4.8 Review

Late-Stage C-H Functionalization of Azines

期刊

CHEMICAL REVIEWS
卷 123, 期 12, 页码 7655-7691

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00881

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Azines, such as pyridines, quinolines, pyrimidines, and pyridazines, are widely used in pharmaceuticals due to their physiochemical properties and tunability. Synthetic methods for installing groups from azine C-H bonds are valuable, especially in late-stage functionalization reactions. This review highlights recent advances in azine late-stage functionalization reactions.
Azines, such as pyridines, quinolines, pyrimidines, and pyridazines, are widespread components of pharmaceuticals. Their occurrence derives from a suite of physiochemical properties that match key criteria in drug design and is tunable by varying their substituents. Developments in synthetic chemistry, therefore, directly impact these efforts, and methods that can install various groups from azine C-H bonds are particularly valuable. Furthermore, there is a growing interest in late-stage functionalization (LSF) reactions that focus on advanced candidate compounds that are often complex structures with multiple heterocycles, functional groups, and reactive sites. Because of factors such as their electron-deficient nature and the effects of the Lewis basic N atom, azine C-H functionalization reactions are often distinct from their arene counterparts, and the application of these reactions in LSF contexts is difficult. However, there have been many significant advances in azine LSF reactions, and this review will describe this progress, much of which has occurred over the past decade. It is possible to categorize these reactions as radical addition processes, metal-catalyzed C-H activation reactions, and transformations occurring via dearomatized intermediates. Substantial variation in reaction design within each category indicates both the rich reactivity of these heterocycles and the creativity of the approaches involved.

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