4.7 Article

Selective 5-Exo-Dig versus 6-Endo-Dig Cyclization of Benzoimidazole Thiols with Propargyl Alcohols

期刊

ADVANCED SYNTHESIS & CATALYSIS
卷 364, 期 12, 页码 1989-1997

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adsc.202200254

关键词

propargyl alcohols; trifluoride etherate; cyclization; metal-free; thiazines; thiazoles

资金

  1. FAPERGS [17.2551.0000973-8]
  2. CAPES [23038.004173/2019-93, 0493/2019]
  3. CNPq [407121/2018-8, 302062/2014-9]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Lewis acid-promoted cyclization reaction of benzomidazole thiols with propargyl alcohols for the selective synthesis of benzoimidazolo thiazines and benzothiazolo imidazoles is described. The reaction is regioselective and controlled by the choice of solvent. The best reaction conditions were determined through systematic study, resulting in the formation of six-membered benzoimidazolo thiazines using boron trifluoride etherate and dichloromethane as the solvent, and five-membered benzothiazolo imidazoles using the same starting material and reagents with dimethylformamide as the solvent. The proposed mechanism of the cyclization reaction is based on experimental results and control experiments.
We describe here the Lewis acid-promoted cyclization reaction of benzomidazole thiols with propargyl alcohols for the selective synthesis of benzoimidazolo thiazines and benzothiazolo imidazoles. The reaction is regioselective and the solvent controls the formation of products. The systematic study to determine the best reaction conditions revealed that the six-membered benzoimidazolo thiazines were obtained by reacting the benzoimidazole thiols with propargyl alcohols in the presence of boron trifluoride etherate, using dichloromethane as the solvent. Replacement of dichloromethane with dimethylformamide, by using the same starting material and reagents, gave selectively the five-membered benzothiazolo imidazoles. The mechanism of this cyclization was proposed based on the results obtained and several control experiments.

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

4.7
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