4.8 Article

Regio- and Stereoselective Synthesis of Multi-Alkylated Allylic Boronates through Three-Component Coupling Reactions between Allenes, Alkyl Halides, and a Diboron Reagent

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 143, 期 34, 页码 13865-13877

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.1c06538

关键词

-

资金

  1. Institute for Chemical Reaction Design and Discovery (WPI-ICReDD)
  2. JSPS KAKENHI [17H06370, 18H03907]
  3. JST CREST [JPMJCR19R1]
  4. JSPS [19J20823]
  5. Program for Leading Graduate Schools (Hokkaido University Ambitious Leaders Program)
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19J20823] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multisubstituted allylic boronates are valuable precursors for constructing densely substituted carbon skeletons. The regio- and stereoselective coupling reactions between gem-dialkylallenes, alkyl halides, and a diboron reagent can lead to sterically congested allylic boronates. Computational study revealed that the selectivity-determining mechanism is correlated to the coordination of a boryl copper(I) species to the allene substrate as well as the borylcupration step.
Multisubstituted allylic boronates are attractive and valuable precursors for the rapid and stereoselective construction of densely substituted carbon skeletons. Herein, we report the first synthetic approach for differentially 2,3,3-triallcyl-substituted allylic boronates that contain a stereodefined tetrasubstituted alkene structure. Copper(I)-catalyzed regio- and stereoselective three-component coupling reactions between gem-dialkylallenes, alkyl halides, and a diboron reagent afforded sterically congested allylic boronates. The allylboration of aldehydes diastereoselectively furnished the corresponding homoallylic alcohols that bear a quaternary carbon. A computational study revealed that the selectivity-determining mechanism was correlated to the coordination of a boryl copper(I) species to the allene substrate as well as the borylcupration step.

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