Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Chemical Science logoLink to Chemical Science
. 2025 Sep 24;16(43):20406–20413. doi: 10.1039/d5sc05441a

Cooperative reversible assembly in triply interlocked Al6L4 and Ga6L4 cages

Ignacio Izquierdo a, Laura Martínez-Castro b, Gregori Ujaque b, Antonio J Martínez-Martínez a,✉
PMCID: PMC12495313  PMID: 41050574

Abstract

Understanding and controlling the assembly of mechanically interlocked molecules remains a significant challenge. Formation of mechanically interlocked metal–organic cages has, to date, relied exclusively on transition metals due to their predictable coordination geometries and robust bonding. Here, we report, for the first time, the reversible assembly of mechanically interlocked cages based on main-group metals, Al6L4 and Ga6L4. Structural and computational analyses reveal helical [2]catenane quadruple-decker cage topologies stabilized by six metal–ligand nodes, bridging μ-OH groups, extensive π-stacking, and directional CH⋯O interactions. Remarkably, simple acid–base cycling triggers fully reversible cage unlocking–recatenation processes in water at room temperature. Unlike transition-metal-mediated cage interlocking, they assemble instantaneously and selectively via an unprecedented cooperative main-group interlocking pathway, without detectable monomeric cage intermediates. Thermodynamic analyses reveal metal-dependent switching, involving entropy-driven disassembly coupled to strongly enthalpy-driven reassembly, with the Ga6L4 cage ∼500-fold more stable than Al6L4. These findings provide fundamental understanding of new assembly dynamics beyond conventional transition metals.

Main-group metals go mechanical: the first triply interlocked main-group metal cages, Al6L4 and Ga6L4, assemble cooperatively and reversibly in water at room temperature via simple acid–base cycling.graphic file with name d5sc05441a-ga.jpg

Introduction

Mechanically interlocked molecules, including catenanes,1–7 rotaxanes,8–13 clippanes14 and molecular knots,15–23 enable unique controlled molecular motion, gated transport and stimuli-responsive behaviour.24,25 Because their mechanical bonds can only be disrupted by covalent cleavage, these topologically complex architectures underpin emerging technologies from molecular machines,26,27 stimulus-gated catalysis28,29 to adaptive materials and soft robotics.30–34 However, precisely controlling their assembly remains a fundamental challenge. Covalent synthetic routes offer exact connectivity but lack error correction, whereas purely non-covalent methods typically compromise directional precision.35 In contrast, metal-directed self-assembly is a powerful tool, combining predictable coordination geometries, thermodynamic error correction, and tunable lability of metal–ligand bonds.36,37 These features enable the formation of mechanically interlocked metal–organic architectures (Fig. 1) whose cavity size, shape, and charge can be encoded during self-assembly.

Fig. 1. From covalent to metal–organic interlocking: transition-metal vs. main-group metal-mediated catenation (this work).

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Since Fujita's seminal report of the first mechanically interlocked metal–organic cage, a triply interwoven [2]catenane M6L4 structure assembled using Pd or Pt,38 the field has expanded rapidly. Numerous examples have been developed exclusively using transition metals, including Co,39 Cu,40 Zn,39,41 Ru,42,43 Rh,44–46 Pd,47–56 Ag57 and Pt.58,59 These cage assemblies exhibit diverse stimulus-responsive functionalities, such as shape-switching,48,50,54,56 high-affinity guest binding,51 and artificial-muscle-like actuation.44 However, reversible mechanical interlocking switching under mild conditions, essential for programmable and responsive supramolecular function, remains rare.60,61 Main-group metals offer an orthogonal and unexplored toolkit for switchable mechanical interlocking. Although some examples of discrete monomeric main-group metal–organic cages have been developed,62–74 mechanical interlocking involving such metals remains completely unexplored.

Here we introduce first examples of mechanically interlocked metal–organic cages assembled from main-group metals, Al6L4IC1 and Ga6L4IC2. Through a simple tritopic ligand, H6L, we demonstrate fully reversible acid–base-triggered disassembly and reassembly of their triply interwoven helical [2]catenane topologies in water at room temperature. In contrast to transition-metal cage interlocking assembly, which typically proceeds through dimerization of monomeric cage intermediates, they assemble instantaneously via an unprecedented cooperative main-group pathway, without detectable monomeric M3L2 cage intermediates. Thermodynamic analyses reveal a distinctive metal-dependent switching dynamics, driven by entropy during disassembly and enthalpy during reassembly, with the Ga6L4 cage exhibiting ∼500-fold higher stability than its Al6L4 analogue.

Results and discussion

The tritopic ligand H6L was obtained in two steps (Scheme 1a). A Cu-catalyzed three-fold alkyne–azide “click” reaction (CuAAC)75,76 between 1,3,5-triethynylbenzene and 1-azido-2,3-dimethoxybenzene afforded the tris(1,2,3-triazole) precursor Me6L (76%). Subsequent demethylation with BBr3 gave H6L quantitatively (95%). The terminal catechol groups offer robust chelation for oxophilic M3+ ions, while the rigid C3v phenylene C6H3 core pre-arranges three metal binding sites within a trigonal array. Furthermore, the bridging triazole units add conformational adaptability and promote π⋯π/CH⋯π stackings. Self-assembly of H6L with Al(acac)3 or Ga(acac)3 (acac = acetylacetonate), and KOH in a ratio 4 : 6 : 9 in MeOH, selectively produced the triply interlocked cages Al6L4IC1 and Ga6L4IC2 within 16 hours at room temperature (Scheme 1b). This click-demethylation-assembly sequence provided IC1 and IC2 in 86% and 80% yield, respectively, after simple trituration with diethyl ether. Notably, IC1 and IC2 represent the first examples of mechanically interlocked metal–organic cages constructed exclusively from main-group metals.60

Scheme 1. (a) Synthesis of ligands Me6L and H6L. (b) Self-assembly of triply interlocked quadruple-decker cages Al6L4IC1 and Ga6L4IC2. Isolated yields are shown in parenthesis.

Scheme 1

Open in a new tab

Disappearance of the catechol OH signals of H6L (δ 10.05 and 9.52 ppm) in the 1H NMR spectra of IC1 and IC2 confirms metal–catecholate coordination (Fig. 2a–d). Each interlocked cage displays two sets of sharp resonances in D2O at 298 K, reflecting two chemically inequivalent ligand environments. This spectral duplication evidences the mechanical interpenetration of two cage monomeric units, Al3L2C1 or Ga3L2C2, within each dimeric assembly. The triazole protons Hb/Hb′ shift downfield (IC1: δ 9.28/9.42 ppm; IC2: δ 9.26/9.36 ppm) relative to H6L (δ 9.08 ppm), consistent with a peripheral cage location. In contrast, the phenylene C6H3 core protons Ha/Ha′ are strongly shielded (IC1: δ 7.70/7.36 ppm; IC2: δ 7.71/7.38 ppm; vs.H6L: δ 8.52) owing to the π-stacking within the cage interior. 13C NMR data in D2O also shows duplicated sets at 298 K, confirming ligand interpenetration (Fig. S18 and S35, SI).

Fig. 2. (a) 1H NMR spectra (400 MHz, 298 K) of ligand H6L in DMSO-d6, (b) cage Al6L4IC1 (blue) and (c) Ga6L4IC2 (red) in D2O; duplicated ligand environments are labelled with a/d and a′/d′. (d) Overlay of DOSY NMR (400 MHz, 298 K) for IC1 and IC2 in D2O. (e) ESI-TOF HR mass spectra (negative mode) of IC1 and (f) IC2, showing selected peaks for interlocked cages [M6L4]n− and [M3L2]n−C1 and C2 units.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Complementary 1H NMR in CD3OD shows that the duplicated ligand resonances visible in D2O coalesce into single broadened sets at 298 K. Hb/Hb′ appear as averaged and broad singlets at δ 9.12 (IC1) and 9.14 (IC2) ppm, and Ha/Ha′ at δ 8.43 (IC1) and 8.34 (IC2) ppm (Fig. S16 and S33, SI). This solvent-dependent modulation reflects the weaker hydrophobic/solvophobic driving force in CD3OD relative to D2O, which attenuates π-stacking in IC1 and IC2, thereby reducing inner/outer chemical-shift differences (Δδ) and averaging them on the NMR timescale at 298 K. Variable-temperature 1H NMR in CD3OD (318–238 K) progressively resolves these resonances as exchange slows upon cooling to 238 K. At 238 K, the ligand resonances desymmetrize, Hb/Hb′ resolve into five (IC1) and four (IC2) partially overlapping broad singlets spanning δ 9.04–9.31 ppm and δ 9.31–9.60 ppm, respectively. Likewise, Ha/Ha′ split into five (IC1) and three (IC2) overlapping broad singlets δ 8.38–8.80 ppm and δ 8.29–8.37 ppm, respectively; with the catecholate Hc/Hd/He showing analogous behavior (Fig. S55 and S56, SI). Warming up to 298 K restores the initial state. These low-temperature spectra are consistent with freezing of the interlocked topologies IC1 and IC2, where four ligands are arranged in a non-equivalent fashion (vide infra).

High-resolution ESI-TOF MS (negative mode) confirmed the M6L4 formulation for IC1 and IC2. Each spectrum displays isotopically resolved series of peaks for intact anions [Al6L4]n− (for IC1) and [Ga6L4]n− (for IC2) in charge states 4−, 3−, and 2−, detected as Na+/K+ adducts drawn from the ionization medium (Fig. 2e and f). A second family of peaks reveals that each cage retains three hydroxide OH− groups. IC1 gives representative peaks at m/z 940.0542 (3−) and 1438.0436 (2−) for [Al6L4(OH)3 + xA]n−, whereas IC2 furnishes an analogous series at m/z 763.4597 (4−), 1030.9328 (3−) and 1549.9055 (2−) for [Ga6L4(OH)3 + xA]n− (A = Na+, K+). In addition, in-source collisional activation cleaves each interlocked assembly into units [Al3L2]3−C1 (m/z 425.0564) and [Ga3L2]3−C2 (m/z 467.6689), evidencing mechanical unlocking of IC1 and IC2 during ionization.

Single crystals of Me6L suitable for X-ray diffraction were obtained by slow evaporation of a concentrated EtOAc solution (50 mM, 0.5 mL) at room temperature over 24 h. The crystal structure of Me6L reveals a planar 1,3,5-phenylene C6H3 core flanked by three peripheral 1,2,3-triazoles, promoting extended ligand conjugation (Fig. 3a). The catechol termini are pre-organized at distances of ∼15.1 Å, ideal for chelating remote M3+ nodes. Packing is governed by π⋯π contacts (centroid⋯centroid 3.7483(9) Å) supplemented by C–H⋯π/Me⋯π/C–H⋯N interactions (Fig. 3b and c), underscoring the intrinsic propensity of this ligand framework for stacking. DOSY NMR studies corroborate a significant aggregation of both Me6L and H6L in solution. The measured diffusion coefficients (D) of 3.10 × 10−10 m2 s−1 for Me6L and 2.60 × 10−10 m2 s−1 for H6L correspond to Stokes–Einstein hydrodynamic radii (rH) of 9 and 11 Å (Fig. S57 and S58, SI), respectively, roughly twice the estimated monomer size (6 Å) and consistent with predominant dimer aggregation. This pre-organization is expected to reduce the entropic cost of cage assembly using H6L.

Fig. 3. Crystal packing of Me6L highlighting key non-covalent interactions: (a) side-on view of a slipped stack showing π-overlap, (b) close-up of π⋯π and C–H⋯N contacts, (c) representative CH⋯π contacts and (d) Me⋯π interactions.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Single crystals of the cage Ga6L4IC2 suitable for X-ray diffraction, as its potassium salt form K9[Ga6L4(OH)3], were grown by vapor diffusion of acetone (2 mL) into a 1 : 1 H2O/MeOH solution of the cage (10 mM, 0.5 mL) at room temperature over one week. These crystals confirm the anticipated triply interlocked [2]catenane topology (Fig. 4). Two mechanically threaded monomeric units Ga3L2C2 (cage I and cage II) are connected by six Ga–catecholate chelate nodes (Ga–O 1.8926(18)–1.9544(19) Å). At each of the three crossing nodes a μ-OH bridge spans a Ga2 unit (Ga–OH 1.890(2)–1.928(2) Å), rendering every Ga3+ center five-coordinate within the anionic [Ga6L4(OH)3]9− framework. Each Ga3L2C2 cage encloses a prolate cavity with 6.8180(18) and 6.7422(19) Å inter-deck spacings and voids of 83 and 107 Å3 (calculated using CageCavityCalc-C3),77 ideally sized to host the tris(triazole)phenylene hub of its interpenetrating Ga3L2 partner (Fig. 4b). ESP mapping shows a uniformly negative potential inside each cavity, reflecting the π-rich ligand walls in each formal Ga3L2C2 unit, suggesting that dispersion, π-stacking and Ga–O coordination likely drive interlocking.

Fig. 4. Crystal structure of the triply interlocked cage Ga6L4IC2 (anionic form [Ga6L4(OH)3]9−). (a) Side view of the quadruple-decker assembly; μ-OH bridges and Ga atoms are shown ball-and-sticks, and key CH⋯O contacts as dashed lines. (b) Isolated Ga3L2C2 units (cage I and cage II) rendered with internal voids as ESP isosurfaces calculated using CageCavityCalc-C3 (grid size 0.7 Å, eem charge model). (c) P-Helical arrangement of the four ligand decks (side and top). H atoms (except those in CH⋯O contacts), K+ ions, and solvent are omitted; C beige/cyan, N blue, O red, Ga teal.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Additional NCI analyses of DFT-optimized (B3LYP-D3/6-31g*) structures of IC1 and IC2 provided deeper insights into the non-covalent forces underpinning these assemblies. The presence of diffuse attractive isosurfaces highlights extensive π-stacking between ligand layers in both interlocked assemblies IC1 and IC2 (Fig. S97 and S98, SI). The distinct interaction maps, despite similar, suggest greater stability of the cage IC2 compared to IC1 through enhanced π-stacking (slightly larger and greener surfaces).

Four ligand decks form an eclipsed π-stack (inter-deck phenylene centroid⋯centroid: 3.3691(17), 3.3753(19) and 3.4493(18) Å). These decks are successively rotated by 17.28(3)–29.16(3)°, generating P/M helices that crystallize as a racemate in P1̄ space group (P-helix is shown, Fig. 4c). An additional π-staircase array of contacts between triazoles (3.5120(19)–4.044(2) Å), supported by directional internal CH⋯O interactions (2.266(2)–2.782(2) Å), further consolidate this quadruple-decker. When interlocked, three tris(triazole)-phenylene cores remain planar (Fig. 4a: decks 1, 3 and 4), whereas one bends (deck 2) to accommodate the interlocked array IC2, underscoring the adaptive flexibility of the ligand L6− framework. In addition, these discrete anionic interlocked [Ga6L4(OH)3]9− cages pack into a three-dimensional lattice via outer-sphere K+ bridges and solvent channels (Fig. S95, SI).

The four ligands are crystallographically non-equivalent in IC2, partitioning into two inner and two outer decks. This solid-state asymmetry rationalizes the inner/outer twofold NMR splitting observed D2O solution and the further desymmetrisation observed in CD3OD at 238 K. Moreover, 1H,1H-NOESY cross-peaks between inner phenylene Ha′ and outer triazole Hb confirm face-edge proximity required for the quadruple-decker helix (Fig. S22 and S39, SI). Additional inter-deck Ha/Ha′ NOESY contacts between neighboring phenylene C6H3 cores confirm retention of the π-stacking motif of IC1 and IC2 in solution. DOSY experiments further supports intact cage architectures in D2O solution (IC1: D = 1.37 × 10−10 m2 s−1; IC2: D = 1.58 × 10−10 m2 s−1, both in D2O, Fig. 2d), yielding rH of 13 and 11 Å, respectively, demonstrating retention of the interlocked topologies in water (estimated crystallographic radii of 13 Å for IC2, see SI). Additional DOSY results in CD3OD solution (IC1: D = 2.75 × 10−10 m2 s−1, rH = 13 Å; IC2: D = 2.90 × 10−10 m2 s−1, rH = 12 Å) closely matching the structural cage dimensions, confirming intact interlocked topologies in both D2O and CD3OD.

Motivated by the unique topological features and the presence of stabilizing μ-OH bridges, we examined the response of the cages IC1 and IC2 to protonation. Titration of solutions of IC1 and IC2 with incremental additions of deutero-hydrochloric acid (DCl) in D2O were monitored by 1H NMR (Fig. 5). Cage IC1 underwent rapid structural disruption upon addition of one equivalent of acid as evidenced by progressive disappearance and broadening of the cage resonances after four equivalents (Fig. S64, SI). By contrast, cage IC2 remains intact until the third equivalent of acid, underscoring its higher kinetic and thermodynamic robustness (Fig. 5a). Remarkably, subsequent neutralization with sodium deuteroxide (NaOD, 1–4 equiv.) fully restores the diagnostic spectra of each interlocked cage IC1 and IC2. While IC1 recatenates after 3–4 equivalents of base, IC2 readily interlocks after one equivalent. Identical spectral changes were obtained across the window 1–5 mM, the highest range permitted by the solubility of IC1 and IC2, demonstrating a fully reversible unlocking/recatenation process. The absence of resonances attributable to monomeric M3L2 cages C1 or C2 further supports a highly cooperative and effectively direct assembly pathway under these conditions.

Fig. 5. Reversible acid–base switching of the interlocked cage Ga6L4IC2: (a) 1H NMR (500 MHz, 298 K, 4 mM) stack for Ga6L4IC2 during titration with DCl (1–4 equiv., red) and back-titration with NaOD (1–4 equiv., blue) in D2O (identical spectra are obtained in the 1–5 mM range). ITC traces: (b) disassembly (1–4 equiv. of DCl) and (c) reassembly (0–1.5 equiv. of NaOD) of IC2 in D2O (1 mM) at 298 K.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Lyophilization of the acidified solutions allowed us to analyze the unlocked intermediates resulting from disassembling both cages, IC1 and IC2. ESI-TOF mass analysis reveal dominant ions at m/z 626.1121 (2−) and 669.0500 (2−) corresponding to partially protonated species [Al2(HxL)2]n− and [Ga2(HxL)2]n− (Fig. S74 and S85, SI). The absence of higher-mass ions suggests that protonation lowers the net charge, favoring H-bonded “M2(HxL)2” species that exchange rapidly in D2O solution and thus broaden the 1H NMR signals during disassembly. Notably, under these partially acidified conditions (4 equiv.), the dominant [M2(HxL)2]n− ions do not contain OH− groups, in contrast to the intact cage [M6L4(OH)3]n− ions, where μ-OH bridging is implicit. This indicates protonation/disruption of the μ-OH bridges during unlocking; conversely, reappearance of the IC1 and IC2 resonances upon neutralization with base correlates with re-formation of these bridges. IR spectroscopy showed a broad ν(OH) at 3500 cm−1 and 1H NMR in DMSO-d6 confirming partial catechol reprotonation (Fig. S81–S84, SI). Together, these observations indicate that full deprotonation of H6L and intact μ-OH bridges are pre-requisites for cage assembly.

While controlled addition of acid (1–4 equiv.) resulted in partial protonated “M2(HxL)2” species, addition of a large excess of acid (30 equiv.) fully protonated the system, regenerating back the neutral ligand H6L. To map the direct interlocking pathway, we conducted in situ NMR monitoring starting from the fully protonated ligand H6L. Titration of H6L with incremental additions of NaOD (1–6 equiv.) in D2O generates the hexaanionic ligand species, L6−, in its sodium form Na6L (Fig. S68–S70, SI). DOSY NMR analysis reveals a significant dimeric pre-organization of Na6L in solution (D = 2.08 × 10−10 m2 s−1, rH = 9 Å), akin to Me6L and H6L. Addition of two equivalents of AlCl3 and GaCl3 as water soluble sources of Al3+ and Ga3+ ions, immediately produced the duplicated ligand 1H NMR resonances of IC1 and IC2. Although partial replacement of the bridging μ-OH groups for μ-Cl and outer-sphere exchange of K+ for Na+ cannot be excluded under these conditions, the formation of IC1 and IC2 is essentially instantaneous (<2 min), underscoring the high kinetic facility of this unusual main-group interlocking process. The rapid assembly is consistent with cooperative metal–catecholate chelation together with a hydrophobic/solvophobic contribution that further strengthens π-stacking and releases structured solvent molecules and counterions from the cavity regions during the assembly of IC1 and IC2. This essentially direct main-group interlocking pathway, occurring without detectable formation of monomeric cage intermediates M3L2C1 or C2, contrasts markedly with the established monomer-to-dimer interlocking pathways typical for transition-metal-mediated cage assemblies.41,48,50,52,54,55,78

To quantify the thermodynamic driving forces underlying the reversible assembly of IC1 and IC2, isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) was carried out under the same acid–base NMR cycling regimes at 1 mM concentrations (Fig. 5b, c and S72, SI). The ITC isotherms captured single cooperative transition equilibria for both the disassembly and reassembly of IC1 and IC2, therefore, data were fitted to one-set-of-sites models (independent-sites/Wiseman). Hence, the overall macroscopic equilibria returned N (acid/base titrant equivalents per cage at the transition) and apparent macroscopic equilibrium constants K (M−1) for the overall disassembly (cage + nH+ ⇄ disassembled state) and reassembly (disassembled state + nOH− ⇄ cage) modelled steps at the specific transition N equivalents. Acid-induced disassembly is entropy-driven (TΔS > 0, Fig. 6) for both cages IC1 (TΔS = 32.9 kJ mol−1) and IC2 (TΔS = 19.1 kJ mol−1), consistent with the gain in translational/rotational and conformational freedom upon releasing ligands and metal ions. The modest exothermicity (IC1: ΔH = −16.0 kJ mol−1; IC2: ΔH = −15.2 kJ mol−1) is attributed to protonation of μ-OH bridges and catecholate groups. Overall, unlocking is easier for IC1 (ΔG = −48.9 kJ mol−1) than for IC2 (ΔG = −34.3 kJ mol−1), consistent with the higher intrinsic stability of the Ga6L4 cage IC2. Consistently, the ITC stoichiometries indicate N = 1.06 ± 0.03 acid equivalent per cage for IC1 and N = 3.12 ± 0.11 for IC2 during disassembly, matching the macroscopic equivalence points seen by 1H NMR titrations. Reassembly on base addition is strongly enthalpy-driven (IC1: ΔH = −42.1 kJ mol−1; IC2: ΔH = −42.7 kJ mol−1). This reflects the formation of twelve M–O chelate bonds and three μ-OH bridges, reinforced by dense π⋯π and C–H⋯O contacts within the quadruple-decker stacks, providing a large exothermic gain that outweighs the desolvation costs. The reassembly entropy terms diverge. IC1 pays a small entropic penalty (TΔS = −15.3 kJ mol−1), whereas IC2 incurs essentially none (TΔS = −0.3 kJ mol−1). This reflects the balance between ordering penalties and the favorable hydrophobic/solvophobic release of structured solvent molecules and counterions from catecholate solvation shells and π-rich cavities during interlocking. We ascribe the minimal entropic term in IC2 to a more extensive π-stacking and stronger Ga–O chelation, which together favor a more pre-organized unlocked ensemble and better compensates ordering in water compared to IC1. The resulting reassembly free energies (IC1: ΔG = −26.8 kJ mol−1; IC2: ΔG = −42.4 kJ mol−1) confirm the greater thermodynamic stability of the Ga6L4 cage IC2. In line with this, recatenation proceeds with N = 3.62 ± 0.04 base equivalents per cage for IC1vs. N = 0.92 ± 0.01 for IC2, again consistent with the 1H NMR titrations. The obtained thermodynamic magnitudes are consistent with other metal–organic cages, where guest capture/assembly is generally exothermic and enthalpy-driven (typically ΔH ∼ −20 to −60 kJ mol−1; TΔS ∼ −15 to 25 kJ mol−1), while release/exchange commonly shows favorable entropy (TΔS > 10 kJ mol−1).79–81

Fig. 6. Thermodynamic ITC data (ΔG, TΔS and ΔH) for acid-induced disassembly and base-induced reassembly: (a) Al6L4IC1 and (b) Ga6L4IC2.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

At 298 K, the recatenation free energies are ΔG = −26.8 kJ mol−1 (K = 5.1 × 104 M−1) for IC1 and ΔG = −42.4 kJ mol−1 (K = 2.7 × 107 M−1) for IC2. For unlocking, ΔG is −48.9 kJ mol−1 for IC1 (K = 3.7 × 108 M−1) and −34.3 kJ mol−1 (K = 1.0 × 106 M−1) for IC2. The resulting ΔΔG(IC2–IC1) = −15.6 kJ mol−1 for recatenation, corresponds to a ∼500-fold greater thermodynamic preference for the Ga6L4 cage IC2 over the Al6L4 cage IC1. This metal dependence is consistent with the generally higher affinity of Ga–O chelation relative to Al–O (e.g., phenolate chelates exhibit log K ∼ 31 for Ga vs. 22 for Al in water),82 reinforcing that stronger Ga–catecholate binding together with more extensive π-stacking, seen by NCI, stabilizes the triply interlocked Ga6L4IC2 topology.

Conclusions

We have demonstrated an unprecedented reversible assembly of the first examples of mechanically interlocked metal–organic cages involving main-group metals, Al6L4 and Ga6L4. A simple tritopic ligand, H6L, directly folds each metal into helical, triply interwoven [2]catenane quadruple-decker topologies. Structural and computational studies confirm cage stabilization via six metal–ligand nodes, bridging μ-OH groups, extensive π-stacking and directional CH⋯O interactions. Remarkably, simple acid–base cycling induces fully reversible cage disassembly–reassembly in water at room temperature. Unlike transition-metal-mediated cage interlocking, which typically assemble through detectable monomeric cages, this main-group metal assembly proceeds rapidly through an unusual cooperative pathway without observable monomeric M3L2 cage intermediates. Thermodynamic analyses reveal a metal-dependent switching behavior through entropy-driven unlocking coupled with strongly enthalpy-driven recatenation. The Ga6L4 cage exhibits ∼500-fold higher stability than Al6L4 (ΔG = −42.4 vs. −26.8 kJ mol−1), reflecting enhanced Ga–ligand affinity and π-stacking. These results provide new fundamental insights into main-group metal-driven interlocking, thereby opening opportunities for novel stimuli-responsive supramolecular materials beyond conventional transition-metal systems.

Author contributions

I. I. conducted all experiments, synthesis, characterisation, NMR and ITC assembly studies. L. M. C. and G. U. performed electronic structure calculations of molecular models. A. J. M. M.: conceived the idea, project supervision, wrote the manuscript and conducted X-ray crystallography. All authors provided comments and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Supplementary Material

SC-016-D5SC05441A-s001
SC-016-D5SC05441A-s002

Acknowledgments

Dedicated to Prof. Pedro J. Pérez on the occasion of his 60th birthday. We thank the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades MICIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 (grant PID2023-150881NB-I00 for G. U. and PID2022-142270OB-I00 for A. J. M. M.), MICIN/NextGenerationEU/PRTR (CNS2022-136087), the European Research and Development Fund (ERDF) and the University of Huelva (EPIT1442023). I. I. acknowledges the AEI Research State Agency for an FPI Research Contract (PRE2020-094250). L. M.-C. acknowledges the support of the Generalitat de Catalunya (2021 FISDU 00034). Funding for open access was provided by the University of Huelva (CBUA).

Data availability

The datasets supporting this article have been uploaded as part of the Supplementary Information (SI). Supplementary information: experimental procedures, characterisation data, selected figures, crystallographic and computational details. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d5sc05441a.

CCDC 2467878 and 2467879 contain the supplementary crystallographic data for this paper.83a,b

References

  1. Wu Y. Guo Q.-H. Qiu Y. Weber J. A. Young R. M. Bancroft L. Jiao Y. Chen H. Song B. Liu W. Feng Y. Zhao X. Li X. Zhang L. Chen X.-Y. Li H. Wasielewski M. R. Stoddart J. F. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2022;119:e2118573119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2118573119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Colley N. D. Nosiglia M. A. Tran S. L. Harlan G. H. Chang C. Li R. Delawder A. O. Zhang Y. Barnes J. C. ACS Cent. Sci. 2022;8:1672–1682. doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.2c00697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Rodríguez-Rubio A. Savoini A. Modicom F. Butler P. Goldup S. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022;144:11927–11932. doi: 10.1021/jacs.2c02029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gil-Ramírez G. Leigh D. A. Stephens A. J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2015;54:6110–6150. doi: 10.1002/anie.201411619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Amabilino D. B. Ashton P. R. Balzani V. Boyd S. E. Credi A. Lee J. Y. Menzer S. Stoddart J. F. Venturi M. Williams D. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998;120:4295–4307. doi: 10.1021/ja9720873. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Geerts Y. Muscat D. Müllen K. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 1995;196:3425–3435. doi: 10.1002/macp.1995.021961027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Weidmann J.-L. Kern J.-M. Sauvage J.-P. Muscat D. Mullins S. Köhler W. Rosenauer C. Räder H. J. Martin K. Geerts Y. Chem.–Eur. J. 1999;5:1841–1851. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1521-3765(19990604)5:6<1841::AID-CHEM1841>3.0.CO;2-Q. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Puigcerver J. Marin-Luna M. Iglesias-Sigüenza J. Alajarin M. Martinez-Cuezva A. Berna J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2024;146:2882–2887. doi: 10.1021/jacs.3c11611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lee C.-F. Leigh D. A. Pritchard R. G. Schultz D. Teat S. J. Timco G. A. Winpenny R. E. P. Nature. 2009;458:314–318. doi: 10.1038/nature07847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cirulli M. Kaur A. Lewis J. E. M. Zhang Z. Kitchen J. A. Goldup S. M. Roessler M. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019;141:879–889. doi: 10.1021/jacs.8b09715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lipke M. C. Wu Y. Roy I. Wang Y. Wasielewski M. R. Stoddart J. F. ACS Cent. Sci. 2018;4:362–371. doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bruns C. J. Stoddart J. F. Acc. Chem. Res. 2014;47:2186–2199. doi: 10.1021/ar500138u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Solladié N. Chambron J.-C. Sauvage J.-P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999;121:3684–3692. doi: 10.1021/ja9824829. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ibáñez S. Vicent C. Peris E. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2022;61:e202112513. doi: 10.1002/anie.202112513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dietrich-Buchecker C. O. Guilhem J. Pascard C. Sauvage J.-P. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1990;29:1154–1156. doi: 10.1002/anie.199011541. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ponnuswamy N. Cougnon F. B. L. Clough J. M. Pantoş G. D. Sanders J. K. M. Science. 2012;338:783–785. doi: 10.1126/science.1227032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ashbridge Z. Kreidt E. Pirvu L. Schaufelberger F. Stenlid J. H. Abild-Pedersen F. Leigh D. A. Science. 2022;375:1035–1041. doi: 10.1126/science.abm9247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Leigh D. A. Schaufelberger F. Pirvu L. Stenlid J. H. August D. P. Segard J. Nature. 2020;584:562–568. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2614-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Caprice K. Pál D. Besnard C. Galmés B. Frontera A. Cougnon F. B. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021;143:11957–11962. doi: 10.1021/jacs.1c06557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ponnuswamy N. Cougnon F. B. L. Pantoş G. D. Sanders J. K. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014;136:8243–8251. doi: 10.1021/ja4125884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Leigh D. A. Danon J. J. Fielden S. D. P. Lemonnier J.-F. Whitehead G. F. S. Woltering S. L. Nat. Chem. 2021;13:117–122. doi: 10.1038/s41557-020-00594-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Danon J. J. Leigh D. A. Pisano S. Valero A. Vitorica-Yrezabal I. J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2018;57:13833–13837. doi: 10.1002/anie.201807135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Beves J. E. Danon J. J. Leigh D. A. Lemonnier J.-F. Vitorica-Yrezabal I. J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2015;54:7555–7559. doi: 10.1002/anie.201502095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Heard A. W. Goldup S. M. ACS Cent. Sci. 2020;6:117–128. doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.9b01185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Pearcy A. C. Crowley J. D. Chem.–Eur. J. 2023;29:e202203752. doi: 10.1002/chem.202203752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Balzani V. Credi A. Raymo F. M. Stoddart J. F. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2000;39:3348–3391. doi: 10.1002/1521-3773(20001002)39:19<3348::AID-ANIE3348>3.0.CO;2-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Aprahamian I. ACS Cent. Sci. 2020;6:347–358. doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.0c00064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Martinez-Cuezva A. Saura-Sanmartin A. Alajarin M. Berna J. ACS Catal. 2020;10:7719–7733. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.0c02032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Percástegui E. G. Ronson T. K. Nitschke J. R. Chem. Rev. 2020;120:13480–13544. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00672. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Saura-Sanmartin A. Pastor A. Martinez-Cuezva A. Cutillas-Font G. Alajarin M. Berna J. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2022;51:4949–4976. doi: 10.1039/D2CS00167E. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lewis J. E. M. Galli M. Goldup S. M. Chem. Commun. 2017;53:298–312. doi: 10.1039/C6CC07377H. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ma T. Zhou Y. Diercks C. S. Kwon J. Gándara F. Lyu H. Hanikel N. Pena-Sánchez P. Liu Y. Diercks N. J. Ritchie R. O. Proserpio D. M. Terasaki O. Yaghi O. M. Nat. Synth. 2023;2:286–295. doi: 10.1038/s44160-022-00224-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Geng J.-s. Mei L. Liang Y.-y. Yuan L.-y. Yu J.-p. Hu K.-q. Yuan L.-h. Feng W. Chai Z.-f. Shi W.-q. Nat. Commun. 2022;13:2030. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-29738-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Schröder H. V. Zhang Y. Link A. J. Nat. Chem. 2021;13:850–857. doi: 10.1038/s41557-021-00770-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Du E. Tang X. Zhang W. Dong J. Cui Y. Liu Y. Nat. Rev. Chem. 2025;9:506–522. doi: 10.1038/s41570-025-00721-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Frank M. Johnstone M. D. Clever G. H. Chem.–Eur. J. 2016;22:14104–14125. doi: 10.1002/chem.201601752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Yang Y. Du Y. Heard A. W. Nitschke J. R. Nat. Synth. 2025;4:537–551. doi: 10.1038/s44160-025-00799-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Fujita M. Fujita N. Ogura K. Yamaguchi K. Nature. 1999;400:52–55. doi: 10.1038/21861. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Westcott A. Fisher J. Harding L. P. Rizkallah P. Hardie M. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008;130:2950–2951. doi: 10.1021/ja8002149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Yu H.-M. Du M.-H. Shu J. Deng Y.-H. Xu Z.-M. Huang Z.-W. Zhang Z. Chen B. Braunstein P. Lang J.-P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2023;145:25103–25108. doi: 10.1021/jacs.3c11398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Yang L. Jing X. An B. He C. Yang Y. Duan C. Chem. Sci. 2018;9:1050–1057. doi: 10.1039/C7SC04070A. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Mishra A. Dubey A. Min J. W. Kim H. Stang P. J. Chi K.-W. Chem. Commun. 2014;50:7542–7544. doi: 10.1039/C4CC01991A. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Séjourné S. Labrunie A. Dalinot C. Canevet D. Guechaichia R. Bou Zeid J. Benchohra A. Cauchy T. Brosseau A. Allain M. Chamignon C. Viger-Gravel J. Pintacuda G. Carré V. Aubriet F. Vanthuyne N. Sallé M. Goeb S. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2024;63:e202400961. doi: 10.1002/anie.202400961. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Dang L.-L. Zheng J. Zhang J.-Z. Chen T. Chai Y.-H. Fu H.-R. Aznarez F. Liu S.-R. Li D.-S. Ma L.-F. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2024;63:e202406552. doi: 10.1002/anie.202406552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhang Y.-Y. Qiu F.-Y. Shi H.-T. Yu W. Chem. Commun. 2021;57:3010–3013. doi: 10.1039/D0CC08052G. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Yu W. Qiu F.-Y. Luo S.-T. Shi H.-T. Yuan G. Wei X. Inorg. Chem. Front. 2021;8:2356–2364. doi: 10.1039/D1QI00174D. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sekiya R. Fukuda M. Kuroda R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012;134:10987–10997. doi: 10.1021/ja303634u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Fukuda M. Sekiya R. Kuroda R. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2008;47:706–710. doi: 10.1002/anie.200703162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Yamauchi Y. Yoshizawa M. Fujita M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008;130:5832–5833. doi: 10.1021/ja077783+. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Freye S. Hey J. Torras-Galán A. Stalke D. Herbst-Irmer R. John M. Clever G. H. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2012;51:2191–2194. doi: 10.1002/anie.201107184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Sato S. Morohara O. Fujita D. Yamaguchi Y. Kato K. Fujita M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010;132:3670–3671. doi: 10.1021/ja100325b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Watanabe S. Yamashina M. Tsurumaki E. Toyota S. ChemistryEurope. 2023;1:e202300047. doi: 10.1002/ceur.202300047. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Samanta D. Mukherjee P. S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014;136:17006–17009. doi: 10.1021/ja511360e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Montes-Tolentino P. Mikherdov A. S. Drechsler C. Holstein J. J. Clever G. H. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2025;64:e202423810. doi: 10.1002/anie.202423810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Tateishi T. Yasutake Y. Kojima T. Takahashi S. Hiraoka S. Commun. Chem. 2019;2:25. doi: 10.1038/s42004-019-0123-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Hong Q.-Y. Huang B. Wu M.-X. Jiang J.-Y. Yang H.-B. Zhao X.-L. Clever G. H. Shi X. Nat. Commun. 2025;16:2484. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-57876-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Zhang Y.-W. Bai S. Wang Y.-Y. Han Y.-F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020;142:13614–13621. doi: 10.1021/jacs.0c06470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Wang Y. Zhang Y. Zhou Z. Vanderlinden R. T. Li B. Song B. Li X. Cui L. Li J. Jia X. Fang J. Li C. Stang P. J. Nat. Commun. 2020;11:2727. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16556-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Wang Y. Liu T. Zhang Y.-Y. Li B. Tan L. Li C. Shen X.-C. Li J. Nat. Commun. 2024;15:1363. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-45681-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Martí-Rujas J. Commun. Chem. 2025;8:92. doi: 10.1038/s42004-025-01493-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Abe T. Zhang Y. Takeuchi K. Hiraoka S. Chem. 2025;11:102453. [Google Scholar]
  62. Carbonell A. Izquierdo I. Guzmán Ríos D. B. Norjmaa G. Ujaque G. Martínez-Martínez A. J. Pischel U. Inorg. Chem. 2024;63:19872–19884. doi: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.4c03279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Caulder D. L. Brückner C. Powers R. E. König S. Parac T. N. Leary J. A. Raymond K. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001;123:8923–8938. doi: 10.1021/ja0104507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Scherer M. Caulder D. L. Johnson D. W. Raymond K. N. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1999;38:1587–1592. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1521-3773(19990601)38:11<1587::AID-ANIE1587>3.0.CO;2-R. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Hastings C. J. Pluth M. D. Bergman R. G. Raymond K. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010;132:6938–6940. doi: 10.1021/ja102633e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Hart-Cooper W. M. Zhao C. Triano R. M. Yaghoubi P. Ozores H. L. Burford K. N. Toste F. D. Bergman R. G. Raymond K. N. Chem. Sci. 2015;6:1383–1393. doi: 10.1039/C4SC02735C. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Brown C. J. Toste F. D. Bergman R. G. Raymond K. N. Chem. Rev. 2015;115:3012–3035. doi: 10.1021/cr4001226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Treacy S. M. Smith A. L. Bergman R. G. Raymond K. N. Toste F. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2024;146:29792–29800. doi: 10.1021/jacs.4c11482. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Du X.-S. Han Y. Chen C.-F. Chem. Commun. 2022;58:1326–1329. doi: 10.1039/D1CC05974B. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Wu G. Chen Y. Fang S. Tong L. Shen L. Ge C. Pan Y. Shi X. Li H. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2021;60:16594–16599. doi: 10.1002/anie.202104164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Grajda M. Staros G. Jędrzejewska H. Szumna A. Inorg. Chem. 2022;61:11410–11418. doi: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.2c01738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Dalton D. M. Ellis S. R. Nichols E. M. Mathies R. A. Toste F. D. Bergman R. G. Raymond K. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015;137:10128–10131. doi: 10.1021/jacs.5b06317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Hong C. M. Bergman R. G. Raymond K. N. Toste F. D. Acc. Chem. Res. 2018;51:2447–2455. doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.8b00328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Morimoto M. Bierschenk S. M. Xia K. T. Bergman R. G. Raymond K. N. Toste F. D. Nat. Catal. 2020;3:969–984. doi: 10.1038/s41929-020-00528-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Liang L. Astruc D. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2011;255:2933–2945. [Google Scholar]
  76. Meldal M. Tornøe C. W. Chem. Rev. 2008;108:2952–3015. doi: 10.1021/cr0783479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Martí-Centelles V. Piskorz T. K. Duarte F. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2024;64:5604–5616. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c00355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Zhu R. Lübben J. Dittrich B. Clever G. H. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2015;54:2796–2800. doi: 10.1002/anie.201408068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Li G. Ronson T. K. Lavendomme R. Huang Z. Fuertes-Espinosa C. Zhang D. Nitschke J. R. Chem. 2023;9:1549–1561. [Google Scholar]
  80. Xue W. Benchimol E. Walther A. Ouyang N. Holstein J. J. Ronson T. K. Openy J. Zhou Y. Wu K. Chowdhury R. Clever G. H. Nitschke J. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2024;146:32730–32737. doi: 10.1021/jacs.4c12320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Bloch W. M. Horiuchi S. Holstein J. J. Drechsler C. Wuttke A. Hiller W. Mata R. A. Clever G. H. Chem. Sci. 2023;14:1524–1531. doi: 10.1039/D2SC06629G. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Caravan P. Orvig C. Inorg. Chem. 1997;36:236–248. doi: 10.1021/ic961222u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. (a) CCDC 2467878: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination, 2025, 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc2nv0zj [DOI]; (b) CCDC 2467879: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination, 2025, 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc2nv10l [DOI]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Citations

  1. (a) CCDC 2467878: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination, 2025, 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc2nv0zj [DOI]
  2. (b) CCDC 2467879: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination, 2025, 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc2nv10l [DOI]

Supplementary Materials

SC-016-D5SC05441A-s001
SC-016-D5SC05441A-s001.pdf (48.6MB, pdf)
SC-016-D5SC05441A-s002
SC-016-D5SC05441A-s002.cif (1.9MB, cif)

Data Availability Statement

The datasets supporting this article have been uploaded as part of the Supplementary Information (SI). Supplementary information: experimental procedures, characterisation data, selected figures, crystallographic and computational details. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d5sc05441a.

CCDC 2467878 and 2467879 contain the supplementary crystallographic data for this paper.83a,b

Articles from Chemical Science are provided here courtesy of Royal Society of Chemistry

RESOURCES