| Literature DB >> 35694360 |
Qiaolin Yan1, Meng Duan2,3, Cien Chen4,5, Zhiqing Deng5,6, Mandi Wu4,5, Peiyuan Yu3, Ming-Liang He4,5, Guangyu Zhu5,6, K N Houk2, Jianwei Sun1,7.
Abstract
Despite the enormous developments in asymmetric catalysis, the basis for asymmetric induction is largely limited to the spatial interaction between the substrate and catalyst. Consequently, asymmetric discrimination between two sterically similar groups remains a challenge. This is particularly formidable for enantiodifferentiation between two aryl groups without a directing group or electronic manipulation. Here we address this challenge by using a robust organocatalytic system leading to excellent enantioselection between aryl and heteroaryl groups. With versatile 2-indole imine methide as the platform, an excellent combination of a superb chiral phosphoric acid and the optimal hydride source provided efficient access to a range of highly enantioenriched indole-containing triarylmethanes. Control experiments and kinetic studies provided important insights into the mechanism. DFT calculations also indicated that while hydrogen bonding is important for activation, the key interaction for discrimination of the two aryl groups is mainly π-π stacking. Preliminary biological studies also demonstrated the great potential of these triarylmethanes for anticancer and antiviral drug development. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35694360 PMCID: PMC9116282 DOI: 10.1039/d2sc00636g
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chem Sci ISSN: 2041-6520 Impact factor: 9.969
Scheme 1Introduction to asymmetric differentiation in C(sp2)-prochiral centers.
Evaluation of the reaction conditionsa
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry | Deviation from the “standard conditions” | Yield | ee |
| 1 | None | >95 | 95 |
| 2 | ( | >95 | 16 |
| 3 | ( | >95 | 81 |
| 4 | ( | >95 | <2 |
| 5 | ( | >95 | <2 |
| 6 | 2b instead of 2a | 11 | 80 |
| 7 | 2c instead of 2a | 15 | 55 |
| 8 | 2d instead of 2a | 78 | −9 |
| 9 | Et2O as solvent | <5 | — |
| 10 | Toluene as solvent | 87 | 89 |
| 11 | EtOAc as solvent | <5 | — |
| 12 | Run at 0 °C | 84 | 96 |
| 13 |
| >95 | 93 |
|
| |||
Reaction scale: 1a (25 μmol), hydride source (27.5 μmol), catalyst (2.5 μmol), solvent (0.5 mL).
Yield was determined by analysis of the 1H NMR spectrum of the crude reaction mixture with CH2Br2 as the internal standard. ee was determined by HPLC analysis on a chiral stationary phase.
A mixture of unidentifiable products was formed.
Clean conversion. The starting material accounts for the remainder of the mass balance.
Conversion <5%.
Scheme 2Reaction scope. Reaction scale: 1 (0.4 mmol), 2 (0.44 mmol), (R)-C1 (5 mol%), DCM (8.0 mL). Run with 10 mol% of the catalyst.
Scheme 3Proposed mechanism and a control experiment.
Fig. 1Mechanistic studies. (a) Time-dependence of substrate and product ee values. (b) Absence of non-linear effects. (c) Zeroth order in the nucleophile. (d) First order in the catalyst.
Fig. 2DFT-optimized stereo-determining transition structures. The distances are given in Ångstroms, and energies are given in kcal mol−1. Colored rings: grey, phenyl; yellow, thienyl; blue, benzo group on benzothiazoline. Numbers in parentheses are the total Hirshfeld charges on the aryl groups.
The cytotoxicity of 3d in various human cell lines
| Cell line | CC50 value | SI | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HeLa | MCF-7 | A2780 | A549 | HCT116 | MRC-5 | ||
| Doxorubicin | 1.4 ± 0.4 | 0.55 ± 0.11 | 0.36 ± 0.07 | 0.28 ± 0.06 | 1.4 ± 0.3 | 0.72 ± 0.14 | 2.6 |
| 3d | 18.2 ± 2.9 | 15.3 ± 2.3 | 8.9 ± 1.7 | 5.6 ± 0.9 | 9.7 ± 1.3 | 27.1 ± 3.4 | 4.8 |
50% cytotoxic concentration (CC50) values were determined by the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay in 72 h. The error bars were obtained as the standard deviation from the mean value based on three independent experiments.
Selectivity index, cytotoxicity in MRC-5 cells/cytotoxicity in A549 cells.
Fig. 3The antiviral effects of 3a shown by the CPE assay and intracellular viral RNA level. (a) RD cells were first treated with compounds at different concentrations and then infected with EV-A71 at a MOI of 0.01 after 2 hours. The cell morphology was observed 36 h post-infection. RD cells treated with DMSO only were set as Mock (or control). (b) Relative intracellular EV-A71 genome RNA level was determined by RT-qPCR. (c) The EV-A71 viral titer in the supernatant was measured by the 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) assay. Data are represented as mean ±SD (n = 3). **p < 0.01, compared with that of the not infected group.
Cytotoxicity concentration (CC50) and antiviral activity IC50a
| Compound | CC50 (μM) | IC50 (μM) | Selectivity index |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3a | 55.46 | 2.27 | 24.43 |
CC50, 50% cytotoxic concentration tested by the viability assay with no viral infection. IC50, viral RNA copies deceased 50% compared with the control group (without compound treatment) in the secreted virions. A compound with a selectivity index (CC50/IC50) > 10 is assumed to be a potential candidate for further research analysis.