4.8 Article

Stereodivergent, Chemoenzymatic Synthesis of Azaphilone Natural Products

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 141, 期 46, 页码 18551-18559

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.9b09385

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Michigan Life Sciences Institute
  2. University of Michigan Department of Chemistry
  3. National Institutes of Health [R35 GM124880, R01 DK042303]
  4. Margaret J. Hunter Professorship
  5. National Institutes of Health Chemistry Biology Interface Training Grant [T32 GM008597]
  6. Graduate Assistance of Areas in National Need Training Grant [GAANN P200A150164]
  7. Rackham Merit Fellowship
  8. National Institutes of Health Kirschstein-NRSA predoctoral fellowship F31 [GM134671]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Selective access to a targeted isomer is often critical in the synthesis of biologically active molecules. Whereas small-molecule reagents and catalysts often act with anticipated site- and stereoselectivity, this predictability does not extend to enzymes. Further, the lack of access to catalysts that provide complementary selectivity creates a challenge in the application of biocatalysis in synthesis. Here, we report an approach for accessing biocatalysts with complementary selectivity that is orthogonal to protein engineering. Through the use of a sequence similarity network (SSN), a number of sequences were selected, and the corresponding biocatalysts were evaluated for reactivity and selectivity. With a number of biocatalysts identified that operate with complementary site- and stereoselectivity, these catalysts were employed in the stereodivergent, chemoenzymatic synthesis of azaphilone natural products. Specifically, the first syntheses of trichoflectin, deflectin-1a, and lunatoic acid A were achieved. In addition, chemoenzymatic syntheses of these azaphilones supplied enantioenriched material for reassignment of the absolute configuration of trichoflectin and deflectin-1a based on optical rotation, CD spectra, and X-ray crystallography.

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