The Scientific World Journal

The Scientific World Journal / 2013 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2013 |Article ID 309710 |

Rashmi Dubey, Ashish Kumar Tewari, Ved Prakash Singh, Praveen Singh, Jawahar Singh Dangi, Carmen Puerta, Pedro Valerga, Rajni Kant, "Molecular Docking Study of Conformational Polymorph: Building Block of Crystal Chemistry", The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2013, Article ID 309710, 6 pages, 2013.

Molecular Docking Study of Conformational Polymorph: Building Block of Crystal Chemistry

Academic Editor: I. Shibata
Received18 Aug 2013
Accepted15 Sep 2013
Published23 Oct 2013


Two conformational polymorphs of novel 2-[2-(3-cyano-4,6-dimethyl-2-oxo-2H-pyridin-1-yl)-ethoxy]-4,6-dimethyl nicotinonitrile have been developed. The crystal structure of both polymorphs (1a and 1b) seems to be stabilized by weak interactions. A difference was observed in the packing of both polymorphs. Polymorph 1b has a better binding affinity with the cyclooxygenase (COX-2) receptor than the standard (Nimesulide).

1. Introduction

Polymorphism “Supramolecular isomerism” is pertinent to supramolecular chemistry, and crystal engineering in the same way as isomerization is pertinent to organic molecules. In the simplest way, polymorphism is the ability of molecules to produce more than one crystal structure [1, 2], resulted from interplay of kinetic and thermodynamic parameters [3]. The complexities of the organic solid state and especially the differences of intermolecular forces influence crystal packing [4]. Conformational polymorphism will always be a possibility for molecules that have multiple conformational isomers accessible energetically: every different conformation is a different molecular shape and can, in principle, form its own crystalline polymorph (or polymorphs) [5]. Because of the variation in crystallization environment (e.g., temperature, solvent, using of additives, and concentration), the same molecules can pack differently and form different crystal lattices or polymorphs [68]. As a result, the physical, chemical, and mechanical properties of the crystals can be dramatically affected. Nicotinonitrile-based crystals are highly influenced by σ and π cooperative effects [9]. Self-assemblies of these derivatives are governed by various weak interactions [1020]. The presence of various weak interactions leads to the development of polymorphism in compounds [2125]. Polymorphism in organic and inorganic solids can be of crucial importance in the drug design and pharmaceutical industries due to its regulatory action [2628]. Earlier we had studied weak interactions and its polymorphism in 1,3-bis(4,6-dimethyl-1H-nicotinonitrile-1-yl)1,3-dioxy propane, which was symmetrical dimer [29]. This current study is focused on the pharmaceutical property of dissymmetrical molecule, 2-[2-(3-cyano-4,6-dimethyl-2-oxo-2H-pyridin-1-yl)-ethoxy]-4,6-dimethyl nicotinonitrile, and its polymorphs (1a and 1b).

2. Experimental

2.1. Synthesis of 2-[2-(3-Cyano-4,6-dimethyl-2-oxo-2H-pyridin-1-yl)-ethoxy]-4,6-dimethyl-nicotinonitrile

To a solution of 3-cyano-4, 6-dimethyl-2-oxo-nicotinonitrile (3 g, 0.02 mole) in 10 mL dry DMF, potassium carbonate (2.68 g, 0.02 mole) was added and the mixture was stirred for 2 h. 1,2-Dibromo ethane (0.02 mole) was added to it and stirred for 15 h. Completion of reaction was monitored through TLC. Solvent was removed on a rotary evaporator and residue was extracted in chloroform: water (1 : 1) (3 100 mL). Organic layer was dried with anhydrous sodium sulfate. Compounds were purified by column chromatography (50% EtOAc: hexane) leading to crude product as a yellow powder.

Yield. 1.17 g (36%); 1H-NMR (CDCl3), δ 2.40 (s, 6H, CH3), δ 2.63 (s, 6H, CH3), δ 4.45 (t, 2H, J = 6, CH2), δ 4.72 (t, 2H, J = 6, CH2), δ 6.06 (s, 2H, ArCH), δ 6.69 (s, 2H, ArCH). 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ 19.94 (CH3), δ 20.80 (CH3), δ 21.73 (CH3), δ 24.33 (CH3), δ 44.54 (NCH2), δ 64.37 (OCH2), δ 93.50 (CCN), 101.27 (CCN), δ 109.64 (CN), 115.04 (CN), δ 115.33 (Ar-CH), δ 118.08 (Ar-CH), δ 151.98 (CCH3), δ 154.37 (CCH3), 158.41 (CCH3), δ 160.93 (CO), δ 163.19 (COCH2). IR (KBr) cm−1: 659–848 (CH bending), 1156–1203 (COC, NC stretching), 1410–1595 (C=C stretching), 1650 (CO stretching), 2219 (CN stretching), 2858–2924 (CH, CH3, and ArH stretching). Elemental analysis for C24H22N4O2: Calcd. C; 62.42%, H; 5.20%, N; 16.18%, found: C; 62.40%, H; 5.19%, N; 16.19%; MS (FAB): m/z: 346 (m + 2).

2.2. Instrumentation

The X-ray diffraction measurements were carried out using a CrysAlis CCD, Oxford diffractometer. The structure was solved by direct methods with the SHELXS-97 program and refined by the full-matrix least squares method on data using the SHELXL-97 program. Molecular graphics: ORTEP; software used to prepare material for publication: MERCURY-3.1. FT-IR spectra were recorded on a VARIAN 3100 FT-IR spectrometer, which was evacuated to avoid water and CO2 absorptions, at a 2 cm−1 resolution in KBr. The 1H and 13C NMR spectra were recorded on a JEOL AL300 FTNMR spectrometer operating at 300.40 and 75.46 MHz for proton and carbon 13, respectively. The 1H and 13C chemical shifts were measured CDCl3 solution relative to TMS. The details of the data collection and final refinement parameters are listed in Table 1 and in the supplementary Material available online at


Empirical formulaC18H18N4O2C18H18N4O2
Formula weight322.36322.36
Crystal systemMonoclinicMonoclinic
Space group “
Unit cell dimensions (Å) 10.025(2), 13.356(3),
11.964(2), 94.19(3)
10.0026(4), 3.6580(8),
12.0838(7), 93.802(4)
Volume (Å3)1597.6 (6)1647.20 (15)
Calculated density1.3401.484
Absorption coefficient0.0910.098
θ range for data collection (°)2.29–25.022.96–32.37
Limiting indices , , −11/11, −15/15, −14/14−14/14, −18/20, −18/16
Refinement methodFull-matrix least-squares on Full-matrix least-squares on
Final indices [ > 2 ( )] = 0.0505, = 0.1041 = 0.0595, = 0.1660
indices (all data) = 0.0528, = 0.1054 = 0.2097, = 0.2105

3. Results and Discussion

Freshly synthesized 2-[2-(3-cyano-4,6-dimethyl-2-oxo-2H-pyridin-1-yl)-ethoxy]-4,6-dimethyl-nicotinonitrile was recrystallized in two different mixtures of solvent. Using mixture of Ethyl acetate-n-hexane (9 : 1) solvent, hexagonal crystals of pale pink color was obtained after 2 days at room temperature. However, recrystallization from a mixture of (1 : 1) chloroform-n-hexane was attempted, resulting in the appearance of light yellow, prismatic crystals (1b), at a temperature of −5°C (refrigerated).

Crystal structure of the 1st polymorph (1a) and 2nd polymorph (1b) is shown in ORTEP diagram in Figure 1, respectively.

Weak aromatic interaction (CH N, CH π, and CH O interaction) plays an important role in occupying both the polymorphs conformation. A detailed list of their bond lengths and bond angles are summarized in Table 2.

D–H A1a1b
(D–H) (H A) (D A)<(DHA) (D–H) (H A) (D A)<(DHA)

CH8C N40.9802.9153.496118.960.9592.6643.544152.32
CH8C O20.9802.4893.237132.93
CH10A O10.9902.6603.145110.36
CH10B O10.9702.6713.144110.38
CH10B N30.9902.5642.71387.820.9702.7702.70075.75
CH10A N30.9902.7992.71374.770.9702.5542.70088.00
CH8C π (C16–N4)0.9802.9123.607128.730.9592.8513.654141.84

Intermolecular CH N (2.573 Å, 131.53°) and CH O (2.425 Å, 174.68°) interaction stabilized the network of 1a in a symmetrical manner. However, these interactions are absent in polymorph 1b. The major difference observed in the packing diagram of both the polymorphs (Figure 2) is that intermolecular π-π interaction present between centroid (C13C14C15N3C11C12) and centroid (C4C3C2C1N1C5) of heteroaromatic ring in 1b is crystallized more closely while in the case of 1a aromatic π-π interaction is completely absent and packing of this polymorph stabilized by CH π interaction (Figure 3).

Both polymorphs are showing roughness in their morphology due to the formation of zigzag sheets via weak interactions. In other words the crystal packing of molecules seems to achieve maximum crystal density. In the packing of the 1st polymorph 1a, due to CH O and CH π (pi-bond of CN group) interaction, the molecules linked together and formed a cavity. However, in the case of 1b the π π and CH π (pi-bond of CN group) interaction joined the molecules together in packing more tightly and a cavity appears. Presence of different sizes of cavities indicates that both the polymorphs can be used as a host for the different guest molecules. Such kinds of molecular systems will be helpful in many biological systems. Details of intermolecular weak interaction are given in Table 3.

D–H A1a1b
(D–H) (H A) (D A)<(DHA) (D–H) (H A) (D A)<(DHA)

CH π (CN)0.980

Docking Studies of Synthesized Compound. Firstly, all bound waters, ligands, and cofactors were removed from the proteins. The macromolecule was checked for polar hydrogen; torsion bonds of the inhibitors were selected and defined. Gasteiger charges were computed and the AutoDock atom types were defined using AutoDock 4.2, graphical user interface of AutoDock supplied by MGL Tools [30]. The Lamarckian genetic algorithm (LGA), which is considered one of the best docking methods available in AutoDock [31, 32], was employed. This algorithm yields superior docking performance compared to simulated annealing or the simple genetic algorithm and the other search algorithms available in AutoDock 4.2. Secondly, the three-dimensional grid boxes were created by AutoGrid algorithm to evaluate the binding energies on the macromolecule coordinates. The grid maps representing the intact ligand in the actual docking target site were calculated with AutoGrid (part of the AutoDock package). Eventually cubic grids encompassed the binding site where the intact ligand was embedded. Finally, AutoDock was used to calculate the binding-free energy of a given inhibitor conformation in the macromolecular structure while the probable structure inaccuracies were ignored in the calculations. The search was extended over the whole receptor protein used as blind docking.

The ability of compound 1a-b to interact with the COX-2 was further assessed by in silico studies with AutoDock (Figure 4). Results indicate that polymorph 1b shows a better binding effect with COX-2 compared with standard (Nimesulide) than 1a (Table 4). It seems that 1b can further be used as an anti-inflammatory drug.

Compound no.Docking score


4. Conclusion

Weak interactions play an important role in stabilizing the structure of both polymorphs due to which they have different crystal packing. The presence of different sizes of cavities, formed via such weak interactions, plays a crucial role in their biological activity. Polymorph 1b has more binding affinity with COX-2 than polymorph 1a. Polymorph 1b can further be explored for anti-inflammatory activity.


The authors thank UGC India Grant no. 37-54/2009 (SR) for financial assistance of the work. The first author gracefully acknowledges CSIR, New Delhi, India, for CSIR-RA fellowship. Department of Chemistry, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India, and Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalya (a central university), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India, is acknowledged for departmental facilities.

Supplementary Materials

CIF files of both the polymorphs are available.

  1. Supplementary Material


  1. G. R. Desiraju, “Supramolecular cynthons in crystal engineering—a new organic synthesis,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition, vol. 34, no. 21, pp. 2311–2327, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. R. Boistelle, “Concepts de la crystallisation en solution,” in Actualites Nephrologiques, pp. 159–202, Flammarion Medecine Sciences, Paris, France, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
  3. A. R. Choudhury, K. Islam, M. T. Kirchner, G. Mehta, and T. N. G. Row, “In situ cryocrystallization of diphenyl ether: C-Hπ mediated polymorphic forms,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 126, no. 39, pp. 12274–12275, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. D. W. Jones and T. Borowiak, “Introduction: organic crystal chemistry XI,” Journal of Molecular Structure, vol. 647, no. 1–3, pp. 3–7, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. J. A. Zerkowski, J. C. MacDonald, and G. M. Whitesides, “Polymorphic packing arrangements in a class of engineered organic crystals,” Chemistry of Materials, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 1933–1941, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  6. P. Munshi, K. N. Venugopala, B. S. Jayashree, and T. N. Guru Row, “Concomitant polymorphism in 3-acetylcoumarin: role of weak C-HO and C-Hπ interactions,” Crystal Growth & Design, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1105–1107, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. R. J. Davey, N. Blagden, G. D. Potts, and R. Docherty, “Polymorphism in molecular crystals: stabilization of a metastable form by conformational mimicry,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 119, no. 7, pp. 1767–1772, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. J. Bernstein, R. J. Davey, and J.-O. Henck, “Concomitant polymorphs,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition, vol. 38, no. 23, pp. 3440–3461, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  9. P. Vishweshwar, A. Nangia, and V. M. Lynch, “Cooperative assistance in a very short O-H···O, hydrogen bond. Low-temperature X-ray crystal structures of 2,3,5,6-pyrazinetetracarboxylic and related acids,” Chemical Communications, no. 2, pp. 179–180, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  10. J. P. M. van Duynhoven, R. G. Janssen, W. Verboom et al., “Control of calix[6]arene conformations by self-inclusion of 1,3,5-tri-O-alkyl substituents: synthesis and NMR studies,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 116, no. 13, pp. 5814–5822, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  11. S. Paliwal, S. Geib, and C. S. Wilcox, “Molecular torsion balance for weak molecular recognition forces. Effects of “tilted-T” edge-to-face aromatic interactions on conformational selection and solid-state structure,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 116, no. 10, pp. 4497–4498, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  12. R. Dubey and D. Lim, “Weak interactions: a versatile role in aromatic compounds,” Current Organic Chemistry, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 2072–2081, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  13. E.-I. Kim, S. Paliwal, and C. S. Wilcox, “Measurements of molecular electrostatic field effects in edge-to-face aromatic interactions and CH-π interactions with implications for protein folding and molecular recognition,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 120, no. 43, pp. 11192–11193, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. M. Matsugi, K. Itoh, M. Nojima, Y. Hagimoto, and Y. Kita, “Determination of absolute configuration of trans-2-arylcyclohexanols using remarkable aryl-induced 1H NMR shifts in diastereomeric derivatives,” Tetrahedron Letters, vol. 42, no. 39, pp. 6903–6905, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. M. Matsugi, K. Itoh, M. Nojima, Y. Hagimoto, and Y. Kita, “A novel determination method of the absolute configuration of 1-aryl-1-alkylalcohols and amines by an intramolecular CH/π shielding effect in 1H NMR,” Tetrahedron Letters, vol. 42, no. 45, pp. 8019–8022, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. M. Kitamura, K. Nakano, T. Miki, M. Okada, and R. Noyori, “Stereochemistry of aldols: configuration and conformation of aldols derived from cycloalkanones and aldehydes,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 123, no. 37, pp. 8939–8950, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. M. Matsugi, K. Itoh, M. Nojima, Y. Hagimoto, and Y. Kita, “1H NMR determination of absolute configuration of 1- or 2-aryl-substituted alcohols and amines by means of their diastereomers: novel separation technique of diastereomeric derivatives of pyridyl alcohols by extraction,” Chemistry, vol. 8, no. 24, pp. 5551–5565, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  18. C. Wolf, L. Pranatharthiharan, and R. B. Ramagosa, “Conformational stability of atropisomeric 1-naphthylcarbinols and 1-(1-naphthyl)ethylamines,” Tetrahedron Letters, vol. 43, no. 47, pp. 8563–8567, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. A. K. Tewari and R. Dubey, “Emerging trends in molecular recognition: utility of weak aromatic interactions,” Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 126–143, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. V. N. Khrustalev and K. A. Krasnov, “Weak interactions in 1,3-dimethyl-5-arylmethyl-5-cytisylmethylbarbituric acids. Unusually steady intramolecular organic “sandwich” complexes,” Journal of Molecular Structure, vol. 828, no. 1–3, pp. 188–194, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. G. R. Desiraju, “Crystal gazing: structure prediction and polymorphism,” Science, vol. 278, no. 5337, pp. 404–405, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. B. R. Sreekanth, P. Vishweshwar, and K. Vyas, “Supramolecular synthon polymorphism in 2:1 co-crystal of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid and 2,3,5,6-tetramethylpyrazine,” Chemical Communications, no. 23, pp. 2375–2377, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. P. Hobza and Z. Havlas, “Blue-shifting hydrogen bonds,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 100, no. 11, pp. 4253–4264, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. M. Nishio, “CH/π hydrogen bonds in crystals,” CrystEngComm, vol. 6, pp. 130–158, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. G. R. Desiraju, “C-HO and other weak hydrogen bonds. From crystal engineering to virtual screening,” Chemical Communications, pp. 2995–3003, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. M. R. Hauser, L. Zhakarov, K. M. Doxsee, and T. Li, “Polymorphism of a simple organic amide,” Crystal Growth and Design, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 4428–4431, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. J. D. Dunitz and J. Bernstein, “Disappearing polymorphs,” Accounts of Chemical Research, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 193–200, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  28. J.-O. Henck, J. Bernstein, A. Ellern, and R. Boese, “Disappearing and reappearing polymorphs. The benzocaine: picric acid system,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 123, no. 9, pp. 1834–1841, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. A. K. Tewari, V. P. Singh, R. Dubey, C. Puerta, P. Valerga, and R. Verma, “Importance of weak interactions in developing 1,3-bis(4,6-dimethyl-1H- nicotinonitrile-1-yl)1,3-dioxy propane polymorphs,” Spectrochimica Acta A, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 1267–1275, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. M. F. Sanner, “Python: a programming language for software integration and development,” Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 57–61, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  31. R. Huey, G. M. Morris, A. J. Olson, and D. S. Goodsell, “Software news and update a semiempirical free energy force field with charge-based desolvation,” Journal of Computational Chemistry, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1145–1152, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. G. M. Morris, D. S. Goodsell, R. S. Halliday et al., “Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function,” Journal of Computational Chemistry, vol. 19, no. 14, pp. 1639–1662, 1998. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2013 Rashmi Dubey et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.