Theoretical and experimental structural studies of the title compound were undertaken using X-ray and DFT methods. The inter­actions present in the crystal were analyzed using Hirshfeld surface and MEP surface analysis. Docking studies with a covid-19 main protease (PDB ID: 6LU7) as the target receptor indicate that the synthesized compound may be a potential candidate for pharmaceutical applications.

The title compound is a non-liquid crystal mol­ecule. The mol­ecular crystal is consolidated by C—Br⋯O&z-dbnd;C type contacts running continuously along the [001] direction.

In the title compound, C8H9BrN2O2, the C—O—C—C torsion angle between isonicotine and the ethyl group is 180.0 (2)°. Intramolecular N—H...O and C—H...O interactions consolidate the molecular structure. In the crystal, N—H...N interaction form S(5) zigzag chains along [010]. The most significant contributions to the Hirshfeld surface arise from H...H (33.2%), Br...H/H...Br (20.9%), O...H/H...O (11.2%), C...H/H...C (11.1%) and N...H/H...N (10%) contacts. The topology of the three-dimensional energy frameworks was generated using the B3LYP/6–31 G(d,p) model to calculate the total interaction energy. The net interaction energies for the title compound are Eele = 59.2 kJ mol−1, Epol = 15.5 kJ mol−1, Edis = 140.3 kJ mol−1 and Erep = 107.2 kJ mol−1 with a total interaction energy Etot of 128.8 kJ mol−1. The molecular structure was optimized by density functional theory (DFT) at the B3LYP/6–311+G(d,p) level and the theoretical and experimentally obtained parameters were compared. The frontier molecular orbitals HOMO and LUMO were generated, giving an energy gap ΔE of 4.0931 eV. The MEP was generated to identify active sites in the molecule and molecular docking studies carried out with the title compound (ligand) and the covid-19 main protease PDB ID: 6LU7, revealing a moderate binding affinity of −5.4 kcal mol−1.

In the title mol­ecule, C7H7N3O, the pyrimidine ring is essentially planar, with the propynyl group rotated out of this plane by 15.31 (4)°. In the crystal, a tri-periodic network is formed by N—H⋯O, N—H⋯N and C—H⋯O hydrogen-bonding and slipped π–π stacking inter­actions, leading to narrow channels extending parallel to the c axis. Hirshfeld surface analysis of the crystal structure reveals that the most important contributions for the crystal packing are from H⋯H (36.2%), H⋯C/C⋯H (20.9%), H⋯O/O⋯H (17.8%) and H⋯N/N⋯H (12.2%) inter­actions, showing that hydrogen-bonding and van der Waals inter­actions are the dominant inter­actions in the crystal packing. Evaluation of the electrostatic, dispersion and total energy frameworks indicates that the stabilization is dominated by the electrostatic energy contributions. The mol­ecular structure optimized by density functional theory (DFT) calculations at the B3LYP/6–311 G(d,p) level is compared with the experimentally determined structure in the solid state. The HOMO–LUMO behaviour was also elucidated to determine the energy gap.

The title compound, C16H17N3O3, is racemic as it crystallizes in a centrosymmetric space group (Poverline{1}), although the trans disposition of substituents about the central C—C bond is established. The five- and six-membered rings are oriented at a dihedral angle of 75.88 (8)°. In the crystal, N—H⋯N hydrogen bonds form chains of mol­ecules extending along the c-axis direction that are connected by inversion-related pairs of O—H⋯N into ribbons. The ribbons are linked by C—H⋯π(ring) inter­actions, forming layers parallel to the ab plane. A Hirshfeld surface analysis indicates that the most important contributions for the crystal packing are from H⋯H (45.9%), H⋯N/N⋯H (23.3%), H⋯C/C⋯H (16.2%) and H⋯O/O⋯H (12.3%) inter­actions. Hydrogen bonding and van der Waals inter­actions are the dominant inter­actions in the crystal packing. The volume of the crystal voids and the percentage of free space were calculated to be 100.94 Å3 and 13.20%, showing that there is no large cavity in the crystal packing. Evaluation of the electrostatic, dispersion and total energy frameworks indicates that the stabilization is dominated by the electrostatic energy contributions in the title compound. Moreover, the DFT-optimized structure at the B3LYP/6–311 G(d,p) level is compared with the experimentally determined mol­ecular structure in the solid state. The HOMO–LUMO behaviour was elucidated to determine the energy gap.

The in­do­line portion of the title mol­ecule, C16H13NO2, is planar. In the crystal, a layer structure is generated by C—H⋯O hydrogen bonds and C—H⋯π(ring), π-stacking and C=O⋯π(ring) inter­actions. The Hirshfeld surface analysis of the crystal structure indicates that the most important contributions for the crystal packing are from H⋯H (43.0%), H⋯C/C⋯H (25.0%) and H⋯O/O⋯H (22.8%) inter­actions. Hydrogen bonding and van der Waals inter­actions are the dominant inter­actions in the crystal packing. The volume of the crystal voids and the percentage of free space were calculated to be 120.52 Å3 and 9.64%, respectively, showing that there is no large cavity in the crystal packing. Evaluation of the electrostatic, dispersion and total energy frameworks indicate that the stabilization is dominated by the dispersion energy contributions in the title compound. Moreover, the DFT-optimized structure at the B3LYP/6-311G(d,p) level is compared with the experimentally determined mol­ecular structure in the solid state.

The title compound [systematic name: 1-(2-nitro­phen­yl)pyrrole-2,5-dione], C10H6N2O4, crystallizes in the monoclinic system (space group P21/n) with two mol­ecules in the asymmetric unit, which are linked by C—H⋯O hydrogen bonds. Hirshfeld surface analysis showed that the most significant contributions to the crystal packing are from H⋯O/O⋯H, H⋯C/C⋯H and H⋯H inter­actions, which contribute 54.7%, 15.2% and 15.6%, respectively. A DFT study was conducted using three different levels of theory [(B3LYP/6–311+G(d,p), wB97XD/Def2TZVPP and LC-wpbe/6–311(2 d,2p)] in order to determine the stability, structural and electronic properties of the title mol­ecule with a view to its potential applications and photochemical and copolymer properties.

In the title mol­ecule, C21H23N3O3, the imidazolidine ring slightly deviates from planarity and the morpholine ring exhibits the chair conformation. In the crystal, N—H⋯O and C—H⋯O hydrogen bonds form helical chains of mol­ecules extending parallel to the c axis that are connected by C—H⋯π(ring) inter­actions. A Hirshfeld surface analysis reveals that the most important contributions for the crystal packing are from H⋯H (55.2%), H⋯C/C⋯H (22.6%) and H⋯O/O⋯H (20.5%) inter­actions. The volume of the crystal voids and the percentage of free space were calculated to be 236.78 Å3 and 12.71%, respectively. Evaluation of the electrostatic, dispersion and total energy frameworks indicates that the stabilization is dominated by the nearly equal electrostatic and dispersion energy contributions. The DFT-optimized mol­ecular structure at the B3LYP/6-311 G(d,p) level is compared with the experimentally determined mol­ecular structure in the solid state. Moreover, the HOMO–LUMO behaviour was elucidated to determine the energy gap.

The title compound, C12H10N2O3, was obtained by the de­acetyl­ation reaction of 1-(6-amino-5-nitro­naphthalen-2-yl)ethanone in a concentrated sulfuric acid methanol solution. The mol­ecule comprises a naphthalene ring system bearing an acetyl group (C-3), an amino group (C-7), and a nitro group (C-8). In the crystal, the mol­ecules are assembled into a two-dimensional network by N⋯H/H⋯N and O⋯H/H⋯O hydrogen-bonding inter­actions. n–π and π–π stacking inter­actions are the dominant inter­actions in the three-dimensional crystal packing. Hirshfeld surface analysis indicates that the most important contributions are from O⋯H/H⋯O (34.9%), H⋯H (33.7%), and C⋯H/H⋯C (11.0%) contacts. The energies of the frontier mol­ecular orbitals were computed using density functional theory (DFT) calculations at the B3LYP-D3BJ/def2-TZVP level of theory and the LUMO–HOMO energy gap of the mol­ecule is 3.765 eV.

The benzimidazole entity of the title mol­ecule, C17H21N5O, is almost planar (r.m.s. deviation = 0.0262 Å). In the crystal, bifurcated C—H⋯O hydrogen bonds link individual mol­ecules into layers extending parallel to the ac plane. Two weak C—H⋯π(ring) inter­actions may also be effective in the stabilization of the crystal structure. Hirshfeld surface analysis of the crystal structure reveals that the most important contributions for the crystal packing are from H⋯H (57.9%), H⋯C/C⋯H (18.1%) and H⋯O/O⋯H (14.9%) inter­actions. Hydrogen bonding and van der Waals inter­actions are the most dominant forces in the crystal packing. Evaluation of the electrostatic, dispersion and total energy frameworks indicate that the stabilization of the title compound is dominated via dispersion energy contributions. The mol­ecular structure optimized by density functional theory (DFT) at the B3LYP/6–311 G(d,p) level is compared with the experimentally determined mol­ecular structure in the solid state.

In the title compound, C33H29ClN2O2, the two piperidine rings of the di­aza­bicyclo moiety adopt distorted-chair conformations. Inter­molecular C—H⋯π inter­actions are mainly responsible for the crystal packing. The inter­molecular inter­actions were qu­anti­fied and analysed using Hirshfeld surface analysis, revealing that H⋯H inter­actions contribute most to the crystal packing (52.3%). The mol­ecular structure was further optimized by density functional theory (DFT) at the B3LYP/6–31 G(d,p) level and is compared with the experimentally determined mol­ecular structure in the solid state.

The two mol­ecules in the asymmetric unit of the title compound, C23H24N2O2S, have a structural overlap with an r.m.s. deviation of 0.82 Å. The piperidine rings adopt a distorted boat conformation. Intra- and inter­molecular C—H⋯O hydrogen bonds are responsible for the cohesion of the crystal packing. The inter­molecular inter­actions were qu­anti­fied and analysed using Hirshfeld surface analysis. The mol­ecular structure optimized by density functional theory (DFT) at the B3LYP/6–311++G(d,p)level is compared with the experimentally determined mol­ecular structure in the solid state.

In the title compound, C25H17NO3, the torsion angle associated with the phenyl benzoate group is −173.7 (2)° and that for the benz­yloxy group is −174.8 (2)° establishing an anti-type conformation. The dihedral angles between the ten-membered cyanona­phthalene ring and the aromatic ring of the phenyl benzoate and the benz­yloxy fragments are 40.70 (10) and 87.51 (11)°, respectively, whereas the dihedral angle between the aromatic phenyl benzoate and the benz­yloxy fragments is 72.30 (13)°. In the crystal, the mol­ecules are linked by weak C—H⋯O inter­actions forming S(4) chains propagating parallel to [010]. The packing is consolidated by three C—H⋯π inter­actions and two π–π stacking inter­actions between the aromatic rings of naphthalene and phenyl benzoate with centroid-to-centroid distances of 3.9698 (15) and 3.8568 (15) Å, respectively. Inter­molecular inter­actions were qu­anti­fied using Hirshfeld surface analysis. The mol­ecular structure was further optimized by density functional theory (DFT) at the B3LYP/6–311+ G(d,p) level, revealing that the energy gap between HOMO and LUMO is 3.17 eV. Mol­ecular docking studies were carried out for the title compound as a ligand and SARS-Covid-2(PDB ID:7QF0) protein as a receptor giving a binding affinity of −9.5 kcal mol−1.

This article presents a Python-based program, DFT2FEFFIT, to regress theoretical extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) spectra calculated from density functional theory structure models against experimental EXAFS spectra. To showcase its application, Ce-doped fluorapatite [Ca10(PO4)6F2] is revisited as a representative of a material difficult to analyze by conventional multi-shell least-squares fitting of EXAFS spectra. The software is open source and publicly available.

Training Bytes are not just short technical videos; they are particularly designed to provide comprehensive support in understanding and learning various concepts and methodologies.

These comprehensive yet small Training Bytes can be created to show various concepts and processes in a shorter pane of five to ten minutes, for example, running DFT synthesis, scanning insertion, inserting advanced testability features, test point insertion, debugging DFT violations, etc.

In this blog, we will show you the DFT Synthesis Flow with Cadence's Genus Synthesis Solution using small Training Bytes available on the Cadence Learning and Support Portal. To explore these training bytes more, log on to support.cadence.com and select the learning section to choose the training videos, as shown below.

DFT Synthesis Flow with Genus Synthesis Solution

First, we will understand the Synthesis Flow with DFT in the Genus Synthesis Solution:

Understanding a Script File that Used to Run the Synthesis Flow With DFT

Here, we will show you "How to run the Test Synthesis Flow to Insert Scan Chains and Improve the Testability of a Design" in the Genus Synthesis Solution:

Running Test Synthesis Flow to Insert Scan Chains And Improve the Testability of a Design in the Genus Synthesis Solution

Let's check the flops marked with the dft_mapped attribute for scan mapping in Genus Synthesis Solution:

How to Check Flops Marked With dft_mapped Attribute For Scan Mapping in Genus Synthesis Solution?

How to Find Non-Scan Flops of a Design in Genus? (Video)

Once the flops are mapped to scan flip flops and the scan chain inserted, we will see how to handle the flops marked with the dft_dont_scan attribute for scan mapping in Genus Synthesis Solution.

How to Handle the Flops Marked With the dft_dont_scan Attribute For Scan Mapping in Genus Synthesis Solution?

Here, we will see how to fix DFT Violations using the command fix_dft_violations:

Fixing DFT Violations (Video)

Once the design has been synthesized, let's explore the DFT design hierarchy in Genus Stylus CUI:

Exploring DFT Design Hierarchy in Genus Stylus CUI (Video)

Understand why sequential elements are not mapped to a scan flop:

Why Are Sequential Elements Not Mapped to a Scan Flop?

Explore hierarchical scan synthesis in Genus Stylus Common UI:

Understanding Hierarchical Scan Synthesis in Genus Stylus Common UI. (Video)

To understand how to resolve different warnings and errors (for example, DFT-415, DFT-512, DFT-304, etc.) in Genus Synthesis Solution, here are some videos you can refer to:

How to Resolve Warning: DFT-415 (Video)

How to Resolve Error: DFT-407 (Video)

How to Resolve Error: DFT-404 (Video)

DFT-510 Warning During Mapping (Video)

How to Resolve Warning: DFT-512 (Video)

How to Resolve Warning: DFT-511 (Video)

How to Resolve Warning: DFT-304 (Video)

How to Resolve Warning: DFT-302 (Video)

How to Resolve Error: DFT-515 (Video)

How to Resolve Error: DFT-500 (Video)

Here, we will see how we can generate SDC constraints for DFT constructs for many scan insertion techniques, such as FULLSCAN, OPCG, Boundary Scan, PMBIST, XOR Compression, SmartScan Compression, LBIST, and IEEE 1500:

How to Generate SDC Constraints for DFT Constructs in Genus Synthesis Solution? (Video)

Explore advanced testability features that can be inserted in Genus Synthesis Solution, such as Boundary Scan, Programmable Memory built-in Self-Test Logic (PMBIST), Compression Logic, Masking, and On-Product Clock Generation Logic (OPCG):

Advanced Testability Features (Video)

To understand What the IEEE 1500 Wrapper and its Insertion Flow in Genus Synthesis Solution, follow the bytes:

What Is IEEE 1500 Wrapper? (Video)

IEEE 1500 Wrapper Insertion Flow in Genus Synthesis Solution (Video)

Understand the On-product Clock Generation (OPCG) insertion flow in Genus Synthesis Solution Stylus CUI with this byte:

Understanding On Product Clock Generator (OPCG) Insertion in Genus Stylus CUI (Video)

To debug DFT violations, you can use DFT Analyzer from Genus GUI and explore its features here:

Debugging Using GUI: DFT Analyzer (Video)

Exploring DFT Analyzer View of Genus Synthesis Solution GUI (Video)

To understand What is Shadow Logic, How to Insert Test Points, How to do Testability Analysis Using LBIST, and How to Deterministic Fault Analysis in Genus, follow this article:

What is Shadow Logic

To insert the Boundary Scan Logic in and control Boundary Optimization in Genus Synthesis Solution, refer to these small bytes:

How to Insert Boundary Scan Logic in Genus? Video)

Controlling Boundary Optimization in Genus Synthesis Solution Stylus CUI (Video)

Compression techniques are used during scan insertion to reduce the test data volume and test application time (TAT) while retaining the test coverage. To understand what compression and the compression techniques are, watch this article:

What is Compression Technique During Scan Insertion? (Video)

Interested to know what "Unified Compression" is? To get the concept, you can watch this small demo:

What Is Unified Compression? (Video)

To Explore More, Register for Online Training

• Log on to Cadence.com with your registered Cadence ID and password.
• Select Learning from the menu > Online Courses.
• Search for "Test Synthesis with Genus Stylus Common UI" using the search bar.
• Select the course and click "Enroll."

The title Schiff base compound, C13H9ClN4O5·0.5CH3CN, crystallizes as an aceto­nitrile hemisolvate; the solvent mol­ecule being located on a twofold rotation axis. The mol­ecule is nearly planar, with a dihedral angle between the two benzene rings of 3.7 (2)°. The configuration about the C=N bond is E, and there is an intra­molecular N—H⋯Onitro hydrogen bond present forming an S(6) ring motif. In the crystal, mol­ecules are linked by O—H⋯O and N—H⋯O hydrogen bonds, forming layers lying parallel to (10overline{1}). The layers are linked by C—H⋯Cl hydrogen bonds, forming a supra­molecular framework. Within the framework there are offset π–π stacking inter­actions [inter­centroid distance = 3.833 (2) Å] present involving inversion-related mol­ecules. The DFT study shows that the HOMO and LUMO are localized in the plane extending from the phenol ring to the 2,4-di­nitro­benzene ring, and the HOMO–LUMO gap is found to be 0.13061 a.u.

In the title quinoline derivative, C14H14ClNO3, there is an intra­molecular C—H⋯O hydrogen bond forming an S(6) graph-set motif. The mol­ecule is essentially planar with the mean plane of the ethyl acetate group making a dihedral angle of 5.02 (3)° with the ethyl 6-chloro-2-eth­oxy­quinoline mean plane. In the crystal, offset π–π inter­actions with a centroid-to-centroid distance of 3.4731 (14) Å link inversion-related mol­ecules into columns along the c-axis direction. Hirshfeld surface analysis indicates that H⋯H contacts make the largest contribution (50.8%) to the Hirshfeld surface.

The title compound, C21H16N2O2, consists of an imidazolidine unit linked to two phenyl rings and two prop-2-yn-1-yl moieties. The imidazolidine ring is oriented at dihedral angles of 79.10 (5) and 82.61 (5)° with respect to the phenyl rings, while the dihedral angle between the two phenyl rings is 62.06 (5)°. In the crystal, inter­molecular C—HProp⋯OImdzln (Prop = prop-2-yn-1-yl and Imdzln = imidazolidine) hydrogen bonds link the mol­ecules into infinite chains along the b-axis direction. Two weak C—HPhen⋯π inter­actions are also observed. The Hirshfeld surface analysis of the crystal structure indicates that the most important contributions for the crystal packing are from H⋯H (43.3%), H⋯C/C⋯H (37.8%) and H⋯O/O⋯H (18.0%) inter­actions. Hydrogen bonding and van der Waals inter­actions are the dominant inter­actions in the crystal packing. Computational chemistry indicates that the C—HProp⋯OImdzln hydrogen-bond energy in the crystal is −40.7 kJ mol−1. Density functional theory (DFT) optimized structures at the B3LYP/6–311G(d,p) level are compared with the experimentally determined mol­ecular structure in the solid state. The HOMO–LUMO behaviour was elucidated to determine the energy gap.

In the title quinoline derivative, C24H19NO3, the two benzyl rings are inclined to the quinoline ring mean plane by 74.09 (8) and 89.43 (7)°, and to each other by 63.97 (10)°. The carboxyl­ate group is twisted from the quinoline ring mean plane by 32.2 (2)°. There is a short intra­molecular C—H⋯O contact forming an S(6) ring motif. In the crystal, mol­ecules are linked by bifurcated C—H,H⋯O hydrogen bonds, forming layers parallel to the ac plane. The layers are linked by C—H⋯π inter­actions, forming a supra­molecular three-dimensional structure.

The asymmetric unit of the title compound, C15H12N2O2, contains two crystallographically independent mol­ecules in which the dihedral angles between the benzene rings in each are 13.26 (5) and 7.87 (5)°. An intra­molecular O—H⋯N hydrogen bonds results in the formation of an S(6) ring motif. In the crystal, mol­ecules are linked by weak C—H⋯O and C—H⋯N hydrogen bonds, forming layers parallel to (011). In addition, π–π stacking inter­actions with centroid–centroid distances in the range 3.693 (2)–3.931 (2) Å complete the three-dimensional network.

The title pyridazin-3(2H)-one derivative, C25H19FN2O2, crystallizes with two independent mol­ecules (A and B) in the asymmetric unit. In mol­ecule A, the 4-fluoro­phenyl ring, the benzyl ring and the phenyl ring are inclined to the central pyridazine ring by 86.54 (11), 3.70 (9) and 84.857 (13)°, respectively. In mol­ecule B, the corresponding dihedral angles are 86.80 (9), 10.47 (8) and 82.01 (10)°, respectively. In the crystal, the A mol­ecules are linked by pairs of C—H⋯F hydrogen bonds, forming inversion dimers with an R22(28) ring motif. The dimers are linked by C—H⋯O hydrogen bonds and a C—H⋯π inter­action, forming columns stacking along the a-axis direction. The B mol­ecules are linked to each other in a similar manner and form columns separating the columns of A mol­ecules.

The title compound, C31H30N2S2O6, possesses crystallographically imposed twofold symmetry with the two C atoms of the central benzene ring and the C atom of its methyl substituent lying on the twofold rotation axis. The two dansyl groups are twisted away from the plane of methyl­phenyl bridging unit in opposite directions. The three-dimensional arrangement in the crystal is mainly stabilized by weak hydrogen bonds between the sulfonyl oxygen atoms and the hydrogen atoms from the N-methyl groups. Stacking of the dansyl group is not observed. From the DFT calculations, the HOMO–LUMO energy gap was found to be 2.99 eV and indicates n→π* and π→π* transitions within the mol­ecule.

In the title mol­ecule, C17H23NO2, the di­hydro­indole portion is planar (r.m.s. deviation = 0.0157 Å) and the nonyl substituent is in an `extended' conformation. In the crystal, the nonyl chains inter­calate and the di­hydro­indole­dione units are associated through C—H⋯O hydrogen bonds to form micellar blocks. Based on the Hirshfeld surface analysis, the most important inter­molecular inter­action is the H⋯H inter­action.