4.7 Article

Machine learning studies on asymmetric relay Heck reaction-Potential avenues for reaction development

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 156, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/5.0084432

关键词

-

资金

  1. Prime Minister's Research Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The integration of machine learning into chemical catalysis has become a new paradigm for reaction development. In this study, a ML workflow was developed to predict the enantioselectivity of a class of catalytic asymmetric transformation, namely the relay Heck reaction. The ML model, built using quantum chemically derived descriptors, showed a remarkable prediction accuracy and assisted in exploring unexplored reactions.
The integration of machine learning (ML) methods into chemical catalysis is evolving as a new paradigm for cost and time economic reaction development in recent times. Although there have been several successful applications of ML in catalysis, the prediction of enantioselectivity (ee) remains challenging. Herein, we describe a ML workflow to predict ee of an important class of catalytic asymmetric transformation, namely, the relay Heck (RH) reaction. A random forest ML model, built using quantum chemically derived mechanistically relevant physical organic descriptors as features, is found to predict the ee remarkably well with a low root mean square error of 8.0 +/- 1.3. Importantly, the model is effective in predicting the unseen variants of an asymmetric RH reaction. Furthermore, we predicted the ee for thousands of unexplored complementary reactions, including those leading to a good number of bioactive frameworks, by engaging different combinations of catalysts and substrates drawn from the original dataset. Our ML model developed on the available examples would be able to assist in exploiting the fuller potential of asymmetric RH reactions through a priori predictions before the actual experimentation, which would thus help surpass the trial and error loop to a larger degree.

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