4.8 Article

Stereocontrolled Radical Bicyclizations of Oxygenated Precursors Enable Short Syntheses of Oxidized Abietane Diterpenoids

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 143, 期 7, 页码 2944-2952

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.0c13300

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH R01 grant [GM-129264]
  2. NSF Graduate Research Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this article, the tolerance of Co-catalyzed MHAT-initiated radical bicyclizations towards oxidation at virtually every position in the substrate, oftentimes in unprotected form, is demonstrated. The functional groups in the substrate can also contribute to high levels of stereochemical control in these complexity-generating transformations. Furthermore, the utility of these reactions in the synthesis of three aromatic abietane diterpenoids is documented.
The power of cation-initiated cyclizations of polyenes for the synthesis of polycyclic terpenoids cannot be overstated. However, a major limitation is the intolerance of many relevant reaction conditions toward the inclusion in the substrate of polar functionality, particularly in unprotected form. Radical polycyclizations are important alternatives to bioinspired cationic variants, in part owing to the range of possible initiation strategies, and in part for the functional group tolerance of radical reactions. In this article, we demonstrate that Co-catalyzed MHAT-initiated radical bicyclizations are not only tolerant of oxidation at virtually every position in the substrate, oftentimes in unprotected form, but these functional groups can also contribute to high levels of stereochemical control in these complexity-generating transformations. Specifically, we show the effects of protected or unprotected hydroxy groups at six different positions and their impact on stereoselectivity. Further, we show how multiply oxidized substrates perform in these reactions, and finally, we document the utility of these reactions in the synthesis of three aromatic abietane diterpenoids.YYY

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