Structure-based differences between the metal ion selectivity of two siderophores desferrioxamine B (DFB) and desferricoprogen (DFC): why DFC is much better Pb(II) sequestering agent than DFB?

Complexation of desferrioxamine B (DFB) and desferricoprogen (DFC) with Cd(II) and Pb(II) toxic ions as well as complexation of DFC with Ca(II) and Mg(II) essential metals have been investigated and the results have been compared to those with other metal ions. The two siderophores have moderate Cd(II)-binding ability, but both, and especially DFC, bind Pb(II) in high stability complexes. Surprisingly, significant differences exist between Pb(II)-complexation of DFB and DFC. Namely, a maximum of two hydroxamate groups of a DFB coordinate to a Pb(II) ion, the third one binds to another metal ion with high preference and the formation of a trinuclear species, [Pb(3)(DFBH)(2)](2+), is predominant even at 1:1 metal to ligand ratio in this system. On the contrary, DFC forms mononuclear complex, [ML], with much higher stability and the formation of the trinuclear complex is negligible compared to DFB. The 6s(2) electron-pair of Pb(II), which remains always inert during complexation with hydroxamic acids and also with DFB, seems to become active in the DFC complexes (due to the effect of the double bonds in beta-position to each hydroxamate), what, at least in some extent, allows the coordination of all the three hydroxamates of DFC to the same Pb(II) ion. This way of interaction (unique with a hydroxamate-based compound) results in significant stability increase, and, as a consequence, DFC is much better Pb(II)-chelating agent than DFB. Although DFC forms unexpectedly high stability complexes with Mg(II) compared to Ca(II), but even Mg(II), compared to many other metals, is not an efficient DFC-binding metal. Therefore, any sequestration of this biologically very important metal is not likely from a living organism by DFC.