Rebuttal to the article Pathological crystal structures.

A section in the Acta Crystallographica Section C article by Raymond & Girolami [Acta Cryst. (2023), C79, 445-455] stated that the product of the reaction of [(Cp*Rh)(μ-OH)] (Cp* is 1,2,3,4,5-pentamethylcyclopentadiene) with 1-methylthymine (1-MT) at pH 10 and 60 °C, to synthesize the anionic component [Rh(η-N-1-MT)], was not an Rh complex, but rather an Ag complex, due to the use of silver triflate (AgOTf) to remove Cl from [Cp*RhCl] to synthesize [Cp*Rh(HO)](OTf), a water-soluble crystalline complex. We will clearly show that this premise, as stated, is invalid, while the authors have simply avoided several important facts, including that Cp*OH, a reductive elimination product, at pH 10 and 60 °C, was unequivocally identified, thus leading to the Rh anionic component [Rh(η-N-1-MT)]. More importantly, AgOH, from the reaction of NaOH at pH 10 with any potentially remaining AgOTf, after the AgCl was filtered off, would be insoluble in water. Furthermore, a control experiment with the inorganic complex Rh(OH), reacting with 1-methylthymine at pH 10, provided no product, and this bodes well for a similar fate with AgOTf and 1-methylthymine, i.e. at pH 10, AgOTf would again be converted to the water-insoluble AgOH; therefore, no reaction would occur! Finally, a H NMR spectroscopy experiment was carried out with synthesized and crystallized [Cp*Rh(HO)](OTf) in DO at various pD values; at pD 8.65 no reaction took place, while at pD 13.6, and at 60 °C for 2 h, a reductive elimination reaction caused the precipitation of Cp*OH. The subsequent H NMR spectrum clearly demonstrated, in the absence of any Ag complexes, that the solution structure and the X-ray crystals in DO were similar. A postulated mechanism for this novel anionic component structure, as published previously [Smith et al. (2014). Organometallics, 33, 2389-2404], will be presented, along with the experimental data, to insure the credibility of our results. We will also answer the comments in the response of Drs Raymond and Girolami to this rebuttal.