English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The lock-and-key concept is discussed with respect to necessary extensions. Formation of supramolecular complexes depends not only, and often not even primarily on an optimal geometric fit between host and guest. Induced fit and allosteric interactions have long been known as important modifications. Different binding mechanisms, the medium used and pH effects can exert a major influence on the affinity. Stereoelectronic effects due to lone pair orientation can lead to variation of binding constants by orders of magnitude. Hydrophobic interactions due to high-energy water inside cavities modify the mechanical lock-and-key picture. That optimal affinities are observed if the cavity is only partially filled by the ligand can be in conflict with the lock-and-key principle. In crystals other forces than those between host and guest often dominate, leading to differences between solid state and solution structures. This is exemplified in particular with calixarene complexes, which by X-ray analysis more often than other hosts show guest molecules outside their cavity. In view of this the particular problems with the identification of weak interactions in crystals is discussed.

Limitations and Extensions of the Lock-and-Key Principle: Differences between Gas State, Solution and Solid State Structures