Structural and Energetic Properties of Weak Noncovalent Interactions in Two Closely Related...

Two 3,6-disubstituted-[1,2,4]triazolo[3,4-b][1,3,4]thiadiazole derivatives, namely, 3-(adamantan-1-yl)-6-(2-chloro-6-fluorophenyl)-[1,2,4]triazolo[3,4-b][1,3,4]thiadiazole 1 and 6-(2-chloro-6-fluorophenyl)-3-phenyl-[1,2,4]triazolo[3,4-b][1,3,4]thiadiazole 2, were prepared, and the detailed analysis of the weak intermolecular interactions responsible for the supramolecular self-assembly was performed using X-ray diffraction and theoretical tools. Analyses of Hirshfeld surface and 2D fingerprint plot demonstrated the effect of adamant-1-yl/phenyl moieties on intermolecular interactions in solid-state structures. The effect of these substituents on H···H/Cl/N contacts was more specific. The CLP-PIXEL and density functional theory methods provide information on the energetics of molecular dimers observed in these compounds. The crystal structure of compound 1 stabilizes with a variety of weak intermolecular interactions, including C-H···N, C-H···π, and C-H···Cl hydrogen bonds, a directional C-S···π chalcogen bond, and unconventional short F···C/N contacts. The crystal structure of compound 2 is stabilized by π-stacking interactions, C-H···N, C-H···π, and C-H···Cl hydrogen bonds, and highly directional attractive σ-hole interactions such as the C-Cl···N halogen bond and the C-S···N chalcogen bond. In addition, S(lp)···C(π) and short N···N contacts play a supportive role in the stabilization of certain molecular dimers. The final supramolecular architectures resulting from the combination of different intermolecular interactions are observed in both the crystal packing. The molecular electrostatic potential map reveals complementary electrostatic potentials of the interacting atoms. The quantum theory of atoms in molecules approach was used to delineate the nature and strength of different intermolecular interactions present in different dimers of compounds 1 and 2. The in vitro experiments suggest that both compounds showed selectivity against COX-2 targets rather than COX-1. Molecular docking analysis showed the binding pose of the compounds at the active sites of COX-1/2 enzymes.