| Literature DB >> 24367445 |
Yannick P Rey1, Ryan Gilmour2.
Abstract
Fluorination often confers a range of advantages in modulating the conformation and reactivity of small molecule organocatalysts. By strategically introducing fluorine substituents, as part of a β-fluoroamine motif, in a triazolium pre-catalyst, it was possible to modulate the behaviour of the corresponding N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) with minimal steric alterations to the catalyst core. In this study, the effect of hydrogen to fluorine substitution was evaluated as part of a molecular editing study. X-ray crystallographic analyses of a number of derivatives are presented and the conformations are discussed. Upon deprotonation, the fluorinated triazolium salts generate catalytically active N-heterocyclic carbenes, which can then participate in the enantioselective Steglich rearrangement of oxazolyl carbonates to C-carboxyazlactones (e.r. up to 87.0:13.0).Entities:
Keywords: Steglich rearrangement; catalysis; enantioselectivity; fluorine; gauche effect; organo-fluorine
Year: 2013 PMID: 24367445 PMCID: PMC3869272 DOI: 10.3762/bjoc.9.316
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Beilstein J Org Chem ISSN: 1860-5397 Impact factor: 2.883
Figure 1Exploring the effect of fluorine incorporation in triazolium pre-catalysts (2) for the enantioselective Steglich rearrangement of oxazolyl carbonates to the respective C-carboxyazlactones (3→4).
Figure 2Target triazolium salts 5–10 for this study. The synclinal-endo conformation of 5 is shown [18]. Only the synclinal-exo arrangement of 6 and 7 is shown [22].
Scheme 1Synthesis of the difluorinated triazolium salt 7 starting from commercially available N-Boc-trans-4-hydroxy-L-proline methyl ester (11).
Scheme 2Synthesis of the monofluorinated triazolium salt 8.
Scheme 3Synthesis of the trifluoromethylated and non-fluorinated pre-catalysts 9 and 10 for control studies.
Figure 3X-ray crystal structures of triazolium salts 5·BF4−, 6·BF4− and 7·BF4− [42]. The tetrafluoroborate counterions have been omitted for clarity.
Optimisation studies using triazolium salt 6.a,b
| Entry | Solvent | Base | Conc. (mol·L−1) | Loading (mol %) | T (°C) | Conversion (%)b | e.r.b |
| 1 | toluene | KHMDS | 0.19 | 10 | rt | >99 | 80.5:19.5 |
| 2 | CH2Cl2 | KHMDS | 0.19 | 10 | rt | 89 | 59.0:41.0 |
| 3 | CDCl3 | KHMDS | 0.19 | 10 | rt | 39 | 70.0:30.0 |
| 4 | THF | KHMDS | 0.19 | 10 | rt | <1 | — |
| 5 | Et2O | KHMDS | 0.19 | 10 | rt | >99 | 74.0:26.0 |
| 6 | 1,4-dioxane | KHMDS | 0.19 | 10 | rt | 95 | 74.5:25.5 |
| 7 | KHMDS | 0.19 | 10 | rt | 38 | 79.0:21.0 | |
| 8 | PhCl | KHMDS | 0.19 | 10 | rt | 65 | 71.5:28.5 |
| 9 | toluene | DBU | 0.19 | 10 | rt | 67 | 79.5:20.5 |
| 10 | toluene | KO | 0.19 | 10 | rt | 14 | 78.5:21.5 |
| 11 | toluene | KHMDS (solid) | 0.19 | 10 | rt | 66 | 79.0:21.0 |
| 12 | toluene | Cs2CO3 | 0.19 | 10 | rt | >99 | 80.5:19.5 |
| 13 | toluene | KHMDS | 0.02 | 10 | rt | 97 | 80.5:19.5 |
| 14 | toluene | KHMDS | 0.50 | 10 | rt | >99 | 79.0:21.0 |
| 15 | toluene | KHMDS | 0.19 | 30 | rt | >99 | 66.5:33.5 |
| 16 | toluene | KHMDS | 0.19 | 5 | rt | 63 | 80.5:19.5 |
| 17 | toluene | KHMDS | 0.19 | 1 | rt | <1 | — |
| 18 | toluene | Cs2CO3 | 0.02 | 10 | rt | 92 | 81.0:19.0 |
| 19 | toluene | Cs2CO3 | 0.50 | 10 | rt | 99 | 80.0:20.0 |
| 20 | toluene | Cs2CO3 | 0.19 | 30 | rt | 99 | 80.0:20.0 |
| 21 | toluene | Cs2CO3 | 0.19 | 5 | rt | 96 | 80.0:20.0 |
aRepresentative reaction protocol: To a suspension of 6 in the appropriate solvent was added the base indicated. The mixture was then stirred for 15 min before a solution of 25 (20.0 mg, 76.0 µmol) in toluene was added. The mixture was stirred for a further 18 h, after which time the solution was concentrated in vacuo and filtered over a plug of silica gel (CH2Cl2 as eluent). The resulting solution was then concentrated in vacuo. bThe conversion and enantiomeric ratio of the product were determined by HPLC on an Agilent 1260 series system using a reprocil chiral-OM 4.6 mm column. Percent conversion was determined by integration of the starting material and product peaks, correcting for response factors.
A catalyst molecular editing study.a,b
| Entry | Catalyst | Base | Conversion (%)b | e.r.b |
| 1 | Cs2CO3 | 83 | 54.5:45.5c | |
| 3 | Cs2CO3 | 99 | 80.5:19.5 | |
| 5 | Cs2CO3 | 99 | 87.0:13.0 | |
| 7 | Cs2CO3 | 97 | 77.5:22.5 | |
| 9 | Cs2CO3 | 0 | n.d. | |
| 11 | Cs2CO3 | 98 | 62.5:37.5 | |
aRepresentative reaction protocol: A suspension of the catalyst (7.6 µmol) in toluene (200 µL) was treated with Cs2CO3 (2.5 mg, 7.6 µmol) and stirred for 15 min. A solution of 25 (20.0 mg, 76.0 µmol) in toluene (200 µL) was then added. The mixture was stirred for a further 18 h, after which time the solution was concentrated in vacuo and filtered over a plug of silica gel (CH2Cl2 as eluent). The resulting solution was then concentrated in vacuo. bThe conversion and enantiomeric ratio of the product were determined by HPLC on an Agilent 1260 series system using a reprocil chiral-OM 4.6 mm column. Percent conversion was determined by integration of the starting material and product peaks, correcting for response factors. cReversal in the sense of enantioselectivity.
Figure 4An overview of the molecular editing approach to catalyst development.