4.8 Article

Enantioselective Synthesis of Spirosilabicyclohexenes by Asymmetric Dual Ring Expansion of Spirosilabicyclobutane with Alkynes

期刊

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/anie.202212889

关键词

Asymmetric Catalysis; Chiral Silicon; Ring Expansion; Silacycle; Silaspirane

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21921002, 22171191, 92056116, 21871194 21772020, 21822303]
  2. Open Research Fund of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Key Laboratory of Systematic Research of Distinctive Chinese Medicine Resources in Southwest China [2020LF2003]
  3. Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province [2020YFS0186]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Silaspiranes with chiral spiro-silicon center have unique properties. This study reports a novel method to synthesize axially chiral spirosilabicyclohexenes with a 6/6-silaspirane framework through the reaction of alkynes with spirosilabicyclobutanes. The origin of high enantioselectivity is revealed by DFT calculations. Preliminary studies show that one of the spirosilabicyclohexene analogs exhibits fluorescence emission, Cotton effects, and CPL activity.
Silaspiranes have attracted particular attention due to their chiral spiro-silicon center, which serves as an ideal carbon isostere and can endow spiro-analogs with distinct properties. Distinct from previously reported cyclization or cycloaddition strategies to form 5/5-silaspiranes, we report herein the asymmetric dual ring expansion of spirosilabicyclobutanes with alkynes to synthesize axially chiral spirosilabicyclohexenes bearing a novel 6/6-silaspirane framework. DFT (density functional theory) calculations provide the deep insight into the origin of the high enantioselectivity controlled by the sterically demanding binaphthyl phosphoramidite ligand. Preliminary studies of chiroptical properties indicate that one of the spirosilabicyclohexene analogs exhibit fluorescence emission, Cotton effects and CPL (circularly polarized luminescence) activity.

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