory (DFT) calculations of spin Hamiltonian parameters g and A for fourteen Cu(II) complexes with different charges, donor sets, and geometry were carried out using ORCA software. The performance of eleven functionals was tested, and on the basis of the mean absolute percent deviation (MAPD) and standard deviation (SD), the ranking of the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

11
39
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 105 publications
(140 reference statements)
11
39
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[69] The experimental g iso values are underestimated for both Cu (l-Asn) 2 and Cu(l-His)(l-Asn), by 0.034 and 0.028 on average by our B3LYP calculations (Table 6), respectively. A similar underestimation of g values was also obtained for some other copper (II) complexes by Sciortino et al [70] In accord with the known fact that the presence of ligands in the axial positions causes an increase of g z and a decrease of A z , [70] our DFT/B3LYP results gave a ca. 40 MHz lower j A Cu iso j , a bit larger g iso value, and slightly lower A N iso values for the conformers with intramolecular axial Cu-donor bond (CN = 5) than for the conformers with CN = 4, independently on the cisor trans-configuration for all of the studied complexes (Tables 6 and S96).…”
Section: Dft/b3lyp Prediction Of G-factor and Hfcc A Valuessupporting
confidence: 89%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…[69] The experimental g iso values are underestimated for both Cu (l-Asn) 2 and Cu(l-His)(l-Asn), by 0.034 and 0.028 on average by our B3LYP calculations (Table 6), respectively. A similar underestimation of g values was also obtained for some other copper (II) complexes by Sciortino et al [70] In accord with the known fact that the presence of ligands in the axial positions causes an increase of g z and a decrease of A z , [70] our DFT/B3LYP results gave a ca. 40 MHz lower j A Cu iso j , a bit larger g iso value, and slightly lower A N iso values for the conformers with intramolecular axial Cu-donor bond (CN = 5) than for the conformers with CN = 4, independently on the cisor trans-configuration for all of the studied complexes (Tables 6 and S96).…”
Section: Dft/b3lyp Prediction Of G-factor and Hfcc A Valuessupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The experimental g iso values are underestimated for both Cu( l ‐Asn) 2 and Cu( l ‐His)( l ‐Asn), by 0.034 and 0.028 on average by our B3LYP calculations (Table ), respectively. A similar underestimation of g values was also obtained for some other copper(II) complexes by Sciortino et al …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Thus, if one is restricted by choice or practical necessity to use DFT instead of rigorous wave function based methods for predicting EPR parameters in transition metal systems, the choice of functional is typically dictated by experience accumulated in previously published studies of related systems or by performing an initial benchmarking study. Among the EPR parameters that react most sensitively to the choice of computational methodology are hyperfine coupling constants [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%