Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 19 May 2015
Received in revised form 25 August 2015
Accepted 26 August 2015
Available online 5 September 2015
Keywords:
4-(2-Pyridylazo)resorcinol (PAR)
Molar absorption coefcient
Dissociation constant
Stability constant
Zinc protein
a b s t r a c t
4-(2-Pyridylazo)resorcinol (PAR) is one of the most popular chromogenic chelator used in the determination of
the concentrations of various metal ions from the d, p and f blocks and their afnities for metal ion-binding
biomolecules. The most important characteristics of such a sensor are the molar absorption coefcient and the
metalligand complex dissociation constant. However, it must be remembered that these values are dependent
on the specic experimental conditions (e.g. pH, solvent components, and reactant ratios). If one uses these
values to process data obtained in different conditions, the nal result can be under- or overestimated. We
aimed to establish the spectral properties and the stability of PAR and its complexes accurately with Zn2+,
Cd2+, Hg2+, Co2+, Ni2+, Cu2+, Mn2+ and Pb2+ at a multiple pH values. The obtained results account for the presence of different species of metalPAR complexes in the physiological pH range of 5 to 8 and have been frequently
neglected in previous studies. The effective molar absorption coefcient at 492 nm for the ZnHx(PAR)2 complex
at pH 7.4 in buffered water solution is 71,500 M1 cm1, and the dissociation constant of the complex in these
conditions is 7.08 1013 M2. To conrm these values and estimate the range of the dissociation constants of
zinc-binding biomolecules that can be measured using PAR, we performed several titrations of zinc nger peptides and zinc chelators. Taken together, our results provide the updated parameters that are applicable to any
experiment conducted using inexpensive and commercially available PAR.
2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Proteins utilize a large number of cofactors to achieve a variety of
functions and structures. Critical among these cofactors are metal ions,
that differ substantially from organic cofactors. For example, bioinformatic analyses of the human genome suggest that up to 3000 proteins
may participate in Zn2+ binding [1]. This number corresponds to ~10%
of all encoded proteins, which may additionally contain various
numbers of zinc domains and motifs with different metal afnities [2].
One of the critical steps in the metalloprotein studies is monitoring of
the metallic cofactors association or dissociation with proteins. Moreover, metalloproteins, particularly those that bind metal ions through
sulfur donors of cysteine residues, might be oxidized or chemically
modied depending on the number of biological reactive species that
typically decrease metal ion-to-protein afnity [3,4]. The best examples
of such cysteine-containing proteins are the metallothioneins and zinc
nger domains [511].
The release of metal ions from proteins and signicant decreases in
metal ion-to-protein afnities are difcult to observe in in vitro conditions due to the typically low concentrations of the metalloproteins
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: artur.krezel@uwr.edu.pl (A. Krel).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2015.08.024
0162-0134/ 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
83
Fig. 1. Examples of chelating chromophores and uorophore: Zincon (a), Eriochrome Blue SE (b), Dithizone (c), Naphtylazoxine 6S (d), SNAZOXS (e), and TSQ (f).
2. Experimental
2.1. Materials
ZnSO47H2O, 4-(2-pyridylazo)resorcinol (PAR), CdCl2, NiCl26H2O,
HgCl2, MnSO4H2O, Pb(NO3)2, CuCl22H2O, Na2HPO4, Na3PO46H2O,
sodium acetate, potassium hydrogen phthalate (KHP), 4-(2hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic acid (HEPES), 2-(Nmorpholino)ethanesulfonic acid (MES), 1,2-ethanedithiol (EDT),
special quality HNO3, 1,4,8,11-tetraazacyclotetradecane (cyclam),
ethylene-bis(oxyethylenenitrilo)tetraacetic acid (EGTA), tris(2carboxyethyl)phosphine hydrochloride (TCEP), perchloric acid, acetic
anhydride, thioanisole, anisole, and the standard solution of 0.1 M
Table 1
Molar absorption coefcients of PARmetal ion complexes reported in the literature.
Metal
ion
Wavelength
(nm)
(M1 cm1)
Experimental conditions
References
Zn2+
492
500
84 100
80 000
[36]
[37]
495
495
495
493
485
485
63 400
77 400
81 000
83 000
38 750
43 300
497
46 700
500
494
485
485
66 000
84 400
21 666
32 000
Hg2+
Co2+
540
508
513
20 059
58 600
33 300
Ni2+
Cu2+
494
496
515
72 200
67 000
68 700
Mn2+
496
490
496
78 000
38 300
86 500
500
78 000
518
35 900
50 mM ammonia solution
50 mM MOPS pH 7.3,
100 NaCl
Ammonia solution, pH 8
Borate, pH 9
Borate, pH 8
Carbonate, pH 9.7
5 mM TrisHCl, pH 8.6
5 mM TrisHCl, pH 7.4,
100 mM NaClO4
50 mM HEPES, pH 7.4, 4 M
GdnHCl
40 mM HEPES, pH 7.0
50 mM ammonia solution
5 mM TrisHCl, pH 8.6
5 mM TrisHCl,
pH 7.4, 0.1 M NaClO4
pH 3.13.3
50 mM ammonia solution
50 mM HEPES, pH 7.4, 4 M
GdnHCl
50 mM ammonia solution
50 mM ammonia solution
Borate, pH 7.969.40,
0.1 M NaClO4
50 mM ammonia solution
NaOH solution, pH 10.0
100 mM phosphate buffer,
pH 11.2
Ammonia solution,
pH 9.710.7
50 mM ammonia solution
Cd2+
Pb2+
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[36]
[45]
[43]
[46]
[36]
[44]
[36]
[36]
[47]
[36]
[48]
[49]
[40]
[36]
84
85
Fig. 2. Structures of the fully protonated PAR molecule: H3L+ (a), MHL+ (b), and MH2L2 (c) metal complex species. M refers to any bivalent metal ions examined in this study. Green color
2
represents protons that dissociate at basic pH transforming complexes to ML, MHL
species with the same coordination mode.
2 and ML2
Table 2
Dissociation constants of PAR determined by potentiometric and spectrophotometric
(UVvis) titration at 25 C and I = 0.1 M and the values reported in the literature.
UVvis
pKa1
pKa2
pKa3
Ref.
2.92 0.03
5.43 0.02
12.10 0.02
This study
Potentiometry
a
2.86 0.03
5.45 0.03a
12.10b
This study
Potentiometryc
UV-visd
2.3
6.9
12.4
[65,66]
3.072.45
5.506.28
12.0412.77
[67]
a
log H2L = 17.55 0.01, log H3L+ = 20.41 0.02 with xed log HL = 12.1. The
values were determined in 1% DMSO water solution (see Experimental section).
b
The value taken from UVvis titration.
c
Values determined in 50% dioxanewater mixture.
d
Values determined in methanolwater mixtures (from 0 to 90% methanol).
86
Fig. 4. Spectrophotometric titrations of 20 M PAR with Zn2+, Co2+, Cd2+, Ni2+, Hg2+, Mn2+, Pb2+, and Cu2+ at pH 7.0 (green), 7.4 (red), 8.0 (yellow), 9.0 (blue), and 9.9 (black). The
titrations were performed in acetate, MES, HEPES, and Tris buffers at 25 C, I = 0.1 M from NaCl. The dashed lines denote the stoichiometric points.
Table 3
Effective molar absorption coefcients of PAR complexes with metal ions determined at
the indicated wavelengths, which correspond to the maximum absorbances. The values
were obtained from the slopes of the titrations of 100 M PAR with the appropriate metal
ions over the of 010 M at pH 7.4 (50 mM HEPES buffer) or 11.0 (50 mM phosphate
buffer) at 25 C, I = 0.1 M from NaCl. The slope the SD corresponds to the eff.
Metal ion
max (nm)
Zn2+
Cd2+
Hg2+
Co2+
Ni2+
Cu2+
Mn2+
Pb2+
492
495
505
508
494
508
498
520
7.4
eff
(103 M1 cm1)
11.0
eff
(103 M1 cm1)
71.5 0.4
49.3 0.3
15.19 0.09
51.3 0.3
61.1 0.4
44.6 0.2
7.71 0.06
30.5 0.3
81.5 0.2
74.6 0.4
48.9 0.3
51.4 0.2
61.2 0.5
59.3 0.1
67.2 0.3
36.0 0.1a
a
The value was determined in non buffered conditions due to the precipitation of
Pb3(PO4)2 in phosphate buffer. The pH value was adjusted manually using 2 M NaOH.
87
equilibria events were observed over the wide range of pH. Similar to
the 1:1 ratio, the rst saturation was observed at pH ~ 7, and the
second one occurred at a basic pH. These ndings conrm the equilibria
between CuHxPAR and CuHx(PAR)2 complexes in these conditions.
The spectroscopic results presented above allow us to state that
MHx(PAR)2 complexes of Zn2 +, Cd2 +, Hg2 +, Co2 +, Mn2 + and Ni2 +
are formed, depending on the metal ion, at a neutral and basic pH.
However, 1:1 complexes might also be present in neutral or slightly
acidic conditions. Cu2+ clearly forms both 1:1 and 1:2 complexes in a
reagent-ratio dependent manner. Pb2 + formed only 1:1 complexes
independent of the reagent ratio. The use of PAR at a higher metal-ion
ratios increases the concentration of MHx(PAR)2 complexes (with the
exception of Pb2+) and is frequently used to prevent the formation of
1:1 complexes.
3.2.3. Molar absorption coefcients
The absorbance of a metal-chromophoric chelator complex at its
characteristic wavelength depends on both, the molar fraction of the
complex and its molar absorption coefcient. An accurate molar absorption coefcient () value can be determined at specic conditions only
when the fraction of the metal complex is known. Frequently, multiple
metal complex species with various spectroscopic properties are simultaneously present or incomplete complexation of the metal ions occurs
in certain experimental conditions. In such cases, the molar absorption
coefcient should refer to the total amount of metal (variously
complexed and free) present in the solution, and this quantity is termed
as the effective molar absorption coefcient (eff) in this article. Using
this value, one is able to precisely calculate the total concentration of
the metal ion for any condition required by an experiment. If incomplete complexation occurs, e.g., in acidic pH, the application of the effective molar absorption coefcient does not provide information about
the absorption species concentration but rather about the total amount
of metal. However, in most cases, chelating chromophores are used in
high excess over metal ions, ensuring that 100% of the metal ions are
complexed. Notably, a difference in the probe concentration or in the
pH changes the eff value. To avoid major errors, the effective molar
coefcient should be used for the same experimental conditions.
Taking these facts into consideration, we measured the absorbances
at the maximum wavelengths in buffered solutions at pH of 7.4 and 11.0
(Fig. 5). To avoid the formation of MHxPAR complexes in the cases of
Zn2+, Cd2+, Hg2+, Co2+, Ni2+, and Mn2+, high molar excesses of PAR
over the metal ions were used. PAR at a concentration of 100 M was
titrated at a constant pH with the specied metal ion from 0 to 10 M.
Linear ts representing the effective molar absorption coefcients
were obtained in all cases and are presented in Table 3 along with the
standard deviations. With the exceptions of Ni2+ and Co2+, the absorption coefcients were lower at pH 7.4 than at pH 11.0 due to either
fractional saturation of PAR or the presence of differentially protonated
complexes with various absorptivities. As discussed above, the complexes of Co2 + and Ni2 + with PAR are extremely stable, and those
metal ions were fully complexed at pH 7.4 and 11.0 to form ML2 species
(Figs. S4 and S6, ESI). Therefore, the effective molar coefcients were
identical for these metal ions in both conditions.
Table 1 illustrates the molar absorption coefcients obtained in different experimental conditions, methods and determined at various
wavelengths. A prime example is the Zn2+-PAR system; the effective
molar coefcients that have been determined for this system at various
pH are in the absorption range of 485 to 500 nm. In the literature, the
most widely cited molar extinction coefcient of the Zn2+-PAR system
is 66 000 M1 cm1, which was determined at pH 7.0 at 500 nm by
Hunt et al. [45]. Because the fractions of particular species of the
Zn2+-PAR system differ signicantly at neutral pH, the effective coefcients determined at experimental pH values should be used to avoid
errors. To highlight this issue, we determined the effective molar
absorption coefcients of Zn2+ complexes across the very wide range
of pH value from 4.0 to 11.0 (Table 4, Fig. 6). The effective molar
88
Fig. 5. Determination of effective molar absorption coefcients of the Zn2+, Cd2+, Hg2+, Co2+, Ni2+, Cu2+, Mn2+ and Pb2+ complexes with PAR at pH 7.4 (red circles, 50 mM HEPES, I = 0.1 M)
or pH 11.0 (black circles, 50 mM phosphate buffer, I = 0.1 M).
coefcients (at 492 nm) for the pH of 7.0, 7.4, and 8.0 were 60 800, 71
500, and 76 800 M 1 cm1, respectively. These values differ from
those determined at 500 nm (Table 4). Plotting the determined effective
molar coefcients as a function of pH resulted in a Zn2+ complexation
isotherm curve similar to that obtained from spectrophotometric
pH-titration (Fig. 7 and the inset of Fig. 6). This nding conrms the
statement that the changes in the molar fractions of ZnH2L2, ZnHL
2
and ZnL2
(when PAR is used in excess over the metal ion) from pH 5
2
to 9 critically affect the average absorbance at 492 nm and consequently
alter the effective molar coefcients. Therefore, it is imperative to use
the appropriate coefcient values that are determined in the same
conditions as the experiment of interest.
Table 4
Effective molar absorption coefcients of the Zn2+PAR system determined at 492
and 500 nm across a wide range of pH. The values were obtained from the slopes of the
titrations of 100 M PAR with 010 M Zn2+ in 50 mM acetate, MES, HEPES, Tris or
phosphate buffers at 25 C, I = 0.1 M from NaCl. The slope the SD corresponds to the eff
(103 M1 cm1).
pH
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.4
8.0
9.0
9.9
11.0
500 nm
2.80 0.03
8.05 0.04
16.1 0.1
24.7 0.1
37. 7 0.1
49.9 0.4
60.8 0.5
71.5 0.4
76.8 0.4
81.1 0.4
81.4 0.3
81.5 0.2
3.40 + 0.03
9.41 0.04
17.7 0.1
26.3 0.1
37.9 0.2
49.8 0.4
59.8 0.3
70.1 0.4
75.0 0.3
78.5 0.2
78.9 0.3
79.0 0.2
89
Table 6
Effective dissociation constants (Kdeff)a of the ZnHx(PAR)2 species at various pH values from
7 to 9. The values were calculated based on the protonation and corrected Zn2+ stability
constants reported in this study.b
pH
log Keff
d
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.8
8.0
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
9.0
11.67
11.89
12.02
12.15
12.29
12.43
12.75
13.08
13.44
13.81
14.19
14.57
14.96
a
Kdeff = [Zn2+][L]2 / [Zn(L)2], where [L] is the concentration of unbound PAR at different
protonation states (i.e., the of the H3L+, H2L, HL and L2 species); [Zn(L)2] refers to the
sum of all protonated and deprotonated Zn(PAR)2 complexes (ZnH2L2, ZnHL2 and ZnL2).
b
To avoid the presence of ZnHxPAR complexes, a twenty-fold excess of PAR (100
M) over Zn2+ (5 M) was used in the calculations of Kdeff.
Fig. 7. Speciation plots of the Zn2+PAR complexes calculated using the corrected protonation and Zn2+ stability constants presented in this study. The molar fraction distributions
are plotted for the molar ratios of (a) 10 M Zn2+:20 M PAR and (b) 10 M Zn2+:100 M.
The circles included in the top plot demonstrate the absorptions of the Zn2+-PAR complexes at 407 (green) and 492 nm (cyan) recorded with the same reactant concentrations
as a function of pH. The dotted line indicates the pH of 7.4.
(ijk). Using our protonation constants that were determined potentiometrically and spectrophotometrically (Fig. 7), we were able to recalculate these values. The results are comparable with those reported by
Tanaka et al. and Pollak et al.; however, the values differ signicantly
for the ML2 complexes (Table 5).
Because the ZnHx(PAR)y system includes ZnHL+, ZnL, ZnH2L2,
2
ZnHL
complexes that are present across a wide range of
2 and ZnL2
pH, it was not possible to create experimental conditions that could
maintain only one species with the exception of conditions that involved high pH and high molar excesses over Zn2+. The most frequently
used Kd value for the Zn(PAR)2 complex at pH 7.0 presented in the
report of Hunt et al. was calculated by an unknown method based on
the numerical data from the reports of Tanaka et al. and Pollak et al.
[18,45,77]. Fig. 7a demonstrates the molar fraction distributions of the
ZnHx(PAR)y complexes (10 M Zn2 + and 20 M PAR) over a wide
range of pH. This gure shows that at neutral pH, there are several species that differ not only in stoichiometry but also in spectral properties
and stability. The overlap of the absorbance increases at 492 nm,
2
which demonstrates that ZnL, ZnHL
2 and ZnL2 signicantly contribute
to the average absorbance at this wavelength. For the 100 M:10 M
ratio of PAR over Zn2+ (Fig. 7b) at pH 7.4, the percentages of the ZnL,
2
ZnH2L2, ZnHL
complexes are 5.2, 5.8, 52.1, and 36.9%, re2 , and ZnL2
spectively. For this ratio or higher ones, the amount of ZnL complex
can be neglected, which signicantly simplies all calculations without
a loss in accuracy (data not shown). Providing the simple effective Kd of
a particular complex is not useful because all of the differently protonated ZnHx(PAR)2 complexes are simultaneously present across a wide
range of pH. Therefore, the most convenient method for describing the
stability of the system is to provide the effective dissociation constant
of ZnHx(PAR)2, which is the sum of all of the 1:2 complexes at a given
pH. Table 6 includes the effective dissociation constants that were calculated for several pH values from 7.0 to 9.0. These values are based on the
corrected stability values and molar fraction speciations with high PAR
excesses over Zn2+ presented in this study. The effective dissociation
constants can be used directly for any competition experiment at a
specied pH value when PAR is used in high excess (at least 10) over
the total Zn2+.
Table 5
Stability constants and molar absorption coefcients of the Zn-PAR complexes.
Species
ijka
Tanaka et al.
ijka
Pollak et al.
ijk
This study
() (103 M1 cm1)
Tanaka et al.
() (103 M1 cm1)
Pollak et al.
() (103 M1 cm1)
This study
ZnHL+
ZnL
ZnH2L2
ZnHL
2
ZnL2
2
17.8
11.9
36.2
29.75
22.2
16.7
11.5
31.99
26.29
20.5
17.6
11.7
35.15
28.7
21.15
10.7(490)
31.8(490)
17.5(495)
67.4(495)
95.8(495)
10.7(490)
28.5(495)
16.8(495)
70.9(490)
92.9(490)
14.0 0.4(492)
48.0 0.6(492)
19.0 0.3(492)
75.5 0.5(492)
81.3 0.2(492)
ZnHxLy = [ZnHxLy] / ([Zn2+][H]x[L]y), where [L] is the concentration of fully deprotonated PAR (L2).
90
PAR is relatively often used for indirect measurements of Zn2+-toprotein afnities [51,53]. These measurements can be performed either
by metalloprotein equilibration with PAR (Zn2+ transfer from protein to
PAR) or by the titration of partially Zn2+-saturated PAR with apoprotein
(Zn2+ transfer from PAR to protein). In both approaches, the knowledge
about the Zn2+-to-PAR afnity and the spectral properties is essential.
However, one needs to remember that application of PAR for studying
Zn2 + transfer from zinc protein can be a problematic issue, mostly
due to time required for the equilibration. In many cases PAR causes
dissociation of Zn2+ from metalloproteins but the amount of metal released is lower than one expected based on thermodynamic stability
of protein and PAR. This is because of the slow dissociation of Zn2 +
(low koff) from many zinc proteins. Long equilibration of cysteinecontaining proteins with PAR may result in protein oxidation and its
subsequent denaturation, when non-reducing conditions are used.
The application of disulde reductants, e.g. DTT (dithiothreitol) additionally complicates equilibria due to their high afnity for metal ions
[80]. Use of PAR at a high concentration, usually above 300 M, may
result in non-specic interactions with protein, precipitation of PAR or
its neutral metal complexes during experiments.
Alternatively, the application of partially saturated PAR with Zn2+
for competition with apoproteins avoids problematic issue of kinetics.
Relatively high koff of ZnHx(PAR)2 complexes and high kon of most zinc
proteins result in a reasonable timeframe equilibration. To avoid
apoprotein oxidation during its incubation with PAR, TCEP, known as
a non-metal binding reducing agent, should be used [62]. Its negligible
afnity toward transition metal ions makes it a great reducing agent
that does not interfere with PAR-Zn2+-protein equilibria.
It is known that stability constants of metal complexes with low and
high molecular weight ligands are dependent on many factors including
solvent, pH value, ionic strength, temperature, etc. It is obvious, but
frequently overlooked, that afnity constant determined in one set of
conditions cannot be used for the interpretation of experiments that
are run in other conditions. Besides solvent composition, pH and ionic
strength are the most neglected factors in choosing the right competitor
and experimental conditions. It has been shown that a 0.5 difference in
pH value may result in one or even more orders of magnitude difference
in stability constants [78,81]. Similarly, differences in ionic strength
result in major difference in stability constants. Dissociation constant
of theoretical zinc complex determined at zero ionic strength and
0.2 M differs by ~ 0.5 logarithmic scale [82]. Composition of buffer is
another factor. It is well known that some buffer components, such as
phosphates, have signicant afnities toward metal ions that cannot
be neglected, especially when reference complex is not very stable.
Some frequently used buffers, e.g. Tris buffer also forms complexes
with metal ions, such as Cu2+ [83].
3.3.2. Competition between ZnHx(PAR)2 complexes with apoproteins
Our main goal was to provide spectral and stability data across
a wide range of pH for accurate use in any experiment of interest.
Table 4 shows the effective molar absorption coefcients from pH 4 to
11 as determined for conditions involving a high excess of PAR over
Zn2 + to simplify the system to include only the ZnHx(PAR)2 species.
Table 6 shows the effective dissociation constants of ZnHx(PAR)2 from
pH 7 to 9. Table 5 presents pH-independent cumulative constants
that may be used to calculate speciation in any condition of interest
(i.e., any pH and reactant ratio condition).
To examine numerical data obtained in this study we aimed to use
PAR to determine the stability constants of several chemically different
metal ion binding molecules, including zinc nger peptides (MTF1-1,
C@E ZF133-1, Table S1), zinc binding motifs used for uorescent protein
labeling (TC) and the known zinc ion chelators, including cyclam
and EGTA. These compounds were chosen because of their wellestablished Zn2 +-to-ligand afnities [53,54,8486]. The previously
uncharacterized C@E mutant of ZF133-1 was chosen to close the stability and afnity gap between EGTA and the MTF1-1 zinc nger. All
Fig. 8. Competition between ZnHx(PAR)2 complexes with ligands that form ZnL complex
stoichiometries with various Zn2+ stabilities. a) Titration of 100 M PAR partially saturated
by Zn2+ (5 M) with ligands over a concentration range of 011.9 M, 25 C, and I = 0.1 M.
The gray, blue, dark green, green and red circles correspond to cyclam, ZF133-11 C@E,
EGTA, TC motif, and MTF1-1 ZF, respectively b) Simulated titration curves of ZnHx(PAR)2
complexes with ligands with different afnities for Zn2+.
K ex Hx PAR2 ZnL= ZnHx PAR2 L
91
Table 7
Dissociation constants (KdL) of Zn2+-binding ligands used in this work determined at pH 7.4 (50 mM HEPES, I = 0.1 M from NaCl) based on the competition with ZnHx(PAR)2 complexes.
The values were calculated using the effective molar absorption coefcient of 71 500 M1 cm1 and the effective dissociation constant of ZnHx(PAR)2, logKdeff = 12.15 reported here or
in the data reported by Hunt et al. [45].
Ligand
Reference
Cyclam
ZF133-11 C@E
EGTA
TC motif
MTF1-1 ZF
8.03 0.08
8.44 0.04
9.15 0.06
10.17 0.13
11.40 0.25
No dataa
8.06 0.34
9.06 0.27
9.98 0.35
11.14 0.61
7.97
No datab
9.20
10.11
11.44, 11.62
[84,85]
[86]
[53]
[54]
a
b
It was not possible to determine the constant due to the negative concentrations obtained during the calculation.
The stability constant of the Zn2+ complex with ZF133-11 C@E is reported here for the rst time.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
92
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[83]
[84]
[85]
[86]