Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS Omega logoLink to ACS Omega
. 2020 Jul 7;5(28):17715–17720. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.0c02306

Is Usnic Acid a Promising Radical Scavenger?

Nguyen Thi Hoa †, Mai Van Bay ‡, Adam Mechler §, Quan V Vo ∥,⊥,*
PMCID: PMC7377319  PMID: 32715258

Abstract

graphic file with name ao0c02306_0003.jpg

Usnic acid (UA) is a natural product found in the lichen genera. Because of the phenolic groups in its structure, UA is suspected to be an antioxidant. Therefore, in this study, the radical scavenging of UA was investigated in physiological environments in silico by using kinetic calculations. It was found that the overall rate constant for the hydroxyl radical scavenging activity was approximately 109 M–1 s–1 in all environments, whereas the HOO• and CH3OO• radical scavenging activities were only significant in the polar environments with k in the range of 103–104 M–1 s–1. The results also revealed that the HO• scavenging activity followed the single electron transfer (SET) and radical adduct formation mechanisms; however, the SET pathway (for the dianion HU2–) played a dominant role in the scavenging of other studied radicals, including CH3O•, CCl3O•, CCl3OO•, NO2, SO4•–, and N3•. The activity of UA against these radicals was as high as that of typical phenolic acids such as ferulic acid, p-coumaric acid, caffeic acid, dihydrocaffeic acid, and sinapinic acid (kf ∼ 108 M–1 s–1) in polar solvents. Thus, UA is a promising natural antioxidant in aqueous environments.

1. Introduction

Usnic acid (UA), a natural product that is isolated from lichens, has potential antibacterial effects as well as other biological activities such as anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and antioxidant properties.1−4 The antioxidant activity of UA was assessed by in vivo and in vitro studies.1,5−8 It was reported that UA could reduce oxidative damage by increasing glutathione peroxidase activity, constitutive nitric oxide synthase, superoxide dismutase activity, and total glutathione activities.6,9,10 UA showed strong antioxidant capacity in oxygen radical absorbance capacity assay, indicating significantly reduced radical oxygen species production,11,12 whereas it showed no antioxidant activity in 2,2-diphenylpicrylhydrazyl assay.13,14 This ambiguous behavior warrants a theoretical investigation of the free-radical scavenging activity of UA including a detailed evaluation of the mechanism of its action to understand its biological role. UA exists in two enantiomers: (+)-UA and (−)-UA, depending on the configuration of the methyl group at the 1′ position (Figure 1). It was shown that the (+) enantiomer was more stable and exhibited higher biological activity in, for example, its antiviral and antibacterial functions than the (−) enantiomer.2,15,16 Thus, in this study, the (+)-UA (Figure 1) structure was used to evaluate the radical scavenging of UA.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Structure of UA.

This study aims to investigate the radical scavenging activity of UA in aqueous and lipid media by (i) thermodynamic calculations to identify the most likely mechanism of action and (ii) kinetic calculations to evaluate the activity of UA in HO•, HOO•, CH3O•, CCl3O•, HOO•, CH3OO•, CCl3OO•, NO, NO2 (free radical), O2•–, SO4•–, Br2•–, and N3• radical scavenging reactions.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Thermodynamic Study

2.1.1. Acid–Base Equilibria

The pKa values for UA are pKa1 = 4.4 (O3–H), pKa2 = 8.8 (O7–H), and pKa3 = 10.7 (O9–H).17,18 Thus, under physiological conditions (pH 7.40), UA exists in both monovalent anionic state (O3–H bond, H2U–, 96.1%), and dianionic state (03–H and O7–H bonds, HU2–, 3.9%), and therefore, the H2U– and H2U– forms were used to evaluate the radical scavenging of UA in aqueous solution. In the lipid environment, the neutral UA (H3U) was modeled.

In this study, the radical scavenging of UA was evaluated following three main antioxidant pathways: single electron transfer (SET), formal hydrogen transfer (FHT), and radical adduct formation (RAF) in the studied solvents according to the following reactions:19

In the aqueous solution

2.1.1. 1
2.1.1. 2
2.1.1. 3

Also, for the divalent anionic form20

2.1.1. 4

In the lipid medium

2.1.1. 5
2.1.1. 6
2.1.1. 7

where R• = HO•, HOO•. To model FHT, the direct hydrogen atom transfer pathway was calculated.

2.1.2. Mechanism Valuation

The ΔGo values of the UA + HO•/HOO• reactions were used for evaluating the preferred antioxidant mechanism. ΔGo values were calculated following each mechanism, and the results are presented in Table 1. It was found that the hydroxyl radical scavenging of UA is almost always spontaneous (ΔGo < 0) in the studied media, with the exception of the SET and RAF mechanisms at the C9′ position. However, the reaction of UA with HOO• radical was only spontaneous for the SET-2 mechanism. This suggests that the HOO• radical scavenging in the aqueous solution only occurs following the SET-2 mechanism. Thus, the overall rate constants can be calculated according to eqs 8–11.

Table 1. Calculated ΔGo Values of the Reactions of UA with HO• and HOO• Radicals in Water and Pentyl Ethanoate Solvents (in kcal/mol).
    OH
 OOH
mechanism water pentyl ethanoate water pentyl ethanoate
set-1 7.6 56.0 31.1 77.0
set-2 –15.2   8.3  
FHT C10 –31.4 –28.3 1.5 5.1
  C12 –26.8 –22.8 6.1 10.6
  C14 –24.9 –22.5 8 10.8
  C15 –18.2 –15.6 14.7 17.8
  O3   –14.8   18.6
  O7 –26.6 –19.7 6.3 13.7
  O9 –22.3 –2.8 10.7 30.5
RAF C2 –10.0 –7.4 20.2 30.0
  C3   –5.6   25.1
  C4 –20.9 –21.2 8.6 14.7
  C4′ –15.9 –16.1 9.0 15.6
  C6 –3.0 –3.2 24.1 29.4
  C6′ –13.8 –15.5 14.4 22.5
  C7 –17.5 –17.7 17.4 23.6
  C8 –22.8 –25.1 3.4 6.6
  C9 –6.3 –6.8 23.4 27.5
  C9′ 1.3 0.7 30.4 37.2
Open in a new tab

In the aqueous solution

2.1.2. 8
2.1.2. 9

In the nonpolar solvent

2.1.2. 10
2.1.2. 11

2.2. Kinetic Study

2.2.1. HO• and HOO• Radical Scavenging Activity of UA

Calculations for the overall rate constant (koverall) of the HO• and HOO• radical scavenging reaction were carried out for all of the reactions by following eqs 9–11. The kinetic results and the optimized structures of typical transition states (TS) (Γ > 1%) are shown in Table 2 and Figure 2, respectively.

Table 2. Gibbs Free Energies of Activation (ΔG⧧, kcal/mol), Tunneling Corrections (κ), Rate Constants (kapp, M–1 s–1), and Branching Ratios (Γ, %) at 298.15 K for the UA Oxidation by HO• and HOO• Radicals in the Studied Environmentsa.
      water
 pentyl ethanoate
  mechanism ΔG⧧ κ kapp kf Γ ΔG⧧ κ kapp Γ
  set-1 7.7 6.9 1.50 × 107 1.44 × 107 0.2        
  Set-2 3.9 5.7 4.10 × 109 1.60 × 108 1.7        
OH• HAT O3           17.7 18.7 1.21 × 101 0.0
    O7 15.3 25.8 9.63 × 102 9.26 × 102 0.0 17.6 19.6 1.49 × 101 0.0
    O9 15.7 28.9 5.49 × 102 5.28 × 102 0.0 17.9 25.9 1.24 × 101 0.0
    C10 5.7 3.2 1.93 × 109 1.86 × 109 20.2 7.1 3.5 3.50 × 108 15.8
    C12 7.2 5.9 1.00 × 109 9.65 × 108 10.5 9.4 5.7 1.40 × 107 0.6
    C14 8 4.8 3.15 × 108 3.03 × 108 3.3 10.1 4.5 3.20 × 106 0.1
    C15 8.3 5.8 2.35 × 108 2.25 × 108 2.5 10.3 5.7 3.10 × 106 0.1
  RAF C2 8.6 1.2 1.46 × 107 1.40 × 107 0.2 10.4 1.3 3.80 × 105 0.0
    C3         0.0 23.1 1.5 2.10 × 10–4 0.0
    C4 4 1.5 2.20 × 109 2.11 × 109 23 6.6 1.1 1.80 × 108 8.1
    C4′ 6.6 1.1 3.22 × 108 3.10 × 108 3.4 7.1 0.6 4.50 × 107 2.0
    C6 7.3 1.2 1.25 × 108 1.20 × 108 1.3 8.5 0.8 5.78 × 106 0.3
    C6′ 9.7 1.0 9.80 × 105 9.41 × 105 0.0 8.2 1.1 1.40 × 107 0.6
    C7 5.9 1.2 8.89 × 108 8.54 × 108 9.3 9.3 1.2 2.10 × 106 0.1
    C8 2.7 1.0 2.30 × 109 2.21 × 109 24.1 4.7 1.1 1.60 × 109 72.1
    C9 8 1.1 3.47 × 107 3.33 × 107 0.4 10.1 1.3 6.32 × 105 0.0
  koverall         9.18×109       2.22 × 109  
OOH• set-2 9.5 17.2 7.20 × 105 2.81×104 100        
Open in a new tab
a

The nuclear reorganization energy (λ); kf = f × kapp, (f(H2UA–) = 0.961, f(H2UA2–) = 0.039).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Optimized structure of typical TSs.

The overall rate constant for the HO• radical scavenging in the polar environment (koverall = 9.18 × 109 M–1 s–1) was slightly higher than that for the nonpolar media (koverall = 2.22 × 109 M–1 s–1). The SET mechanism played a minor role (<2%) in the koverall in either of the studied solvents, whereas the contributions of RAF mechanism in the hydroxyl radical scavenging of UA were about 60 and 80% in water and pentyl ethanoate, respectively. The FHT pathway contributed 36.5% of the koverall in the aqueous solution and 16.6% of the koverall in the lipid media. Thus, the results indicate that the RAF and FHT mechanisms decide the hydroxyl radical scavenging of UA in the polar solvent and the RAF mechanism in the nonpolar solvent. The hydroxyl radical scavenging of UA is somewhat lower than that of typical antioxidants such as melatonin,21 dopamine,22 indolinonic hydroxylamine,23 ramalin,24 indole-3-carbinol,25 and Trolox26 in all of the studied media. Thus, UA is a moderate hydroxyl radical scavenger.

It is important to note that the SET-2 mechanism played a deciding role in the HOO radical scavenging of UA with kapp = 7.20 × 105 M–1 s–1 (kf = 2.81 × 104 M–1 s–1) in the polar solvent; however, the mechanism did not occur with UA in lipid media. Based on these results, UA has a similar activity to Trolox (k = 8.96 × 104 M–1 s–1) in the HOO• scavenging reaction in polar environments.

2.2.2. Broad Spectrum Radical Scavenging Activity of UA in Aqueous Solution

As shown in the thermodynamic section, the HU2– state could eliminate radicals in the aqueous medium following the SET-2 mechanism. Thus, in this section, the radical scavenging activity of HU2– was investigated against a broad range of radicals including CH3O•, HOO•, CH3OO•, CCl3OO•, NO, NO2 (free radical), O2•–, SO4•–, Br2•–, and N3•, and the results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Calculated Kinetic Parameters of the Reaction between HU2– and Selected Radicals Following the SET-2 Mechanism in Aqueous Solution at pH 7.4a.
radical ΔG⧧ λ kD kapp kf
HO• 3.9 5.7 8.40 × 109 4.10 × 109 1.60 × 108
CH3O• 2.8 7.7 8.10 × 109 7.10 × 109 2.77 × 108
CCl3O• 0.2 54.8 7.60 × 109 7.60 × 109 2.96 × 108
HOO• 9.5 17.2 8.20 × 109 7.20 × 105 2.81 × 104
CH3OO• 11.0 16.6 8.00 × 109 5.80 × 104 2.26 × 103
CCl3OO• 0.5 18.3 6.80 × 109 6.80 × 109 2.65 × 108
NO 96.4 16.2 8.40 × 109 1.30 × 10–58 5.07 × 10–60
NO2 2.0 30.0 8.20 × 109 7.80 × 109 3.04 × 108
O2•– 55.3 19.1 8.60 × 109 1.80 × 10–28 7.02 × 10–30
SO4•– 3.0 21.0 7.80 × 109 6.50 × 109 2.54 × 108
N3• 2.7 4.9 8.10 × 109 7.10 × 109 2.77 × 108
Open in a new tab
a

kf = f × kapp, f(H2UA2–) = 0.039.

As shown in Table 3, UA is suggested to exhibit good activity against CH3O•, CCl3O•, CCl3OO•, NO2, SO4•–, and N3• radicals with the kapp in the range of 4.10 × 109–7.80 × 109 M–1 s–1, at a rate fairly similar to the diffusion-limited rate constants (kD). UA exhibited moderate alkylperoxy (i.e., HOO• and CH3OO•) antiradical activity with kapp = 103–104 M–1 s–1, whereas NO and O2•– scavenging could not occur under the studied conditions. Comparing with hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives such as ferulic acid, p-coumaric acid, caffeic acid, dihydrocaffeic acid,20 and sinapinic acid,27 the predicted activities for UA against CH3O•, CCl3O•, CCl3OO•, NO2, SO4•–, and N3• radicals were as high as those of these compounds (kf ∼ 108 M–1 s–1). Thus, UA is a promising natural antioxidant in aqueous solution.

3. Conclusions

The radical scavenging of UA was investigated in aqueous and lipid (pentyl ethanoate) media. It was found that UA had moderate HOO• and CH3OO• radical scavenging activities in aqueous solution (k = 103–104 M–1 s–1), whereas activity in lipid media was generally low. The overall rate constants for the hydroxyl radical scavenging were koverall = 9.18 × 109 and 2.22 × 109 M–1 s–1 in polar and nonpolar solvents, respectively. The HO• antiradical activity mainly followed the SET and RAF mechanisms; however, the SET-2 pathway played a deciding role in the radical scavenging activity of the other studied radicals. UA exhibited activities against CH3O•, CCl3O•, CCl3OO•, NO2, SO4•–, and N3•, which were as high as those of typical phenolic acids such as ferulic acid, p-coumaric acid, caffeic acid, dihydrocaffeic acid, and sinapinic acid (kf ∼ 108 M–1 s–1) in polar solvents. Thus, UA is a promising radical scavenger in aqueous solution.

4. Computational Methods

In this study, the quantum mechanics-based test for the overall free-radical scavenging activity protocol was applied to perform the kinetic calculations in water and pentyl ethanoate environments by using the M05-2X/6-311++G(d,p) method with the solvation model based on density that has been widely used for evaluating the radical scavenging activity of antioxidants because of low errors compared with experimental data (kcalc/kexp ratio = 1–2.9).23,26,28−31 Rate constants were computed according to the TS theory (at 298.15 K, 1 M standard state) following the equation31−37

4. 12

where σ is the reaction symmetry number,38,39 κ contains the tunneling corrections calculated using the Eckart barrier,40kB is the Boltzmann constant, h is the Planck constant, and ΔG⧧ is the Gibbs free energy of activation.

The SET reaction barriers were corrected following the Marcus theory,41,42 whereas the apparent rate constants (kapp) in solvents were computed following the literature.43,44 Okuno’s corrections45 of the free volume theory following the Benson correction were also applied to minimize overpenalizing entropy in solution.46 All of the studied species (molecules, radicals, anions, and TSs) were treated by the hindered internal rotation method to obtain the lowest energy conformers that were used in the further studies.47 Intrinsic coordinate calculations were carried out to confirm that the TSs connect to the reactants and products. All of the calculations were performed by using the Gaussian 09 program package48 and the Eyringpy program49,50 depending on each individual task.

Acknowledgments

The research is funded by Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under grant number 104.06-2018.308.

Supporting Information Available

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.0c02306.

  • Cartesian coordinates of TSs in all of the studied environments (PDF)

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Supplementary Material

ao0c02306_si_001.pdf (340.2KB, pdf)

References

  1. White P.; Oliveira R.; Oliveira A.; Serafini M.; Araújo A.; Gelain D.; Moreira J.; Almeida J.; Quintans J.; Quintans-Junior L.; Santos M. Antioxidant activity and mechanisms of action of natural compounds isolated from lichens: a systematic review. Molecules 2014, 19, 14496–14527. 10.3390/molecules190914496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cocchietto M.; Skert N.; Nimis P.; Sava G. A review on usnic acid, an interesting natural compound. Naturwissenschaften 2002, 89, 137–146. 10.1007/s00114-002-0305-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Luzina O. A.; Salakhutdinov N. F. Usnic acid and its derivatives for pharmaceutical use: a patent review (2000–2017). Expert Opin. Ther. Pat. 2018, 28, 477–491. 10.1080/13543776.2018.1472239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Furmanek Ł.; Czarnota P.; Seaward M. R. D. Antifungal activity of lichen compounds against dermatophytes: a review. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 127, 308. 10.1111/jam.14209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ranković B.; Kosanić M.; Stanojković T.; Vasiljević P.; Manojlović N. Biological activities of Toninia candida and Usnea barbata together with their norstictic acid and usnic acid constituents. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13, 14707–14722. 10.3390/ijms131114707. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Behera B. C.; Mahadik N.; Morey M. Antioxidative and cardiovascular-protective activities of metabolite usnic acid and psoromic acid produced by lichen species Usnea complanata under submerged fermentation. Pharm. Biol. 2012, 50, 968–979. 10.3109/13880209.2012.654396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Atalay F.; Halici M. B.; Mavi A.; Cakir A.; Odabaşoğlu F.; Kazaz C.; Aslan A.; Küfrevioğlu Ö. İ. Antioxidant phenolics from Lobaria pulmonaria (L.) Hoffm. and Usnea longissima Ach. lichen species. Turk. J. Chem. 2011, 35, 647–661. 10.3906/kim-1008-847. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Suwalsky M.; Jemiola-Rzeminska M.; Astudillo C.; Gallardo M. J.; Staforelli J. P.; Villena F.; Strzalka K. An in vitro study on the antioxidant capacity of usnic acid on human erythrocytes and molecular models of its membrane. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr. 2015, 1848, 2829–2838. 10.1016/j.bbamem.2015.08.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Odabasoglu F.; Cakir A.; Suleyman H.; Aslan A.; Bayir Y.; Halici M.; Kazaz C. Gastroprotective and antioxidant effects of usnic acid on indomethacin-induced gastric ulcer in rats. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2006, 103, 59–65. 10.1016/j.jep.2005.06.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jin J.-q.; Li C.-q.; He L.-c. Down-regulatory effect of usnic acid on nuclear factor-κB-dependent tumor necrosis factor-α and inducible nitric oxide synthase expression in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated macrophages RAW 264.7. Phytother. Res. 2008, 22, 1605–1609. 10.1002/ptr.2531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Santos L. C.; Honda N. K.; Carlos I. Z.; Vilegas W. Intermediate reactive oxygen and nitrogen from macrophages induced by Brazilian lichens. Fitoterapia 2004, 75, 473–479. 10.1016/j.fitote.2004.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. de Paz G. A.; Raggio J.; Gómez-Serranillos M.; Palomino O.; González-Burgos E.; Carretero M.; Crespo A. HPLC isolation of antioxidant constituents from Xanthoparmelia spp. J. Pharm. Biomed. Sci. 2010, 53, 165–171. 10.1016/j.jpba.2010.04.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Thadhani V. M.; Choudhary M. I.; Ali S.; Omar I.; Siddique H.; Karunaratne V. Antioxidant activity of some lichen metabolites. Nat. Prod. Res. 2011, 25, 1827–1837. 10.1080/14786419.2010.529546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lohézic-Le Dévéhat F.; Tomasi S.; Elix J. A.; Bernard A.; Rouaud I.; Uriac P.; Boustie J. Stictic acid derivatives from the lichen Usnea articulata and their antioxidant activities. J. Nat. Prod. 2007, 70, 1218–1220. 10.1021/np070145k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Grasso L.; Ghirardi P.; Ghione M. Usnic acid, a selective antimicrobial agent against Streptococcus mutans: A pilot clinical study. Curr. Ther. Res. 1989, 45, 1067–1070. [Google Scholar]
  16. Yamamoto Y.; Miura Y.; Kinoshita Y.; Higuchi M.; Yamada Y.; Murakami A.; Ohigashi H.; Koshimizu K. Screening of tissue cultures and thalli of lichens and some of their active constituents for inhibition of tumor promoter-induced Epstein-Barr virus activation. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1995, 43, 1388–1390. 10.1248/cpb.43.1388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hauck M.; Jürgens S.-R. Usnic acid controls the acidity tolerance of lichens. Environ. Pollut. 2008, 156, 115–122. 10.1016/j.envpol.2007.12.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Sokolov D. N.; Luzina O. A.; Salakhutdinov N. F. Usnic acid: preparation, structure, properties and chemical transformations. Russ. Chem. Rev. 2012, 81, 747. 10.1070/rc2012v081n08abeh004245. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Khanh P. N.; Phan C. T. D.; Ho D. Q.; Van Vo Q.; Ngan V. T.; Nguyen M. T.; Trung N. T. Insights into the cooperativity between multiple interactions of dimethyl sulfoxide with carbon dioxide and water. J. Comput. Chem. 2019, 40, 464–474. 10.1002/jcc.25732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. León-Carmona J. R.; Alvarez-Idaboy J. R.; Galano A. On the peroxyl scavenging activity of hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives: mechanisms, kinetics, and importance of the acid–base equilibrium. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2012, 14, 12534–12543. 10.1039/c2cp40651a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Galano A. On the Direct Scavenging Activity of Melatonin Towards Hydroxyl and a Series of Peroxyl Radicals. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 7178–7188. 10.1039/c0cp02801k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Iuga C.; Alvarez-Idaboy J. R.; Vivier-Bunge A. ROS Initiated Oxidation of Dopamine under Oxidative Stress Conditions in Aqueous and Lipidic Environments. J. Phys. Chem. B 2011, 115, 12234–12246. 10.1021/jp206347u. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Vo Q. V.; Van Bay M.; Nam P. C.; Mechler A. Is Indolinonic Hydroxylamine a Promising Artificial Antioxidant?. J. Phys. Chem. B 2019, 123, 7777–7784. 10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b05160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Vo Q. V.; Tam N. M.; Van Bay M.; Mechler A. The radical scavenging activity of natural ramalin: A mechanistic and kinetic study. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2020, 739, 137004. 10.1016/j.cplett.2019.137004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Vo Q. V.; Van Bay M.; Nam P. C.; Mechler A. Hydroxyl Radical Scavenging of Indole-3-Carbinol: A Mechanistic and Kinetic Study. ACS Omega 2019, 4, 19375–19381. 10.1021/acsomega.9b02782. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Alberto M. E.; Russo N.; Grand A.; Galano A. A physicochemical examination of the free radical scavenging activity of trolox: Mechanism, kinetics and influence of the environment. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2013, 15, 4642–4650. 10.1039/c3cp43319f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Galano A.; Francisco-Márquez M.; Alvarez-Idaboy J. R. Mechanism and kinetics studies on the antioxidant activity of sinapinic acid. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 11199–11205. 10.1039/c1cp20722a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Alvarez-Idaboy J. R.; Galano A. On the Chemical Repair of DNA Radicals by Glutathione: Hydrogen Vs Electron Transfer. J. Phys. Chem. B 2012, 116, 9316–9325. 10.1021/jp303116n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Galano A.; Alvarez-Idaboy J. R. A Computational Methodology for Accurate Predictions of Rate Constants in Solution: Application to the Assessment of Primary Antioxidant Activity. J. Comput. Chem. 2013, 34, 2430–2445. 10.1002/jcc.23409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Galano A.; Alvarez-Idaboy J. R. Computational strategies for predicting free radical scavengers’ protection against oxidative stress: Where are we and what might follow?. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2019, 119, e25665 10.1002/qua.25665. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Vo Q. V.; Van Gon T.; Van Bay M.; Mechler A. The Antioxidant Activity of Monosubstituted Indolinonic Hydroxylamines: A Thermodynamic and Kinetic Study. J. Phys. Chem. B 2019, 123, 10672–10679. 10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b08912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Evans M. G.; Polanyi M. Some Applications of the Transition State Method to the Calculation of Reaction Velocities, Especially in Solution. Trans. Faraday Soc. 1935, 31, 875–894. 10.1039/TF9353100875. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Eyring H. The Activated Complex in Chemical Reactions. J. Chem. Phys. 1935, 3, 107–115. 10.1063/1.1749604. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Truhlar D. G.; Hase W. L.; Hynes J. T. Current Status of Transition-State Theory. J. Phys. Chem. 1983, 87, 2664–2682. 10.1021/j100238a003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhao Y.; Schultz N. E.; Truhlar D. G. Design of density functionals by combining the method of constraint satisfaction with parametrization for thermochemistry, thermochemical kinetics, and noncovalent interactions. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2006, 2, 364–382. 10.1021/ct0502763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Furuncuoğlu T.; Uğur I.; Değirmenci I.; Aviyente V. Role of Chain Transfer Agents in Free Radical Polymerization Kinetics. Macromolecules 2010, 43, 1823–1835. 10.1021/ma902803p. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Vélez E.; Quijano J.; Notario R.; Pabón E.; Murillo J.; Leal J.; Zapata E.; Alarcón G. A Computational Study of Stereospecifity in the Thermal Elimination Reaction of Menthyl Benzoate in the Gas Phase. J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2009, 22, 971–977. 10.1002/poc.1547. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Pollak E.; Pechukas P. Symmetry Numbers, not Statistical Factors, Should be used in Absolute Rate Theory and in Broensted Relations. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1978, 100, 2984–2991. 10.1021/ja00478a009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Fernández-Ramos A.; Ellingson B. A.; Meana-Pañeda R.; Marques J. M. C.; Truhlar D. G. Symmetry Numbers and Chemical Reaction Rates. Theor. Chem. Acc. 2007, 118, 813–826. 10.1007/s00214-007-0328-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Eckart C. The Penetration of a Potential Barrier by Electrons. Phys. Rev. 1930, 35, 1303. 10.1103/physrev.35.1303. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Marcus R. A. Chemical and electrochemical electron-transfer theory. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 1964, 15, 155–196. 10.1146/annurev.pc.15.100164.001103. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Marcus R. A. Electron transfer reactions in chemistry. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1993, 65, 599. 10.1103/revmodphys.65.599. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Collins F. C.; Kimball G. E. Diffusion-controlled reaction rates. J. Colloid Sci. 1949, 4, 425–437. 10.1016/0095-8522(49)90023-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Von Smoluchowski M. Mathematical theory of the kinetics of the coagulation of colloidal solutions. Z. Phys. Chem 1917, 19, 129–135. [Google Scholar]
  45. Okuno Y. Theoretical Investigation of the Mechanism of the Baeyer-Villiger Reaction in Nonpolar Solvents. Chem.—Eur. J. 1997, 3, 212–218. 10.1002/chem.19970030208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Benson S.The Foundations of Chemical Kinetics; R. E. Krieger: Malabar, Florida, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  47. Le T. H. M.; Tran T. T.; Huynh L. K. Identification of Hindered Internal Rotational Mode for Complex Chemical Species: A Data Mining Approach with Multivariate Logistic Regression Model. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2018, 172, 10–16. 10.1016/j.chemolab.2017.11.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Frisch M. J.; Trucks G. W.; Schlegel H. B.; Scuseria G. E.; Robb M. A.; Cheeseman J. R.; Scalmani G.; Barone V.; Mennucci B.; Petersson G. A.; Nakatsuji H.; Caricato M.; Li X.; Hratchian H. P.; Izmaylov A. F.; Bloino J.; Zheng G.; Sonnenberg J. L.; Hada M.; Ehara M.; Toyota K.; Fukuda R.; Hasegawa J.; Ishida M.; Nakajima T.; Honda Y.; Kitao O.; Nakai H.; Vreven T.; Montgomery J. A. Jr., Peralta J. E.; Ogliaro F.; Bearpark M.; Heyd J. J.; Brothers E.; Kudin K. N.; Staroverov V. N.; Keith T.; Kobayashi R.; Normand J.; Raghavachari K.; Rendell A.; Burant J. C.; Iyengar S. S.; Tomasi J.; Cossi M.; Rega N.; Millam J. M.; Klene M.; Knox J. E.; Cross J. B.; Bakken V.; Adamo C.; Jaramillo J.; Gomperts R.; Stratmann R. E.; Yazyev O.; Austin A. J.; Cammi R.; Pomelli C.; Ochterski J. W.; Martin R. L.; Morokuma K.; Zakrzewski V. G.; Voth G. A.; Salvador P.; Dannenberg J. J.; Dapprich S.; Daniels A. D.; Farkas O.; Foresman J. B.; Ortiz J. V.; Cioslowski J.; Fox D. J.. Gaussian 09, Revision A.02; Gaussian, Inc.: Wallingford CT, 2009.
  49. Dzib E.; Cabellos J. L.; Ortíz-Chi F.; Pan S.; Galano A.; Merino G. Eyringpy: A Program for Computing Rate Constants in the Gas Phase and in Solution. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2019, 119, e25686 10.1002/qua.25686. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Dzib E.; Cabellos J. L.; Ortiz-Chi F.; Pan S.; Galano A.; Merino G.. Eyringpy 1.0.2; Cinvestav: Mérida, Yucatán, 2018.

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

ao0c02306_si_001.pdf (340.2KB, pdf)

Articles from ACS Omega are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES