4.8 Article

Iron-Catalyzed Synthesis of Conformationally Restricted Bicyclic N-Heterocycles via [2+2]-Cycloaddition: Exploring Ring Expansion?Mechanistic Insights and Challenges

期刊

ACS CATALYSIS
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 6416-6429

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.3c01305

关键词

bioisosteres; cyclobutanes; [2+2]-cycloaddition; redox-active ligands; kinetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present an efficient iron-catalyzed method for synthesizing conformationally restricted cyclobutane-fused N heterocycles. This method extends the range of substrates and provides a single-step route to previously unattainable cyclobutane-fused piperidines and azepanes. Mechanistic investigations suggest that the catalyst design based on an electron-deficient, redoxactive, pyrimidinediimine scaffold enhances catalyst stability and reaction rate.
We present an efficient iron-catalyzed method for synthesizing conformationally restricted cyclobutane-fused N heterocycles from unactivated precursors. This method is orthogonal to the established photocatalytic methods, extends the range of substrates, and provides a single-step route to previously unattainable cyclobutane-fused piperidines and azepanes. Ring stereochemistry depends on size, with five-and six membered rings adopting a cis configuration and seven-membered rings preferring a trans configuration. A key aspect of this method is the use of a catalyst design based on an electron-deficient, redoxactive, pyrimidinediimine scaffold. Mechanistic investigations suggest that the pi-acidic core significantly enhances catalyst stability against deleterious intramolecular C-H activation pathways, while the electron-rich flanking groups accelerate the reaction rate. Mechanistic insights were obtained by extracting kinetic profiles and establishing catalyst-activity relationships. Computational studies established that the oxidative cyclization step proceeds with the highest energy barrier, which is further confirmed by experimental Hammett analysis.

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