4.6 Review

Rediscovering Sulfinylamines as Reagents for Organic Synthesis

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 27, 期 35, 页码 8918-8927

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.202100321

关键词

cycloadditions; sulfinylamines; sulfoximines; sulfonimidamides; sulfur

资金

  1. EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Synthesis for Biology and Medicine [EP/L015838/1]
  2. GlaxoSmithKline
  3. Vertex
  4. AstraZeneca
  5. Diamond Light Source
  6. Defence Science and Technology Laboratory
  7. Evotec
  8. Janssen
  9. Novartis
  10. Pfizer
  11. Syngenta
  12. Takeda
  13. UCB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sulfinylamines, known for their reactivity as sulfur electrophiles and in Diels-Alder reactions, have been underutilized in organic synthesis in recent decades. Recent research has shown their potential in one-pot syntheses of sulfoximines and sulfonimidamides, highlighting their different reactivity modes and unappreciated potential.
Sulfinylamines (R-N=S=O), monoaza analogues of sulfur dioxide, have been known for well over a century, and their reactivity as sulfur electrophiles and in Diels-Alder reactions is well-established. However, they have only rarely been used in organic synthesis in recent decades despite the increasing prominence of compounds containing N=S=O functionality, such as sulfoximines and sulfonimidamides. This Minireview aims to bring wider visibility to the unique chemistry enabled by this class of compounds. We focus on advances from the last 10 years, including the first examples of their use in the one-pot syntheses of sulfoximines and sulfonimidamides. Also covered are the reactions of sulfinylamines with carbon-centred radicals, their use for formation of heterocycles through cycloadditions, and catalytic enantioselective allylic oxidation of alkenes via a hetero-ene reaction. These examples highlight the different reactivity modes of sulfinylamines and their underappreciated potential for forming molecules which contain high- or low-valent sulfur, or even no sulfur at all.

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

4.6
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