The widespread use of controlled molecular-level motion in key natural processes suggests that great rewards could come from bridging the gap between the present generation of synthetic molecular systems, which by and large rely upon electronic and chemical effects to carry out their functions, and the machines of the macroscopic world, which utilize the synchronized movements of smaller parts to perform specific tasks. This is a scientific area of great contemporary interest and extraordinary recent growth, yet the notion of molecular-level machines dates back to a time when the ideas surrounding the statistical nature of matter and the laws of thermodynamics were first being formulated. Here we outline the exciting successes in taming molecular-level movement thus far, the underlying principles that all experimental designs must follow, and the early progress made towards utilizing synthetic molecular structures to perform tasks using mechanical motion. We also highlight some of the issues and challenges that still need to be overcome.

Synthetic molecular motors and mechanical machines.

4.2.8. Reductive Coupling 3109 5. Reaction of Aromatic Compounds 3110 5.1. Electrophilic Substitutions 3110 5.2. Radical Substitution 3111 5.3. Oxidative Coupling 3111 5.4. Photochemical Reactions 3111 6. Reaction of Carbonyl Compounds 3111 6.1. Nucleophilic Additions 3111 6.1.1. Allylation 3111 6.1.2. Propargylation 3120 6.1.3. Benzylation 3121 6.1.4. Arylation/Vinylation 3121 6.1.5. Alkynylation 3121 6.1.6. Alkylation 3121 6.1.7. Reformatsky-Type Reaction 3122 6.1.8. Direct Aldol Reaction 3122 6.1.9. Mukaiyama Aldol Reaction 3124 6.1.10. Hydrogen Cyanide Addition 3125 6.2. Pinacol Coupling 3126 6.3. Wittig Reactions 3126 7. Reaction of R,â-Unsaturated Carbonyl Compounds 3127

Organic Reactions in Aqueous Media with a Focus on Carbon−Carbon Bond Formations: A Decade Update

Cyclodextrins as pharmaceutical solubilizers.

Stereoselective organic reactions in water.

The widespread use of molecular machines in biology has long suggested that great rewards could come from bridging the gap between synthetic molecular systems and the machines of the macroscopic world. In the last two decades, it has proved possible to design synthetic molecular systems with architectures where triggered large amplitude positional changes of submolecular components occur. Perhaps the best way to appreciate the technological potential of controlled molecular-level motion is to recognize that nanomotors and molecular-level machines lie at the heart of every significant biological process. Over billions of years of evolution, nature has not repeatedly chosen this solution for performing complex tasks without good reason. When mankind learns how to build artificial structures that can control and exploit molecular level motion and interface their effects directly with other molecular-level substructures and the outside world, it will potentially impact on every aspect of functional molecule and materials design. An improved understanding of physics and biology will surely follow.

The first steps on the long path to the invention of artificial molecular machines were arguably taken in 1827 when the Scottish botanist Robert Brown observed the haphazard motion of tiny particles under his microscope.1,2 The explanation for Brownian motion, that it is caused by bombardment of the particles by molecules as a consequence of the kinetic theory of matter, was later provided by Einstein, followed by experimental verification by Perrin.3,4 The random thermal motion of molecules and its implications for the laws of thermodynamics in turn inspired Gedankenexperiments (“thought experiments”) that explored the interplay (and apparent paradoxes) of Brownian motion and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Richard Feynman’s famous 1959 lecture “There’s plenty of room at the bottom” outlined some of the promise that manmade molecular machines might hold.5,6 However, Feynman’s talk came at a time before chemists had the necessary synthetic and analytical tools to make molecular machines. While interest among synthetic chemists began to grow in the 1970s and 1980s, progress accelerated in the 1990s, particularly with the invention of methods to make mechanically interlocked molecular systems (catenanes and rotaxanes) and control and switch the relative positions of their components.7−24

Here, we review triggered large-amplitude motions in molecular structures and the changes in properties these can produce. We concentrate on conformational and configurational changes in wholly covalently bonded molecules and on catenanes and rotaxanes in which switching is brought about by various stimuli (light, electrochemistry, pH, heat, solvent polarity, cation or anion binding, allosteric effects, temperature, reversible covalent bond formation, etc.). Finally, we discuss the latest generations of sophisticated synthetic molecular machine systems in which the controlled motion of subcomponents is used to perform complex tasks, paving the way to applications and the realization of a new era of “molecular nanotechnology”.

1.1. The Language Used To Describe Molecular Machines
Terminology needs to be properly and appropriately defined and these meanings used consistently to effectively convey scientific concepts. Nowhere is the need for accurate scientific language more apparent than in the field of molecular machines. Much of the terminology used to describe molecular-level machines has its origins in observations made by biologists and physicists, and their findings and descriptions have often been misinterpreted and misunderstood by chemists. In 2007 we formalized definitions of some common terms used in the field (e.g., “machine”, “switch”, “motor”, “ratchet”, etc.) so that chemists could use them in a manner consistent with the meanings understood by biologists and physicists who study molecular-level machines.14

The word “machine” implies a mechanical movement that accomplishes a useful task. This Review concentrates on systems where a stimulus triggers the controlled, relatively large amplitude (or directional) motion of one molecular or submolecular component relative to another that can potentially result in a net task being performed. Molecular machines can be further categorized into various classes such as “motors” and “switches” whose behavior differs significantly.14 For example, in a rotaxane-based “switch”, the change in position of a macrocycle on the thread of the rotaxane influences the system only as a function of state. Returning the components of a molecular switch to their original position undoes any work done, and so a switch cannot be used repetitively and progressively to do work. A “motor”, on the other hand, influences a system as a function of trajectory, meaning that when the components of a molecular motor return to their original positions, for example, after a 360° directional rotation, any work that has been done is not undone unless the motor is subsequently rotated by 360° in the reverse direction. This difference in behavior is significant; no “switch-based” molecular machine can be used to progressively perform work in the way that biological motors can, such as those from the kinesin, myosin, and dynein superfamilies, unless the switch is part of a larger ratchet mechanism.14

Artificial Molecular Machines

Uptake of catechol isoquinolines to dopamine cells was studied using human dopaminergic neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells. Only (R)-1,2-methyl-6,7-dihydroxy-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline [(R)-1,2-DiMeDHTIQ] was transported by dopamine uptake system, while (S)-1,2-DiMeDHTIQ, (R)- and (S)-1-methyl-6,7-dihydroxy-tetrahydroisoquinoline, and 1,2-dimethyl-6,7-dihydroxyisoquinolinum ion were not. Kinetical study showed that the uptake of (R)-1,2-DiMeDHTIQ followed the Michaelis-Menten equation, and the values of the Michaelis constant and the maximal velocity were obtained to be 102.6 +/- 36.9 microM and 66.0 +/- 2.8 pmol/min/mg protein. Dopamine was found to inhibit (R)-1,2-DiMeDHTIQ uptake competitively. These results suggest that the selective uptake by dopamine transporter may account for the specific neurotoxicity of (R)-1,2-DiMeDHTIQ to dopamine neurons.

Uptake of a neurotoxin-candidate, (R)-1,2-dimethyl-6,7-dihydroxy-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline into human dopaminergic neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells by dopamine transport system.

For the first time, achiral cucurbiturils (CBs) were endowed with significant enantiomeric and distereomeric discrimination by incorporating a strong chiral binder. Calorimetric, nuclear magnetic, light-scattering, and mass spectral studies revealed that (S)-2-methylbutylamine (as a strong binder) can be discriminated by two enantiomeric supramolecular hosts, composed of CB[6] and (R)- or (S)-2-methylpiperazine, with an unprecedented 95% enantioselectivity in aqueous NaCl solution. This is the highest enantioselectivity ever reported for a supramolecular system derived from an achiral host. Similarly, CB[7], with a larger cavity, exhibited diastereoselectivities up to 8 times higher for diastereomeric dipeptides, as demonstrated for L-Phe-L-Leu-NH3+ versus L-Phe-D-Leu-NH3+.

Masao Kawai

Papers

Uptake of a neurotoxin-candidate, (R)-1,2-dimethyl-6,7-dihydroxy-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline into human dopaminergic neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells by dopamine transport system.

Chiral recognition in cucurbituril cavities.

A New Preparative Method for Allylic Indium(III) Reagents by Reductive Transmetalation of π-Allylpalladium(II) with Indium(I) Salts

Sequential formation of a ternary complex among dihexylammonium, cucurbit[6]uril, and cyclodextrin with positive cooperativity.

Critical difference in chiral recognition of N-Cbz-D/L-aspartic and -glutamic acids by mono- and bis(trimethylammonio)-beta-cyclodextrins.