| Literature DB >> 35889218 |
Jan Samsonowicz-Górski1, Anna Brodzka1, Ryszard Ostaszewski1, Dominik Koszelewski1.
Abstract
Chiral amines and alcohols are synthons of numerous pharmaceutically-relevant compounds. The previously developed enzymatic kinetic resolution approaches utilize a chiral racemic molecule and achiral acyl donor (or acyl acceptor). Thus, only one enantiodivergent step of the catalytic cycle is engaged, which does not fully exploit the enzyme's abilities. The first carbonate-mediated example of simultaneous double chemoselective kinetic resolution of chiral amines and alcohols is described. Herein, we established a biocatalytic approach towards four optically-pure compounds (>99% ee, Enantioselectivity: E > 200) via double enzymatic kinetic resolution, engaging chiral organic carbonates as acyl donors. High enantioselectivity was ensured by extraordinary chemoselectivity in lipase-catalyzed formation of unsymmetrical organic carbonates and engaged in a process applicable for the synthesis of enantiopure organic precursors of valuable compounds. This study focused not only on preparative synthesis, but additionally the catalytic mechanism was discussed and the clear impact of this rarely observed carbonate-derived acyl enzyme was shown. The presented protocol is characterized by atom efficiency, acyl donor sustainability, easy acyl group removal, mild reaction conditions, and biocatalyst recyclability, which significantly decreases the cost of the reported process.Entities:
Keywords: biocatalysis; carbonates; chemoselectivity; enantioselectivity; lipase; substrate engineering
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35889218 PMCID: PMC9319036 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27144346
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Scheme 1Enzymatic kinetic resolution: classical, and enhanced by a carbonate-derived acyl-enzyme intermediate.
Enzymatic enantioselective acylation of alcohols with DMC 1.
| Entry | Conv. (%) | ( | ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| 31 | 40 | >99 | >200 |
| 2 |
| 3 | 2 | >99 | >200 |
| 3 |
| 13 | 14 | >99 | >200 |
| 4 |
| 60 | 6 | 4 | 1 |
| 5 |
| 14 | 16 | >99 | >200 |
| 6 |
| 37 | 52 | >99 | >200 |
| 7 |
| 44 | 45 | 55 | 5 |
| 8 |
| 48 | 84 | >99 | >200 |
| 9 |
| 35 | 67 | >99 | >200 |
| 10 |
| 45 | 81 | >99 | >200 |
| 11 |
| 23 | 31 | >99 | >200 |
| 12 |
| 55 | 8 | 7 | 1 |
| 13 |
| 87 |
| ||
| 14 |
| 93 |
|
|
|
1 Reaction conditions: 1a–n (0.26 mmol), DMC (1.3 mmol, 5 equiv.), and MTBE (1 mL), r.t. 24 h., shaker 200 rpm, 2 According to the description in Scheme 2 and Figure 1. 3 Enantioselectivity calculated on equation: E = ln[(1 − ees)/(1 + ees/eep)]/ln[(1 + ees)/(1 + ees/eep)].
Scheme 2Carbonate-mediated enzymatic kinetic resolution.
Figure 1Structures of studied compounds: 1a-o: R=H; 2o-a: R=C(O)OCH3; 3a-o: R=C(O)OC2H5.
Carbonate-mediated double enzymatic kinetic resolution with alcohols as acyl acceptors; reaction enhanced using an acyl-enzyme intermediate 1.
| Entry | Acyl Donors: | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||||||||
| Conv1 3 (%) | ( | ( | Conv2 4 (%) | ( | ( | Conv1 3 (%) | ( | ( | Conv2 4 (%) | ( | ( | ||
| 1 |
| 11 | 14 | 87 (14) | 11 | 12 | >99 (>200) | <1 |
|
| <1 |
|
|
| 2 |
| 26 | 45 | 96 (76) | 27 | 41 | 99 (>200) | <1 |
|
| <1 |
|
|
| 3 | 47 | 87 | 95 (111) | 46 | 26 | 31 (2) | 16 | 16 | 81 (11) | 17 | 4 | 20 (2) | |
| 4 |
| 10 | 11 | 97 (58) | 9 | 10 | >99 (>200) | 10 | 8 | 72 (7) | 12 | 9 | 67 (6) |
| 5 |
| 38 | 75 | 95 (86) | 36 | 56 | >99 (>200) | 18 | 11 | 48 (3) | 18 | 13 | 58 (4) |
| 6 |
| 42 | 72 | 90 (41) | 42 | 47 | 65 (7) | 38 | 52 | 85 (21) | 36 | 34 | 61 (6) |
| 7 |
| 45 | 74 | 93 (61) | 44 | 78 | >99 (>200) | 11 | 8 | 68 (6) | 12 | 14 | >99 (>200) |
| 8 |
| 44 | 11 | 15 (1) | 43 | 65 | 83 (21) | <1 |
|
| <1 |
|
|
| 9 |
| 8 | 4 | 92 (25) | 10 | 10 | 98 (72) | <1 |
|
| <1 |
|
|
| 10 |
| 11 | 11 | 98 (55) | 10 | 11 | 97 (73) | 18 | 18 | 81 (11) | 19 | 5 | 21 (2) |
| 11 |
| 48 | 88 | 94 (94) | 47 | 48 | 54 (5) | 29 | 38 | 89 (25) | 30 |
|
|
| 12 |
| 38 | 51 | 83 (18) | 37 |
|
| 27 | 29 | 78 (11) | 29 |
|
|
| 13 |
| 31 | 43 | 96 (75) |
|
|
| 32 | 23 | 51 (4) | 31 |
|
|
| 14 | MeOH |
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 | 9 |
| 8 |
| 96 (63) |
| 15 | EtOH | 12 | 9 |
| 13 |
| 86 (15) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Reaction conditions: 1b-n, MeOH or EtOH (0.26 mmol), 2/3a (0.26 mmol, 1 equiv.) and 1 mL toluene, 50 °C, 96 h, shaker 200 rpm. 2 According to description in Figure 1. 3 GC conversion calculated on carbonate 2/3a. 4 GC conversion calculated on alcohol 1b-n. 5 Enantiomeric excess of obtained compounds (E1—calculated on ee of 2/3a and 1a, E2—calculated on ee of 1b-n and 2b-n). * Reaction was S-selective. Nd—not determined.
Figure 2Enzyme recyclability in model reaction (yield of isolated (R)-methyl (1-phenylethyl) carbamate.
Figure 3Dependence of the enantiomeric excesses on the conversion of model reaction.
Carbonate-mediated double enzymatic kinetic resolution with amines as acyl acceptors; reaction enhanced using an acyl-enzyme intermediate 1.
| Entry | Acyl Acceptors: | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||||||||
| Conv1 (%) 3 | ( | ( | Conv2 (%) 4 | ( | ( | Conv1 (%) 3 | ( | ( | Conv2 (%) 4 | ( | ( | ||
| 1 |
| 49 | 87 | 90 (54) | 47 | 89 | >99 (>200) | 51 | >99 | 71 (30) | 51 | 95 | 92 (93) |
| 2 |
| 27 | 34 | 82 (14) | 28 | 36 | 85 (18) | 20 | 36 | 85 (15) | 21 | 21 | 52 (4) |
| 3 |
| 14 | 15 | 76 (8) | 13 | 15 | >99 (>200) | 29 | 28 | 65 (6) | 30 | 42 | 98 (150) |
| 4 |
| 24 | 20 | 62 (5) | 23 | 10 | 33 (2) | <1 |
|
| <1 |
|
|
| 5 |
| 28 | 36 | 89 (25) | 29 | 40 | >99 (>200) | 27 | 34 | 89 (23) | 26 | 30 | >99 (>200) |
| 6 | 49 | 24 | 25 (2) * | 48 | 91 | >99 (>200) | 41 | 15 | 22 (2) * | 39 | 65 | 98 (195) | |
| 7 |
| 36 | 35 | 67 (7) | 36 | 56 | >99 (>200) | 42 | 49 | 57 (6) | 40 | 62 | 93 (52) |
| 8 |
| 49 | 89 | 89 (51) | 47 | 89 | >99 (>200) | 47 | 87 | 88 (44) | 47 | 77 | 91 (49) |
| 9 |
| 46 | 46 | 56 (8) | 44 | 85 | >99 (>200) | 42 | 37 | 54 (5) | 41 | 62 | 89 (32) |
| 10 |
| 47 | 87 | 98 (>200) | 48 | 92 | >99 (>200) | 49 | 92 | >99 (>200) | 47 | 85 | 97 (183) |
| 11 |
| 42 | 85 | 98 (>200) | 43 | 76 | >99 (>200) | 49 | >99 | >99 (>200) | 49 | 92 | 97 (>200) |
| 12 |
| 46 | 94 | 98 (>200) | 45 | 86 | >99 (>200) | 36 | 55 | >99 (>200) | 35 | 51 | >99 (112) |
| 13 |
| 21 | 22 | 83 (13) | 21 | 43 | >99 (>200) | 31 | 40 | 87 (21) | 32 | 44 | 99 (>200) |
| 14 |
| 44 | 29 | 44 (3) | 45 | 81 | >99 (>200) | 32 | 22 | 45 (3) | 30 | 45 | >99 (>200) |
| 15 |
| 52 |
|
| 49 | 95 | >99 (>200) | 45 |
|
| 46 | 83 | 98 (>200) |
| 16 |
| 48 |
|
| 49 | 94 | >99 (>200) | 45 |
|
| 44 | 78 | 99 (>200) |
1 Reaction conditions: 2/3a-n (0.26 mmol), 1o-p (0.26 mmol, 1 equiv) and 1mL toluene, 50 °C, 64 h, shaker 200 rpm. 2 According to the description in Figure 1. 3 GC conversion calculated on carbonate. 4 GC conversion calculated on amine. 5 Enantiomeric excess of obtained compounds (E1—calculated on ee of 2/3a-n and 1a-n, E2—calculated on ee of 1o-p and 2/3o-p). * Reaction was S-selective.
Scheme 3Catalytic cycle with four intermediates (A–D) and two enantio-divergent steps.