4.8 Article

Divergent C-H Functionalizations Directed by Sulfonamide Pharmacophores: Late-Stage Diversification as a Tool for Drug Discovery

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 133, 期 18, 页码 7222-7228

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja201708f

关键词

-

资金

  1. Scripps Research Institute
  2. Pfizer
  3. U.S. National Science Foundation [NSF CHE-0910014]
  4. National Science Foundation under the Center of Chemical Innovation in Stereoselective C-H Functionalization [CHE-0943980]
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  6. Division Of Chemistry [0943980, 1011898] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Modern drug discovery is contingent on identifying lead compounds and rapidly synthesizing analogues. The use of a common pharmacophore to direct multiple and divergent C-H functionalizations of lead compounds is a particularly attractive approach. Herein, we demonstrate the viability of late-stage diversification through the divergent C-H functionalization of sulfonamides, an important class of pharmacophores found in nearly 200 drugs currently on the market, including the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory blockbuster drug celecoxib. We developed a set of six categorically different sulfonamide C-H functionalization reactions (olefination, arylation, alkylation, halogenation, carboxylation, and carbonylation), each representing a distinct handle for further diversification to reach a large number of analogues. We then performed late-stage, site-selective diversification of a sulfonamide drug candidate containing multiple potentially reactive C-H bonds to synthesize directly novel celecoxib analogues as potential cyclooxygenase-II (COX-2)-specific inhibitors. Together with other recently developed practical directing groups, such as CONHOMe and CONHC6F5, sulfonamide directing groups demonstrate that the auxiliary approach established in asymmetric catalysis can be equally effective in developing broadly useful C-H activation reactions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据