4.5 Article

Enantio- and diastereotopos differentiation in the palladium(II)-catalyzed hydrosilylation of bicyclo[2.2.1]alkene scaffolds with silicon-stereogenic silanes

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY
卷 2008, 期 15, 页码 2582-2591

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/ejoc.200800107

关键词

asymmetric catalysis; chirality; hydrosilylation; silicon; palladium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The palladium(II)-catalyzed hydrosilylation of meso-configured bicyclo[2.2.1]alkene scaffolds proved to be an invaluable model reaction for the development of reagent-controlled asymmetric transformations based on silicon-stereogenic silanes as stereoinducers. In the present investigation, the subtle structural requirements of the silane substitution pattern in enantiotopos-differentiating single hydrosilylations of a norbornene-type substrate are disclosed. Extension of this chemistry to a double hydrosilylation of norbornadiene entails a significant increase in stereochernical complexity. Although differentiation of enantiotopic positions by the chiral reagent is demanded in the first hydrosilylation, the same reagent must then differentiate diastereotopic positions in the second. Remarkably high stereocontrol was found in this double hydrosilylation with several silanes first used in the hydrosilylations of the norbornene-type system. Depending on the enantiomeric purity of the silane, C-2- and C-S-symmetric adducts, respectively, were obtained. The identity of the key quaternary silanes was revealed by crystallographic analysis. By this method, the relative and absolute configurations were also assigned, which, in turn, imply that all enantiospecific substitutions at silicon proceed with stereoretention. On the basis of these solid-state structures, we also discuss the structural implications of silane substitution for the diastereoselectivity-determining step of this palladium(II)-catalyzed hydrosilylation reaction. ((c) Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 69451 Weinheim, Germany, 2008).

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

4.5
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