4.6 Article

Enantio- and diastereoselective Michael addition reactions of unmodified aldehydes and ketones with nitroolefins catalyzed by a pyrrolidine sulfonamide

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 12, 期 16, 页码 4321-4332

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.200600115

关键词

asymmetric catalysis; Michael addition; nitroolefin; organocatalysis; pyrrolidine sulfonamide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chiral (S)-pyrrolidine trifluoromethanesulfonamide has been shown to serve as an effective catalyst for direct Michael addition reactions of aldehydes and ketones with nitroolefins. A wide range of aldehydes and ketones as Michael donors and nitroolefins as acceptors participate in the process, which proceeds with high levels of enantioselectivity (up to 99% ee) and diastereoselectivity (up to 50:1 d.r.). The methodology has been employed successfully in an efficient synthesis of the potent H-3 agonist Sch50917. In addition, a practical three-step procedure for the preparation of (S)-pyrrolidine trifluoromethanesulfonamide has been developed. The high levels of stereochemical control attending Michael addition reactions catalyzed by this pyrrolidine sulfonamide, have been investigated by using ab initio and density functional methods. Transition state structures for the rate-limiting C-C bond-forming step, corresponding to re- and si-face addition to the reactive conformation of the key enamine intermediates have been calculated. Analysis of these structures indicates that hydrogen bonding plays an important role in catalysis and that the energy barrier for si-face attack in reactions of aldehydes to form 2R,3S products is lower than that for the re-face attack leading to 2S,3R products. In contrast, the energy barrier for re-face addition is lower than that for si-face addition in reactions of ketones. The computational results, which are in good agreement with the experimental observations, are discussed in the context of the stereochemical course of these Michael addition reactions.

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

4.6
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