PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11666278

Imidotitanium Tris(pyrazolyl)hydroborates: Synthesis, Solution Dynamics, and Solid-State Structure.

Simon C. Dunn·Philip Mountford·Oleg V. Shishkin
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Reaction of [Ti(NBu(t))Cl(2)(py-Bu(t))(2)] (1; py-Bu(t) = 4-tert-butyl pyridine) with 1 equivalent of K[Tp(Me2)], K[Tp(Pri)] or K[Tp(Pri,Br)] affords the corresponding complexes [Tp(Me2)Ti(NBu(t))Cl(py-Bu(t))] (2), [Tp(Pri)Ti(NBu(t))Cl(py-Bu(t))] (3), and [Tp(Pri,Br)Ti(NBu(t))Cl(py-Bu(t))] (4), respectively, which are the first examples of imido Group 4 tris(pyrazolyl)hydroborates [Tp(Me2) = tris(3,5-dimethylpyrazolyl)hydroborate; Tp(Pri) = tris(3-isopropylpyrazolyl)hydroborate; Tp(Pri,Br) = tris(3-isopropyl-4-bromopyrazolyl)hydroborate]. Complexes 2-4 are fluxional on the (1)H and (13)C NMR time scales, the spectra indicating restricted rotation about the Ti-py-Bu(t) bond. Activation parameters for this dynamic process have been determined both by (13)C NMR lineshape analysis and by coalescence measurements. The solution-state structure for 2 has been unambiguously assigned from a low temperature, phase-sensitive (1)H NOESY DQF spectrum and the solid-state X-ray crystal structure of the dichloromethane solvate of 3 has been determined (space group P2(1)/n; a = 12.539(3), b = 14.686(3), c = 21.747(4) Å; beta = 91.28(3) degrees; R(1) = 0.0694 and wR(2) = 0.154 for 1578 observed reflections). (13)C NMR Deltadelta values (Deltadelta = delta(C(alpha)) - delta(C(beta))) for the tert-butyl imido ligand in 2-4 suggest that the donor ability of the tris(pyrazolyl)hydroborate ligands increases in the order Tp(Pri,Br) < Tp(Pri) < Tp(Me2). None of these ligands, however, is as effective a donor to the metal center as either eta-C(5)H(5) or eta-C(5)Me(5).

Explore related subjects

Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Simon C. Dunn, Philip Mountford, Oleg V. Shishkin. 1996-02-14. Imidotitanium Tris(pyrazolyl)hydroborates: Synthesis, Solution Dynamics, and Solid-State Structure.. https://doi.org/10.1021/ic9510674

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2027

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↗