Huw M L Davies1, Daniel Morton1. 1. Department of Chemistry, Emory University, 1515 Dickey Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, United States.
Abstract
C-H functionalization is a very active research field that has attracted the interest of scientists from many disciplines. This Outlook describes the collaborative efforts within the NSF CCI Center for Selective C-H Functionalization (CCHF) to develop catalyst-controlled selective methods to enhance the synthetic potential of C-H functionalization.
C-H functionalization is a very active research field that has attracted the interest of scientists from many disciplines. This Outlook describes the collaborative efforts within the NSF CCI Center for Selective C-H Functionalization (CCHF) to develop catalyst-controlled selective methods to enhance the synthetic potential of C-H functionalization.
C–H
functionalization
has become an exciting field of research with the potential of imparting
a paradigm shift in how chemicals are made.[1] The ability to selectively functionalize C–H bonds has been
recognized as an attractive challenge, with much of the early progress
relying on free radical reactions. In the 1980s organometallic chemists
became interested in designing complexes capable of activating C–H
bonds,[1] and soon thereafter, the development
of new strategies for synthesis using C–H functionalization
became an ambitious research field for the organic synthesis community.[1−11] As the aspirations for the field heightened, it was quickly recognized
that scientists with a diverse range of skill sets were required to
bring C–H functionalization to its full synthetic potential.
In 2009, we initiated the NSF Center for Selective C–H Functionalization
(CCHF) to address this challenge, and it now encompasses 25 professors
and their research groups from 16 different universities (Figure ). This Outlook describes
the development of this collaborative community and highlights some
of its recent accomplishments.
Figure 1
Geographic and expertise distribution
of the CCHF.
Geographic and expertise distribution
of the CCHF.An introductory challenge
for the Center was to develop effective
methods for communication and the promotion of a culture of collaborative
research. The typical approach to collaboration in organic synthesis
is in an interdisciplinary fashion, such that individual organic chemistry
groups connect with scientists from other fields but rarely with each
other. The Center, comprising of synthetic methodologists, synthetic
strategists, physical organic chemists, catalyst developers, enzymologists,
computational chemists, chemical engineers, material scientists, and
several partners in the pharmaceutical industry needed to develop
a culture in which not just results but nascent ideas could be shared.
Early on the Center organized a number of face-to-face meetings to
establish the guidelines for broad collaborative engagement and to
brainstorm the most promising research areas. A program of weekly
videoconference meetings was established at which 20–25 groups
and subgroups are regularly in attendance. These virtual meetings
have generated a highly synergistic and collaborative community (Figure ). The Center encourages
wide-ranging collaborations within the Center and with the broader
scientific community, as illustrated by the numerous joint publications
stemming from within the Center and with other academic, industrial,
and international partners. Of the Center’s 207 publications
to date, 121 are collaborative, 98 have two senior investigators as
coauthors, 13 have three, 8 have four, 1 has five, and 1 has eight
(see Supporting Information for details).
Figure 2
CCHF collaborative
research interactions based upon published articles.
This visualizes work from 2009 to the present. Each interaction is
represented by a connective ribbon, and the size of each ribbon is
directly proportional to the number of interactions.
CCHF collaborative
research interactions based upon published articles.
This visualizes work from 2009 to the present. Each interaction is
represented by a connective ribbon, and the size of each ribbon is
directly proportional to the number of interactions.The Center research efforts were initially organized around six
thematic areas related to C–H functionalization: mechanistic
understanding, catalyst and methodology development, strategic disconnections,
late stage C–H functionalization, pharmaceutical applications,
and materials science applications. The thematic leaders organize
the discussions in the videoconference meeting and focus their teams
on the most pressing challenges in the specific area. When we initiated
the CCHF, we had some experts in C–H functionalization methodology
development, but the rest of the group, although they had very valuable
skill sets, had limited prior engagement in C–H functionalization.
Early on, developing strong mechanistic understanding was crucial.
The combined computational and experimental mechanistic studies have
been extremely informative in guiding us to move away from empirical
to design-led approaches for new catalyst and methodology development.
We also have the expertise to demonstrate the synthetic applications
of C–H functionalization to complex target synthesis, including
pharmaceutical and materials science applications. As the Center matured,
it was recognized that in order to make a lasting impact on the field
more broadly the Center should shift the focus of its investigations
from the general application of the technology to answering the big
challenge in this field: selectivity. To this end three strategies
were outlined that seek to move the controlling factors away from
the inherent reactivity of a given substrate and instead employ catalysts
to define the product distribution (Figure ). The first uses the catalyst/reagent control,
the second uses prior coordination to the substrate but still catalyst
control, and the third uses bioinspired approaches for site selection.
The next section of this article will describe
an example from each of these catalyst control approaches and illustrate
how they have evolved within the Center, and how the development of
these fields informed the reorganization of the Center’s research
to establish a program that propels the field forward.
Figure 3
Current research focus
of the CCHF.
Current research focus
of the CCHF.
Catalyst/Reagent Control
Development
At the outset of the Center, group transfer reactions
were recognized
by the C–H functionalization community as a complementary strategy
to the use of directing groups for achieving site selective transformations.
The Davies and Du Bois groups had conducted extensive studies on the
metal-catalyzed intermolecular C–H insertion reactions of carbenes
and nitrenes[2] and demonstrated their utility
in transformations of strategic importance and as streamlining technologies
in the total synthesis of complex targets.[12,13]However, the chemistry was primarily under
substrate control, and
if the substrate did not give a clean reaction, enhancing the chemistry
through catalyst selection was limited. In many instances optimization
was required on a substrate-by-substrate basis. To overcome this limitation
a team within the Center came together, including the Davies and Du
Bois groups collaborating with physical organic and mechanistic chemists
(Blackmond, TSRI; Sigman, Utah; Zare, Stanford), computational chemists
(Houk, UCLA; Musaev, Emory), and inorganic chemists (Berry, Wisconsin)
to better understand the mechanistic aspects and controlling influences
of the catalysts. In parallel to these studies a Center-led team (Sorensen,
Princeton; Yu, TSRI; Blakey, Emory; Davies, Emory), with international
collaborators (Itami, Nagoya) and industrial collaborators (at Novartis
and AbbVie), has contributed to the demonstration of the practical
strategic opportunities offered by this chemistry. Highlights of the
research accomplishments in group transfer reaction from the past
few years as illustrated in Figure include the following:
Figure 4
Timeline
of CCHF-led group transfer C–H functionalization
research.
Demonstration that dirhodium catalysts are capable of
over 1,000,000 turnover numbers in carbene chemistry.[14]Capture and identification
of short-lived intermediates
in the dirhodium catalyzed C–H amination reaction.[15]Isolation and characterization,
for the first time,
of the reactive dirhodium carbene intermediate.[16]Understanding the role of
Rh(II)Rh(III) intermediates
in rhodium nitrene chemistry.[17]Intermolecular C–H amination of elaborate
substrates
at tertiary sites.[18]Generation of predictive models for group transfer C–H
functionalization.[19,20]Development of a chiral iridium complex for enantioselective
C–H functionalization with acceptor carbenes[21]Development of a new class
of chiral ligands, the triarylcyclopropane
caraboxylates (TPCP), for dirhodium catalysts.[22]Application of group transfer
reactions to the functionalization
of pharmaceutically relevant targets with heterocyclic functionality.[23,24]Application of sequential C–H
functionalization
strategies in complex target synthesis.[25−27]Timeline
of CCHF-led group transfer C–H functionalization
research.The ultimate goal of this program
is to override the influence
exerted by the inherent properties of the substrate and develop a
suite of catalysts that can control the site selectivity at will.
An illustration of what can be achieved was recently reported, which
described how a new TPCPdirhodium catalyst influences the insertion
of a donor/acceptor carbene to such an extent that it occurs cleanly
at the most accessible methylene position in n-alkanes
and terminally substituted n-alkanes (Figure ).[28] In other words, the catalyst/reagent system distinguishes between
a methylene site with a methyl substituent and any other methylene
containing larger alkyl substituents. The future plans of the CCHF
will be to build on these advances and generate a tool-box of chiral
catalysts that enable practitioners to select which site in a molecule
will be functionalized, not based on the properties of the substrate
but rather determined by the catalyst choice.
Figure 5
Catalyst-controlled C–H
functionalization at the most accessible
methylene group.
Catalyst-controlled C–H
functionalization at the most accessible
methylene group.
Coordination-Assisted Control
Arguably the most effective strategy to date for selective product
formation in C–H activation is through the use of so-called
directing groups: functionality present on the substrate molecule
that can chelate to the metal complex catalyst, preorienting the reactive
species to a specific site on the molecule, reliably furnishing single
product formation. This has proven to be a highly effective class
of transformations for C–H activation, capable of introducing
a range of different atoms and functional groups, especially in the
functionalization of aromatic C–H bonds.[3,29] The
Yu group are leaders in this field, pioneering the broad use of weakly
coordinating directing groups,[4] an advance
that fundamentally changed the efficiency and scope of this strategy.
In order for this transformation to maintain a high level of site
selectivity, careful consideration of the ligand environment surrounding
the palladium catalyst was required. Early reports from the Yu group
detailed the use of monoprotected amino acids (MPAA), ligand frameworks
as effective choices for this system, though the origins of how this
ligand framework struck this subtle balance were poorly understood.[30] It was around this challenge that a Center team
united.Development of this strategy required insight into the
mechanistic
underpinnings of this chemical assembly; to this end the Yu group
collaborated with a team of computational theoreticians (Houk, UCLA;
Musaev, Emory), chemical engineers (Blackmond, TSRI), and physical
organic chemists (Sigman, Utah), to systematically probe the factors
that determine site selection. At the same time collaborations with
Center members (Davies, Emory; Movassaghi, MIT; Sorensen, Princeton),
international collaborators (Dai, SIOC; Wu, HKUST), and industrial
partners (BMS, NIBR, Pfizer, Merck), challenged and drove the application
of this strategy to new innovations. Highlights of the CCHF research
accomplishments in weakly coordinated directing group chemistry from
the past few years, as highlighted in Figure , include the following:
Figure 6
Timeline of the key CCHF-led investigations
into the use of weakly
coordinating directing groups.
Use of RPKA analysis to determine
rate dependence on
catalyst loading, identification of off-cycle catalyst reservoirs,
and insights into the role of the MPAA ligands.[31]Calculation of the key intermediates
involved in these
transformations and a theoretical outline of the elemental steps,
offering insight into how the ligands surrounding palladium engage
in the reaction.[32]DFT calculations that describe the spatial arrangement
of the ligand framework around the core, aiding understanding of stereochemical
induction.[33]The development of this strategy to employ new directing
group functionalities, expanding both scope and product versatility.[34,35]Substitution of palladium complexes
for copper(II) complexes
as the reactive center, enabled by the design of an oxazole-based
directing group.[36−40]Application to pharmaceutically relevant
targets.[41,42,25,43,27,44]Development of templated tether-like
directing groups
that enabled site selection at more remote C–H bonds.[45,46]Timeline of the key CCHF-led investigations
into the use of weakly
coordinating directing groups.This accumulation of knowledge around the elemental steps
of the
palladium mechanism and the conformational preference of the ligand
and directing group structures has enabled the most recent advance
in this field, the development of a new class of bidentate ligands
that outcompete the background reaction driven by substrate-directed
cyclopalladation, enabling the asymmetric palladium insertion into
prochiral C–H bonds on a single methylene sp3 center
(Figure ).[47] The development of reactions that employ the
acetyl-protected aminomethyl quinoline (APAQ) class of ligands marks
the path forward for Center research in this area, one in which this
strategy moves to regio- and stereoselectively functionalize sp3 C–H bonds in a general and efficient manner.
Figure 7
APAQ-ligand
accelerated asymmetric C–H activation of C(sp3)–H
bonds.
APAQ-ligand
accelerated asymmetric C–H activation of C(sp3)–H
bonds.
The defining characteristic of enzymes from secondary
metabolic
pathways is the pairing of powerful reactivity with exquisite site
selectivity. However, the application of these biocatalytic tools
in organic synthesis remains underutilized, in large part due to limitations
in substrate scope and scalability. Many enzymes employ selective
C–H oxidation as a mechanism for streamlined molecule synthesis,
inspiring Center researchers to assemble a team around addressing
the challenges outlined in bringing this technology into the mainstream.
Expertise from across a broad spectrum was connected, including biochemists
(Sherman, U-Michigan), synthetic organic chemists (Montgomery, U-Michigan),
structural biologists (Podust, UC-SF (external to CCHF)), and theoretical
chemists (Houk, UCLA), to shape a multifaceted approach that brought
a combination of computationally guided protein and substrate engineering
to the application of the oxidation of unactivated methylene C–H
bonds.The system chosen for these studies was the cytochrome
P450 monooxygenase
PikC, from the pikromycin natural product biosynthetic pathway, and
the timeline of the developmental studies within the center is summarized
in Figure . PikC has
an unusually high level of substrate promiscuity, which is rare in
secondary metabolic pathways.
Figure 8
Timeline of the investigations into the development
of PikC as
a broadly applicable biocatalyst for C–H oxidation.
Timeline of the investigations into the development
of PikC as
a broadly applicable biocatalyst for C–H oxidation.This indifference to specific substrate structure
is explained
by the mechanism in which natural substrates bind within the active
site. Extensive structural studies revealed salt-bridge interactions
between the dimethylamino group of the substrate desosamine sugar
and an exposed carboxylate moiety within the active site. Essentially
the amine acts as an anchor, holding the substrate in a specific location,
and the sugar acts as a linker, controlling the specific orientation
of the substrate with respect to the active oxidant. Thus, it is a
combination of the active site, anchor, and linker controlling factors
that dictate the site-selective reaction of the range of natural substrates.
Inspired by the “mix-and-match” nature of this system,
the collaborative team recognized the unusual and exciting opportunity
to bring both protein engineering (modifying the enzyme active site)
and synthetic organic chemistry (synthesis of novel anchor and linker
combinations) together to expand the system’s scope to un-natural
and synthetically significant substrates. However, in order to understand,
and predict, the impact of the permutations possible in varying the
active site, anchor, and linker, a unifying theory was required, one
that was provided through computational modeling and prediction. Highlights
of the CCHF research accomplishments developing biocatalysts as tools
for C–H functionalization include the following:Development of an advanced understanding
of the PikC
active site and the roles of the anchor and linker in site-selective
C–H oxidation.[48]Using theoretical modeling of the PikC active site to
unify protein and substrate engineering to furnish systems capable
of complete regio- and stereoselective C–H oxidation on a range
of non-native substrates.[49]The design and synthesis of novel linker classes, intended
to enable high-throughput screening of product distribution in order
to keep pace with the theoretical modeling and protein engineering.[49]Development of
molecular dynamics simulations (MDS)
capable of accurately and reliably modeling the PikC active site and
surrounding geometry.[49]The in silico simulation of these systems
is a
tool that will be truly enabling in this line of research. A crystal
structure, or a docking simulation, offers a snapshot of how an active
site in an enzyme might be organized with respect to the substrate.
Enabled by advances in computing power, MD simulations can now offer
an insight into the orientation and spatial location, as a function
of time, of the key functionalities involved in positioning substrates
in the active site of this large and multifaceted system. The information
gained from these studies has already begun to make a significant
impact on this research as illustrated in Figure by the C–H oxidation products that
can be selectively formed,[49] and as our
research moves forward, this tool will prove invaluable to the investigation
of new enzymatic systems.
Figure 9
Site-selective C–H oxidation with PikC-RhFRED
of various
cycloalkanes.
Site-selective C–H oxidation with PikC-RhFRED
of various
cycloalkanes.As the Center has matured
and its participants became more familiar
with the large-scale collaborative engagement, researchers have begun
to explore new initiatives in order to enhance our industrial and
global engagement and connection with the broader C–H functionalization
community. Members of the Center had already been involved in organizing
C–H functionalization symposia at ACS and Pacifichem meetings
and editing books and thematic issues on the topic, but we wanted
to reach a broader audience. In 2015 we started the Virtual Symposium
on C–H Functionalization, in which four speakers, two from
the Center and two from the broader C–H functionalization field,
deliver short, easily digestible talks on recent advances within the
C–H functionalization discipline. We have three of these symposia
each year, and they draw on average over 1,000 participants, joining
from lecture halls across the globe, with audiences coming from up
to 45 countries. We have also developed an international exchange
and collaborative research network with C–H functionalization
focused endeavors in Nagoya, Japan, and KAIST, South Korea, and with
Cambridge University, U.K. This relationship has been built through
large-scale videoconferences, and over 30 students and postdocs have
participated in international research exchanges.One of the
goals of the Center is to facilitate the broad industrial
application of C–H functionalization, and the Center has developed
numerous collaborative interactions with pharmaceutical companies
to achieve this goal. In addition to the face-to-face meetings with
our industrial partners, they engage with us in large-scale videoconference
meetings providing overviews of recent advances from the CCHF, collaborative
research projects, short courses on pharmaceutical research, and career
development discussions with our students. The collaborative research
programs cover a wide range of projects, including library generation,[44] late stage C–H functionalization,[24] enhanced heterocycle compatibility studies,[23] and bioinspired transformations.[50] The cross-communication has been beneficial
for both groups, and the logic of C–H functionalization is
significantly impacting the synthesis of therapeutic agents.[51]In summary, the collaborative and synergistic
relationship that
has been built in the CCHF has enabled us to have a far greater impact
on our science and the chemical community as a whole than would be
possible as individual investigators. As a collective, we can demonstrate
the value of basic research in modern organic synthesis. We can illustrate
the positive impact of collaboration and demonstrate how to develop
productive precompetitive research with industry. Effective virtual
communication has been critical to this venture, and it has enhanced
our domestic and international engagement. We continue to explore
new methods of communication and engagement, to ensure that the center
remains vibrant and exciting for all our members. Overwhelmingly,
it is such an honor as scientists to be able to share ideas with other
experts in one’s field, and within a trusting and sharing environment
it is possible for everyone to enrich their research experience and
program.
Authors: Atsushi D Yamaguchi; Kathryn M Chepiga; Junichiro Yamaguchi; Kenichiro Itami; Huw M L Davies Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Changming Qin; Vyacheslav Boyarskikh; Jørn H Hansen; Kenneth I Hardcastle; Djamaladdin G Musaev; Huw M L Davies Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: T Aaron Bedell; Graham A B Hone; Damien Valette; Jin-Quan Yu; Huw M L Davies; Erik J Sorensen Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Chase A Salazar; Joseph J Gair; Kaylin N Flesch; Ilia A Guzei; Jared C Lewis; Shannon S Stahl Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Moritz Balkenhohl; Harish Jangra; Ilya S Makarov; Shu-Mei Yang; Hendrik Zipse; Paul Knochel Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 16.823
Authors: Andrew Kenny; Alba Pisarello; Arron Bird; Paula G Chirila; Alex Hamilton; Christopher J Whiteoak Journal: Beilstein J Org Chem Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 2.883