4.8 Article

Combining Zn ion catalysis with homogeneous gold catalysis: an efficient annulation approach to N-protected indoles

期刊

CHEMICAL SCIENCE
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 739-746

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c2sc21333h

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS [R01 GM084254]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM084254] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Fischer indole synthesis is perhaps the most powerful method for indole preparation, but it often suffers from low regioselectivities with unsymmetrical aliphatic ketone substrates and strongly acidic conditions and is not suitable for alpha,beta-unsaturated ketones. In this edge article, we disclose an efficient synthesis of N-protected indoles from N-arylhydroxamic acids/N-aryl-N-hydroxycarbamates and a variety of alkynes via cooperative gold and zinc catalysis. The zinc catalysis is similar to the related zinc ion catalysis in metalloenzymes such as human carbonic anhydrase II and substantially enhances the O-nucleophilicity of N-acylated hydroxylamine by forming the corresponding Zn chelates. The Zn chelates can attack gold-activated alkynes to form O-alkenyl-N-arylhydroxamates, which can undergo facile 3,3-sigmatropic rearrangements and subsequent cyclodehydrations to yield N-protected indole products. This new chemistry offers several important improvements over the Fischer indole synthesis: (a) the reaction conditions are mildly acidic and can tolerate sensitive groups such as Boc; (b) broader substrate scopes including substrates with pendant carbonyl groups (reactive in the Fischer chemistry) and alkyl chlorides; (c) better regioselectivities for the formation of 2-substituted indoles under much milder conditions; (d) 2-alkenylindoles can be prepared readily in good to excellent yields, for which Fischer chemistry could not be used; (e) with internal alkynes both steric and electronic controls are available for achieving good regioselectivities, while Fischer chemistry is in general problematic.

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