PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10939733

Topographical analyses of homonuclear multiple bonds between main group elements

Abstract

Recent experiments have resulted in the completion of the series of Group 14 and Group 15 element double-bond systems, R(n)E=ER(n) (E = C - Pb, n = 2; E = N - Bi, n = 1). Furthermore, new families of multiple-bonded species have been discovered, such as the radical anion [RSnSnR](-) , the close ion pairs [RE(mu2Na)2ER] (E = Ge,Sn), and a digallyne [RGa(mu2Na)2GaR] for which a Ga=Ga triple bond was formulated. Some of these compounds show classical multiple bond features (i.e. the dipnictogens RE=ER, E=N-Bi) in the sense that planar structures with short E-E distances are observed. However, many (i.e. R2E=ER2, E = Si - Pb) do not behave as expected for compounds with multiple bonds. They have trans bent structures, show enormous variation in their E-E distances, and some dissociate easily under E-E bond cleavage in solution. These properties raised doubts as to whether these compounds can be formulated as multiple-bonded systems. Using the electron localization function (ELF) it is possible to clearly show the topographical similarities between classical and nonclassical multiple bonds; ELF divides these systems into unslipped (classical) and slipped (nonclassical) systems. ELF can also be employed to confirm the nonexistence of multiple bonds. Therefore, topographical analyses using ELF are useful to categorize a bonding system. In particular, the bonds in the heavier Group 14 double systems and the Ga-Ga bond in digallyne are clearly shown by this method as slipped double and triple bonds, respectively.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H Grutzmacher, TF Fassler. 2000-07-03. Topographical analyses of homonuclear multiple bonds between main group elements. https://doi.org/10.1002/1521-3765(20000703)6%3A13%3C2317%3A%3Aaid-chem2317%3E3.0.co%3B2-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗