4.7 Article

Controlled Synthesis of One-Handed Helical Polymers Carrying Achiral Organoiodine Pendants for Enantioselective Synthesis of Quaternary All-Carbon Stereogenic Centers

期刊

MACROMOLECULES
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.2c00810

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [22071041, 21971052, 51903072, 21871073]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China [PA2019GDPK0057, PA2020GDJQ0028]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Researchers have developed artificial helical polymer-based catalysts for enantioselective reactions inspired by efficient reactions catalyzed by biomacromolecules. These polymer catalysts, with no stereogenic centers, exhibit large optical activity due to their one-handed helicity. They can catalyze asymmetric reactions effectively and are recyclable with maintained activity and stereoselectivity.
Inspired by highly efficient and enantioselective reactions catalyzed by biomacromolecules, developing artificial helical polymer-based catalysts for enantioselective reactions is an interesting work. In this work, a series of one-handed helical polyisocyanides bearing aryl iodine pendants were readily produced via asymmetric polymerization of achiral isocyanides using chiral Pd(II)-catalysts. Despite the inexistence of any stereogenic centers, these polymers showed large optical activity owing to the one-handed helicity. Remarkably, these polymers could catalyze asymmetric dearomatization spirocyclization of 1-hydroxy-N-aryl-2-naphthamide derivatives and gave chiral spirooxindole products with high enantioselectivity. The enantioselectivity was contributed by the helicity of the polyisocyanide backbone; helical polyisocyanides in opposite helicity produced the enantiomeric antipode products with comparable yields and similar high enantioselectivity. Thanks to the high molecular weight, the helical polymer catalysts could be recycled 10 times with maintained activity and stereoselectivity.

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