ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Design of Organocatalysts for Asymmetric Propargylations through Computational Screening
My Activity
  • Open Access
Research Article

Design of Organocatalysts for Asymmetric Propargylations through Computational Screening
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

View Author Information
Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77842, United States
*E-mail for S.E.W.: [email protected]
Open PDFSupporting Information (2)

ACS Catalysis

Cite this: ACS Catal. 2016, 6, 11, 7948–7955
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.6b02366
Published October 14, 2016

Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The development of asymmetric catalysts is typically driven by the experimental screening of potential catalyst designs. Herein, we demonstrate the design of asymmetric propargylation catalysts through computational screening. This was done using our computational toolkit AARON (automated alkylation reaction optimizer for N-oxides), which automates the prediction of enantioselectivities for bidentate Lewis base catalyzed alkylation reactions. A systematic screening of 59 potential catalysts built on 6 bipyridine N,N′-dioxide-derived scaffolds results in predicted ee values for the propargylation of benzaldehyde ranging from 45% (S) to 99% (R), with 12 ee values exceeding 95%. These data provide a broad set of experimentally testable predictions. Moreover, the associated data revealed key details regarding the role of stabilizing electrostatic interactions in asymmetric propargylations, which were harnessed in the design of a propargylation catalyst for which the predicted ee exceeds 99%.

Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society

I Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Computational quantum chemistry has matured considerably over the past decade, and applications of modern density functional theory (DFT) methods have provided reliable mechanistic insights into myriad organocatalyzed reactions. (1) However, the computational design of asymmetric organocatalysts remains a significant challenge, (2) and new catalysts are still typically developed on the basis of the experimental screening of potential catalyst designs. The primary reason is the considerable time, effort, and expertise required to accurately compute the relative energies of all thermodynamically accessible stereocontrolling transition state (TS) structures using DFT, which makes it much more efficient to experimentally test a library of potential catalysts than to screen them computationally.
A number of strategies have been proposed to upend this paradigm. For instance, transition state force fields (TSFFs) have a long history (3) and can enable the rapid screening of catalyst designs with remarkable accuracy. (4) We have taken a different approach, (1f) developing a computational toolkit (AARON: automated alkylation reaction optimizer for N-oxides) (5) that automates the DFT optimization of all required TS structures needed to predict enantioselectivities for bidentate Lewis base catalyzed alkylation reactions. (5, 6) This has opened the door to the screening of potential catalysts for these reactions using quantum mechanics.
Lewis base promoted alkylation reactions, developed by Kobayashi et al. (7) and Denmark and co-workers (8) in the early 1990s, offer transition-metal-free routes to key chiral building blocks. Nakajima et al., (9) as well as others, (10) have demonstrated the utility of axially chiral bipyridine N-oxides and N,N′-dioxides in Lewis base promoted allylation reactions. However, the development of similar catalysts for asymmetric propargylations using allenyltrichlorosilanes has proved much more challenging (reaction 1, Scheme 1). (9b, 11) For instance, Nakajima et al. (9) showed that 4a (Scheme 2, R = Me) catalyzes both the allylation and propargylation of benzaldehyde. (12) However, whereas the reported ee for the allylation was 88%, (9a) the ee for the propargylation under similar reaction conditions was only 52%. (9b) The first highly enantioselective transition-metal-free propargylation catalyst was not developed until 2013, when Takenaka and co-workers (11b) developed a helical bipyridine N-oxide catalyst that provides the homopropargylic alcohol in 86% ee. (13)

Scheme 1

Scheme 1. Asymmetric Propargylation of Benzaldehyde using Allenyltrichlorosilane, along with a Depiction of the Stereocontrolling Step

Scheme 2

Scheme 2. Library of Catalysts That Were Screened for Reaction 1
There has been considerable work elucidating the mechanism and origin of enantioselectivity in bipyridine N-oxide and N,N′-dioxide catalyzed allylation and propargylation reactions. (9a, 10f, 14) In solvents such as dichloromethane, the stereocontrolling step involves a closed, chairlike TS built around a hexacoordinate silicon intermediate (see Scheme 1). (9a, 14) Sepúlveda and co-workers (12) showed that, for C2-symmetric catalysts, there are 5 possible ligand arrangements around this hexacoordinate silicon (see Figure 1). These give rise to 10 distinct structures for this stereocontrolling TS (for each of the 5 ligand configurations, the alkyl nucleophile can add to either face of benzaldehyde). (6) While any of these TS structures can in principle be thermodynamically accessible for a given catalyst, we have found that TS structures based on ligand configurations BP1, BP2, and BP3 are most likely to be low-lying. (6)

Figure 1

Figure 1. Five distinct ligand configurations for C2-symmetric bidentate Lewis base catalyzed alkylation reactions, where Nu is the alkyl nucleophile.

In 2015, Rooks et al. (6) used AARON to predict the enantioselectivities of 18 previously reported bipyridine N,N′-dioxide catalysts for the allylation of benzaldehyde. The data revealed that ee values predicted at the B97-D/TZV(2d,2p) level of theory exhibit a mean absolute error of 13% ee in comparison to experiment. This corresponds to an error in Boltzmann weighted relative barrier heights of only 0.25 kcal mol–1 (see Table S1 in the Supporting Information) and suggests that the same computational approach should be reliable when applied to propargylations. On the basis of this, Rooks et al. (6) also predicted ee values for these 18 catalysts applied to the propargylation of benzaldehyde. Two catalysts showed promising ee values (including catalyst 6j; Scheme 2), (10g) and Rooks et al. (6) argued that bipyridine N,N′-dioxides provide a promising platform for the development of highly enantioselective propargylation catalysts.
Motivated by these results, (6) we have used AARON to screen a virtual library of bipyridine N,N′-dioxide derivatives for the propargylation of benzaldehyde using allenyltrichlorosilane (Scheme 2), revealing a dozen catalysts for which predicted ee values exceed 95%. Analyses of the predicted enantioselectivites and associated TS structures reveal that high ee values can be achieved by tuning the electrostatic environment of the formyl C–H of benzaldehyde. The power of this strategy is demonstrated through the design of a novel bipyridine N,N′-dioxide that is predicted to provide an ee exceeding 99%.

II Theoretical Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

All computations were performed at the B97D/TZV(2p,2d) level of theory, (15) accounting for solvent effects (dichloromethane) using the polarizable continuum model (PCM). (16) This level of theory has proved reliable for N-oxide and N,N′-dioxide catalyzed allylations and propargylations, in comparison to both experimental selectivities and high-accuracy ab initio data. (6, 11a, 12, 13) For each catalyst considered, we optimized the 10 possible TS structures arising from the 5 distinct ligand configurations in Figure 1. Transition state structures were confirmed on the basis of harmonic vibrational frequency analyses. Predicted ee values were derived from a Boltzmann weighting of relative energy barriers at 195 K, (13) which is based on the assumption that these reactions are under Curtin–Hammett control. For catalysts built on scaffold 2, multiple low-lying conformers are possible for some of the 10 distinct TS structures (see the Supporting Information). These conformers were also optimized and accounted for in the Boltzmann weighting. Previous work on allylation reactions has shown that relative energy barriers at this level of theory provide more robust predictions of ee values than do free energies. (6) As such, ee values derived from relative TS energies are presented below; predicted ee values based on relative enthalpies, RRHO free energies, and quasi-RRHO free energies (17) are provided in Table S2 in the Supporting Information. For all of the catalysts for which the predicted ee values exceed 95% on the basis of relative energy barriers, the corresponding predictions from relative enthalpies or quasi-RRHO free energies are similar.
The construction and optimization of all TS geometries were facilitated by AARON, (5) which has been described previously. (1f, 6) AARON provides an interface to Gaussian 09, (18) which was used to carry out all DFT optimizations. Density fitting techniques were used throughout. Below, TS structures are named on the basis of the arrangement of ligands around the hexacoordinate silicon (see Figure 1) and whether the TS leads to formation of the (R)- or (S)-alcohol. For example, BP2(R) will refer to the TS structure leading to the (R)-alcohol in which the ligand configuration corresponds to that in BP2.

III Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Catalyst scaffolds 16 represent six classes of bipyridine-N,N′-dioxide derivatives. The parent scaffold, 1, is an (S)-2,2′-bipyridine N,N′-dioxide with substituents (X) at the 6,6′-positions. Catalysts 2 and 3 include additional Ph or tBu substituents (Y) at the 5,5′-positions, respectively. Scaffold 4 is an (S)-8,8′-disubstituted 2,2′-biquinoline N,N′-dioxide, 5 is an (S)-1,1′-disubstituted 3,3′-biisoquinoline N,N′-dioxide, and 6 is an (S)-3,3′-disubstituted 1,1′-biisoquinoline N,N′-dioxide. Among these catalysts, examples built on scaffolds 1, 4, and 6 have previously been synthesized and used as catalysts for asymmetric allylations. (9, 10b, 10g) To our knowledge, only catalyst 4a has been tested for reaction 1 (Scheme 1), for which Nakajima and co-workers (9b) reported an ee of 52% in 2002. (19) Scaffold 5, which features a relatively uncommon 1,1′-biisoquinoline connectivity, has not previously been explored as an organocatalyst; however, derivatives of 5d have been synthesized previously for other purposes. (20) Thus, nearly all of the catalysts in Scheme 2 should be synthetically viable. We note, however, that some are highly sterically congested (e.g., 3eg), and their syntheses might be nontrivial as a result. Regardless, the computational consideration of these catalysts provides additional insight into the effect of different groups on the predicted enantioselectivity.
Experimentally, the substituent R in scaffolds 15 must be sufficiently bulky to prohibit catalyst racemization. However, this is unnecessary computationally, since the axial chirality of the catalyst can be fixed during the initial geometry optimizations. To probe whether the identity of R impacts the enantioselectivity, we compared predicted ee values for catalysts 1a6a with R = H, CH3 (see Table 1). The predicted ee values for R = H are qualitatively similar to those for the more realistic catalysts with R = Me. As such, in order to eliminate problems associated with converging to TS structures for simple methyl rotations, rather than the targeted stereocontrolling transition state, we have considered R = H for the sake of screening the catalyst library shown in Scheme 2; R = Me was then tested for the catalysts for which the predicted ee values exceed 95% (see Table S3 in the Supporting Information).
Table 1. Predicted ee Values for Reaction 1a
Table a

R = H, except where noted. Positive ee values correspond to excess (R)-alcohol formation, whereas negative values indicate excess (S)-alcohol. These ee values are based on relative energy barriers. Values based on relative enthalpy and free energy barriers are available in Table S2 in the Supporting Information.

Table b

Experimental ee 52%. (9b)

Table c

Catalyst 3g is too sterically encumbered to be viable.

Predicted ee values for 59 of the 60 catalysts (R = H) are shown in Table 1; catalyst 3g was too sterically crowded to compute viable TS structures. The relative energies of the low-lying TS structures are plotted in Figure 2 (see the Supporting Information for complete data). These plots emphasize the sheer quantity of thermodynamically accessible TS structures for these catalysts, highlighting both the necessity of accounting for a Boltzmann weighted ensemble of TS structures and the overall difficulty of designing highly enantioselective catalysts for this transformation. In order to achieve high degrees of enantioselectivity, there must be a significant energy gap between the lowest-lying TS(R) and all of the (S)-transition states.

Figure 2

Figure 2. B97-D/TZV(2d,2p) predicted relative energies (kcal mol–1) of the thermodynamically accessible TS structures for catalysts 1a6j (N.B.: for 2aj, there are multiple low-lying conformers for some of the TS structures corresponding to different orientations of the phenyl rings).

Overall, catalysts 1a6a show modest enantioselectivities for the propargylation of benzaldehyde (see Table 1). However, the introduction of substituents onto these scaffolds results in drastic changes in the predicted enantioselectivities, with ee values ranging from 45% (S) to 99% (R). Ultimately, 12 catalysts were predicted to yield ee values exceeding 95%. For these 12 catalysts, predictions for R = Me are provided in Table S3 in the Supporting Information. In each case, the replacement of H with Me results in no substantial change in the predicted ee.
The predicted ee values of these catalysts can be compared with those of the parent catalyst, 1a. In 1a, the 0.9 kcal mol–1 energy difference between BP2(S) and BP2(R) has previously been attributed to favorable electrostatic interactions between the formyl C–H of the benzaldehyde and one of the chlorines bound to silicon (see Figure 3); (13) this interaction is absent in BP2(S). This preferential electrostatic stabilization of BP2(R) over BP2(S) can be seen explicitly by comparing the electrostatic potential (ESP) (21) of the catalyst in the plane of the formyl group in these two TS structures (see Figure 3). These ESPs show that the partially positively charged C–H group (22) is in a much more favorable electrostatic environment in BP2(R) than it is in BP2(S). We note that this inherent electrostatic stabilization of BP2(R) is present to a similar degree for all of the catalysts considered, and the differences in enantioselectivities arise primarily from effects that alter the distribution of the other TS energies relative to BP2(R). Echoing previous findings from Rooks et al., (6) BP2(R) is the lowest-lying (R)-transition state for 57 of the 59 catalysts considered. Similarly, BP2(S) is the lowest-lying (S)-transition state for 48 of the catalysts.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Key TS structures for catalysts 1a along with relative energies in kcal mol–1. Also displayed are the ESPs of the catalyst in the plane of the formyl group (red, −30 kcal mol–1; blue, +30 kcal mol–1; allenyl group removed for clarity).

Several broad trends emerge from the data in Table 1. First, catalysts built on scaffold 4 tend to be outliers, exhibiting ee values that are drastically different from those of the other five scaffolds for a given substituent. This is unsurprising given the different placement of the substituents X on scaffold 4 relative to the reaction center, in comparison to the other scaffolds. Moreover, none of the catalysts built on scaffold 4 are predicted to provide high enantioselectivities. Excluding 4, the substituent effects on the predicted ee values are qualitatively similar across the different scaffolds, with the exception of isopropyl (f) and phenyl (j) substituents. The introduction of iPr groups leads to highly varied ee values, which appear to result from the steric demands of the iPr groups. For some catalyst scaffolds, the introduction of these bulky groups destabilizes low-lying competing TS structures, enhancing the enantioselectivity in comparison to the unsubstituted cases; in other instances, these interactions destabilize the BP2(R) and lead to low ee values. In these cases, the predicted ee values resemble those for tert-butyl substituents (g), which are uniformly much lower than those for the corresponding unsubstituted catalysts. For instance, the introduction of tBu substituents changes the 83% (R) predicted ee for 2a to 18% (S) for 2g. Similarly, whereas 6a is predicted to provide an ee of 73% (R), the ee for 6g is predicted to be 31% (S). These reduced ee values for the tBu-substituted catalysts result from the destabilization of BP2(R) through steric interactions. For example, for 1g (predicted ee 25%; see Figure 4), unfavorable steric interactions between one of the tert-butyl substituents and the formyl C–H in BP2(R) overwhelm the stabilizing effects from favorable C–H···Cl interactions. As a result, BP2(R) is actually higher in energy than BP2(S) in this case. (23)

Figure 4

Figure 4. Key TS structures for catalysts 1g,j and 2j along with relative energies in kcal mol–1. BP1(R), which is low-lying for 1g, is not pictured.

The impact of phenyl substituents (j) are even more intriguing, with predicted ee values either being relatively high (91, 87, and 88% ee for 2j, 4j, and 6j, respectively) or much more modest (41, 30, and 45% ee for 1j, 3j, and 5j, respectively). With the exception of 4j (which, again, is an outlier), the predicted ee of the Ph-substituted catalysts hinges on the energy of BP1(S) relative to BP2(R); BP2(S) is relatively high in energy and does not strongly affect the ee values of these catalysts. For the nonselective Ph-substituted catalysts, favorable π-stacking and CH/π interactions (24) preferentially stabilize BP1(S), degrading the enantioselectivity. For instance, the 41% ee predicted for 1j can be attributed to the π-stacking and CH/π interactions that stabilize BP1(S), but not BP2(R) (see Figure 4). The result is that BP1(S) in only 0.3 kcal mol–1 higher in energy than BP2(R). In the case of the selective Ph-substituted catalysts, there are additional π-stacking interactions favoring BP2(R). For example, for 2j (predicted ee 90%; see Figure 4), a benzene trimer like interaction (25) involving the benzaldehyde and two Ph substituents on the catalyst is present in BP2(R), offsetting the π-stacking and CH/π interactions that favor BP1(S). Similar interactions are at play among the benzaldehyde, naphthyl backbone, and phenyl substituent of 6j (predicted ee 88%). These data add to recent examples where the ee of a given organocatalytic transformation can rise or fall due to the subtle interplay of favorable noncovalent interactions in competing TS structures. (1f, 26)
The effect of other substituents is more uniform across the different scaffolds (excluding 4), resulting in qualitatively similar trends in predicted ee values in comparison to the corresponding unsubstituted catalysts. For instance, the introduction of fluoro (b) or chloro (c) substituents enhances the predicted enantioselectivity, with the effect of Cl being slightly greater than that of F. These enhanced ee values can be attributed to the introduction of stabilizing C–H···X (X = F, Cl) interactions between the halogen substituent and the formyl C–H of the benzaldehyde. For instance, for 1b the fluoro substituent is 3.59 Å from the formyl C–H in BP2(R), contributing to the 1.4 kcal mol–1 energy difference between BP2(S) and BP2(R) (see Figure 5). (27) Methyl (d) and trifluoromethyl (e) substituents also have a similar effect across these scaffolds, with Me generally leading to lower selectivities and CF3 to higher selectivities in comparison to the corresponding unsubstituted catalysts. The former effect is a result of the stabilization of BP2(S), relative to BP2(R). The latter effect arises from favorable C–H···F interactions that stabilize BP2(R) but not BP2(S). For example, for 1e, one of the fluorines of the CF3 group is only 2.89 Å from the formyl C–H (see Figure 5). This distance is considerably shorter than that in catalyst 1b, and the effect on the electrostatic environment of the formyl C–H group in BP2(R) and BP2(S) is correspondingly greater (see Figure 5). The result is a substantial 1.8 kcal mol–1 energy gap between BP2(S) and BP2(R) and a predicted ee of 94% for 1e.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Key TS structures for catalysts 1b,e along with relative energies in kcal mol–1. For 1e, the electrostatic potential of the catalyst in the plane of the formyl group of benzaldehyde is also plotted (red, −30 kcal mol–1; blue, +30 kcal mol–1; allenyl group removed for clarity).

Finally, both ethynyl (h) and nitrile (i) substituents greatly enhance the predicted ee values of these catalysts in comparison to the unsubstituted cases and lead to uniformly high predicted ee values across all scaffolds, excluding 4. This was initially confounding, given the different electronic characters of CCH and CN substituents. However, in terms of the electrostatic potential of the catalyst, both ethynyl and nitrile substituents lead to a more favorable electrostatic environment for the formyl C–H group in BP2(R) than in BP2(S) (see Figure 6). Qualitatively, one can understand these interactions in terms of the partially positively charged formyl C–H interacting with the π-bonds in both CCH and CN in BP2(R) but not BP2(S). The net effect is again the widening of the energy gap between these two key TS structures and enhanced ee values in comparison to the unsubstituted catalysts.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Key TS structures for catalysts 1h,i along with relative energies in kcal mol–1. The electrostatic potential of the catalyst in the plane of the formyl group of benzaldehyde is also plotted (red, −30 kcal mol–1; blue, +30 kcal mol–1; allenyl group removed for clarity).

While the overall enantioselectivities are relatively similar across these five scaffolds, the distribution of TS energies differ markedly (see Figure 2). For instance, the dense distribution of accessible TS energies for catalysts built on scaffold 1 can be contrasted with the rather sparse spectrum of TS energies for 3. The latter can be explained by the severe steric demands of the tBu groups on scaffold 3, which render many potential TS structures thermodynamically inaccessible. The ultimate result is that some of the scaffolds provide uniformly higher ee values in comparison to others. For instance, for scaffold 2, 4 of the 10 catalysts considered have predicted ee values exceeding 95%; for 3, 5 of 9 catalysts are predicted to provide >95% ee.
The variations in the overall spectrum of TS energies can also have more subtle effects on the ee values, highlighting the importance of considering all accessible TS structures rather than simply the two lowest-lying. For example, catalysts built on scaffold 5 exhibit uniformly higher ee values than the corresponding catalysts built on scaffold 1. However, in most cases, these enhanced ee values do not arise from changes in the energy gap between BP2(S) and BP2(R), which are always low-lying for scaffold 5. Instead, the enhanced ee values result from the destabilization of higher-lying (S)-transition states. For example, the energy gap between BP2(S) and BP2(R) for 5a,b is the same as that for 1a,b, respectively. The enhanced enantioselectivites in the former cases derive from the increased energy of the competing ligand configurations (BP1(S) and BP3(S)), relative to BP2(R). For 5c, the energy gap between BP2(S) and BP2(R) is actually slightly smaller than for 1c, and the enhanced enantioselectivity of 5c, in comparison to 1c, arises from the destabilization of BP1(S) relative to BP2(R).
Overall, these data show that the introduction of substituents onto scaffolds 16 provides broad tuning of predicted ee values in the propargylation of benzaldehyde. However, not all substituents lead to predictable changes in ee values, with some showing marked sensitivity to the choice of catalyst scaffold. Such erratic behavior is disadvantageous from the perspective of rational catalyst design. One constant trend that emerged from these data is that the tuning of the electrostatic environment of the formyl C–H group of benzaldehyde can be used to preferentially stabilize BP2(R), providing a potential path to the design of catalysts with high ee values.

Additional Catalyst Design

To explore this strategy of tuning the electrostatic environment of the formyl C–H, we investigated one final catalyst design (7; Figure 7). This catalyst features cyclohexene rings fused onto scaffold 1, which enables the more strategic placement of an electronegative fluorine in close proximity to the formyl C–H. This comes at some cost, however, since the conformational flexibility of these fused rings introduces many additional thermodynamically accessible TS conformers. Moreover, many of these conformers are not C2 symmetric, leading to even more TS structures that must be considered. Regardless, we used AARON to compute all 60 TS structures for a simplified version of 7 (with the Me groups replaced with H). On the basis of these results, we computed all thermodynamically accessible TS structures for catalyst 7, predicting an ee exceeding 99%. Ultimately, this design is predicted to be as enantioselective as 2e and 3i, which were the most enantioselective designs from the initial catalyst library. Notably, the predicted ee for 7 exceeds those of other catalysts with fluoro substituents. In 7, one of the fluorines is only 2.74 Å from the formyl C–H, providing substantial electrostatic stabilization of BP2(R). This distance is shorter than the CH···F distance in either 1b or 1e, and the expected electrostatic stabilization of BP2(R) is even greater. The result is that BP2(R) is 3.0 kcal mol–1 lower in energy than BP2(S)! However, another consequence is that BP3(S) is now lower-lying than BP2(S), falling 2.2 kcal mol–1 higher in energy than BP2(R). It is this (S)-transition state that is primarily responsible for the ee of catalyst 7. The electrostatic environments of the formyl C–H are quite similar in BP2(R) and BP3(S), and the 2.2 kcal mol–1 energy gap can instead be rationalized on the basis of the presence of two unfavorable F···Cl contacts in BP3(S), whereas only one such interaction is present in BP2(R). Thus, by tuning the electrostatic environment of the formyl C–H group of the benzaldehyde, we were able to significantly increase the energy gap between BP2(S) and BP2(R). The presence of an additional thermodynamically accessible (S)-transition state ultimately limited the overall enantioselectivity.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Catalyst 7 along with the key (R)- and (S)-transition states and relative energies in kcal mol–1.

IV Summary and Concluding Remarks

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We have demonstrated the use of DFT to screen a library of potential bipyridine N,N′-dioxide catalysts for the asymmetric propargylation of benzaldhyde, identifying 12 catalysts predicted to provide much higher levels of enantioselectivity in comparison to similar catalysts for this reaction. (9b, 11b) Notably, many of the catalysts predicted to provide high degrees of enantioselectivity have not previously been synthesized but should be synthetically viable. The synthesis and testing of these catalysts will be highly useful in assessing the reliability of the present predictions. Moreover, we have identified 48 bipyridine N,N-dioxide derivatives that are not expected to provide high degrees of enantioselectivities in the propargylation of benzaldehyde; despite this, the synthesis and testing of several of these catalysts would also be highly instructive.
By studying a large number of catalysts for a given asymmetric transformation, we have been able to observe broad trends that would not have been apparent by studying only selected examples. This has provided unprecedented insight into the factors that affect the enantioselectivity of asymmetric propargylations. Overall, we found that the enantioselectivities of these catalysts depend on the interplay of a number of favorable and nonfavorable noncovalent interactions (π-stacking interactions, CH/π interactions, etc.). Ultimately, the most robust means of achieving high ee values is by tuning the electrostatic environment of the formyl C–H of benzaldehyde, which can preferentially stabilize particular TS structures. By exploiting this finding, we were able to design a unique catalyst (7) that is predicted to yield an ee value exceeding 99%.
On the basis of previous computational work on other propargylation and allylation catalysts, (6, 11a, 12, 13) we expect the predicted ee values to be within 10–20% of experiment. However, these predictions come with some caveats. First, we have focused solely on enantioselectivity, with no regard for overall catalytic activity. Potentially, the catalysts predicted to exhibit high degrees of enantioselectivity could prove inactive for the propargylation reaction. Furthermore, for relatively inactive catalysts the background reaction could be competitive, spoiling any predicted enantioselectivity. Similarly, the predicted ee values are based on the implicit assumption that these reactions follow the conventional ionic mechanism (9a, 10f, 12) and are under Curtin–Hammett control. For some of these catalysts, alternative mechanisms could be viable, invalidating the predicted ee values.
Despite these caveats, the present results demonstrate the feasibility of using DFT to screen a relatively large library of potential organocatalyst designs. This has provided ample experimentally testable predictions. Such a data set, presented prior to the collection of any experimental data, is uncommon and provides a unique opportunity to assess the predictive power of modern quantum mechanical methods. Moreover, these results portend a new design paradigm in which potential organocatalysts are screened computationally, and only the most promising candidates can be synthesized and tested experimentally. Such a strategy would exploit the strengths of both computation and experiment and should ultimately accelerate the development of more effective catalysts. To this end, a new, much more general version of AARON (an automated reaction optimizer for nonmetal-catalyzed reactions) is currently under development. (28)

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.6b02366.

  • Additional data, absolute electronic energies, enthalpies, and free energies, and optimized Cartesian coordinates (PDF)

  • Cartesian coordinates of the calculated structures (XYZ)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
    • Steven E. Wheeler - Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77842, United States Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Analise C. Doney - Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77842, United States
    • Benjamin J. Rooks - Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77842, United States
    • Tongxiang Lu - Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77842, United States
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgment

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This work was supported by The Welch Foundation (Grant A-1775) and the National Science Foundation (Grant CHE-1266022). Portions of this research were conducted with high-performance research computing resources provided by Texas A&M University (http://hprc.tamu.edu).

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 28 other publications.

  1. 1
    (a) Lam, Y.; Grayson, M. N.; Holland, M. C.; Simon, A.; Houk, K. N. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 750 762 DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00006
    (b) Halskov, K. S.; Donslund, B. S.; Paz, B. M.; Jørgensen, K. A. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 974 986 DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00008
    (c) Sunoj, R. B. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 1019 1028 DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00053
    (d) Reid, J. P.; Simón, L.; Goodman, J. M. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 1029 1041 DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00052
    (e) Peng, Q.; Paton, R. S. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 1042 1051 DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00084
    (f) Wheeler, S. E.; Seguin, T. J.; Guan, Y.; Doney, A. C. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 1061 1069 DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00096
  2. 2
    (a) Fleming, E. M.; Quigley, C.; Rozas, I.; Connon, S. J. J. Org. Chem. 2008, 73, 948 956 DOI: 10.1021/jo702154m
    (b) Houk, K. N.; Cheong, P. H.-Y. Nature 2008, 455, 309 313 DOI: 10.1038/nature07368
    (c) Shinisha, C. B.; Janardanan, D.; Sunoj, R. B. In Challenges and Advances in Computational Chemistry and Physics; Leszczynski, J., Ed.; Springer: New York, 2010.
    (d) Sunoj, R. B. WIREs Comp. Mol. Sci. 2011, 1, 920 931 DOI: 10.1002/wcms.37
  3. 3
    Eksterowicz, J. E.; Houk, K. N. Chem. Rev. 1993, 93, 2439 2461 DOI: 10.1021/cr00023a006
  4. 4
    (a) Brown, J. M.; Deeth, R. J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 4476 4479 DOI: 10.1002/anie.200900697
    (b) Madarász, Á.; Dènes, B.; Paton, R. S. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2016, 12, 1833 1844 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b01237
    (c) Hansen, E.; Rosales, A. R.; Tutkowski, B.; Norrby, P. O.; Wiest, O. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 996 1005 DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00037
    (d) Norrby, P.-O.; Liljefors, T. J. Comput. Chem. 1998, 19, 1146 1166 DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(19980730)19:10<1146::AID-JCC4>3.0.CO;2-M
    (e) Nilsson Lill, S. O.; Forbes, A.; Donoghue, P.; Verdolino, V.; Wiest, O.; Rydberg, P.; Norrby, P.-O. Curr. Org. Chem. 2010, 14, 1629 1645 DOI: 10.2174/138527210793563224
    (f) Limé, E.; Norrby, P.-O. J. Comput. Chem. 2015, 36, 244 250 DOI: 10.1002/jcc.23797
    (g) Peña-Cabrera, E.; Norrby, P.-O.; Sjögren, M.; Vitagliano, A.; De Felice, V.; Oslob, J.; Ishii, S.; O’Neill, D.; Åkermark, B.; Helquist, P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 4299 4313 DOI: 10.1021/ja950860t
    (h) Norrby, P.-O.; Brandt, P.; Rein, T. J. Org. Chem. 1999, 64, 5845 5852 DOI: 10.1021/jo990318d
    (i) Norrby, P. O.; Rasmussen, T.; Haller, J.; Strassner, T.; Houk, K. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 10186 10192 DOI: 10.1021/ja992023n
    (j) Fristrup, P.; Jensen, G. H.; Andersen, M. L. N.; Tanner, D.; Norrby, P.-O. J. Organomet. Chem. 2006, 691, 2182 2198 DOI: 10.1016/j.jorganchem.2005.11.009
    (k) Donoghue, P. J.; Helquist, P.; Norrby, P.-O.; Wiest, O. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2008, 4, 1313 1323 DOI: 10.1021/ct800132a
    (l) Donoghue, P. J.; Helquist, P.; Norrby, P.-O.; Wiest, O. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 410 411 DOI: 10.1021/ja806246h
    (m) Limé, E.; Lundholm, M. D.; Forbes, A.; Wiest, O.; Helquist, P.; Norrby, P.-O. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2014, 10, 2427 2435 DOI: 10.1021/ct500178w
  5. 5
    Rooks, B. J.; Wheeler, S. E.AARON:Automated Alkylation Reaction Optimizer for N-Oxides, version 0.72; Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2015.
  6. 6
    Rooks, B. J.; Haas, M. R.; Sepúlveda, D.; Lu, T.; Wheeler, S. E. ACS Catal. 2015, 5, 272 280 DOI: 10.1021/cs5012553
  7. 7
    Kobayashi, S.; Nishio, K. J. Org. Chem. 1994, 59, 6620 6628 DOI: 10.1021/jo00101a021
  8. 8
    Denmark, S. E.; Coe, D. M.; Pratt, N. E.; Griedel, B. D. J. Org. Chem. 1994, 59, 6161 6163 DOI: 10.1021/jo00100a013
  9. 9
    (a) Nakajima, M.; Saito, M.; Shiro, M.; Hashimoto, S.-i. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 6419 6420 DOI: 10.1021/ja981091r
    (b) Nakajima, M.; Saito, M.; Hashimoto, S. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2002, 13, 2449 2452 DOI: 10.1016/S0957-4166(02)00640-7
  10. 10
    (a) Malkov, A. V.; Orsini, M.; Pernazza, D.; Muir, K. W.; Langer, V.; Meghani, P.; Kočovský, P. Org. Lett. 2002, 4, 1047 1049 DOI: 10.1021/ol025654m
    (b) Shimada, T.; Kina, A.; Ikeda, S.; Hayashi, T. Org. Lett. 2002, 4, 2799 2801 DOI: 10.1021/ol026376u
    (c) Malkov, A. V.; Bell, M.; Orsini, M.; Pernazza, D.; Massa, A.; Herrmann, P.; Meghani, P.; Kočovský, P. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 68, 9659 9668 DOI: 10.1021/jo035074i
    (d) Malkov, A. V.; Kočovský, P. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2007, 2007, 29 36 DOI: 10.1002/ejoc.200600474
    (e) Hrdina, R.; Valterová, I.; Hodačová, J.; Císařová, I.; Kotora, M. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2007, 349, 822 826 DOI: 10.1002/adsc.200600400
    (f) Malkov, A. V.; Ramirez-Lopez, P.; Biedermannova, L.; Rulisek, L.; Dufková, L.; Kotora, M.; Zhu, F.; Kočovky, P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 5341 5348 DOI: 10.1021/ja711338q
    (g) Malkov, A. V.; Westwater, M.-M.; Gutnov, A.; Ramírez-López, P.; Friscourt, F.; Kadlčíková, A.; Hodačová, J.; Rankovic, Z.; Kotora, M.; Kočovský, P. Tetrahedron 2008, 64, 11335 11348 DOI: 10.1016/j.tet.2008.08.084
    (h) Hrdina, R.; Dračínský, M.; Valterová, I.; Hodačová, J.; Císařová, I.; Kotora, M. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2008, 350, 1449 1456 DOI: 10.1002/adsc.200800141
    (i) Kadlčíková, A.; Hrdina, R.; Valterová, I.; Kotora, M. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2009, 351, 1279 1283 DOI: 10.1002/adsc.200900224
  11. 11
    (a) Lu, T.; Porterfield, M. A.; Wheeler, S. E. Org. Lett. 2012, 14, 5310 5313 DOI: 10.1021/ol302493d
    (b) Chen, J. S.; Captain, B.; Takenaka, N. Org. Lett. 2011, 13, 1654 1657 DOI: 10.1021/ol200102c
  12. 12
    Sepúlveda, D.; Lu, T.; Wheeler, S. E. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2014, 12, 8346 DOI: 10.1039/C4OB01719F
  13. 13
    Lu, T.; Zhu, R.; An, Y.; Wheeler, S. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 3095 3102 DOI: 10.1021/ja209241n
  14. 14
    (a) Chelucci, G.; Belmonte, N.; Benaglia, M.; Pignataro, L. Tetrahedron Lett. 2007, 48, 4037 4041 DOI: 10.1016/j.tetlet.2007.04.028
    (b) Hrdina, R.; Opekar, F.; Roithova, J.; Kotora, M. Chem. Commun. 2009, 2314 2316 DOI: 10.1039/b819545e
    (c) Sereda, O.; Tabassum, S.; Wilhelm, R. Top. Curr. Chem. 2009, 291, 349 393 DOI: 10.1007/128_2008_17
  15. 15
    (a) Becke, A. J. Chem. Phys. 1997, 107, 8554 8560 DOI: 10.1063/1.475007
    (b) Schafer, A.; Huber, C.; Ahlrichs, R. J. Chem. Phys. 1994, 100, 5829 5835 DOI: 10.1063/1.467146
    (c) Grimme, S. J. Comput. Chem. 2006, 27, 1787 1799 DOI: 10.1002/jcc.20495
  16. 16
    (a) Cancès, E.; Mennucci, B. J. Math. Chem. 1998, 23, 309 326 DOI: 10.1023/A:1019133611148
    (b) Cancès, E.; Mennucci, B.; Tomasi, J. J. Chem. Phys. 1997, 107, 3032 3041 DOI: 10.1063/1.474659
    (c) Tomasi, J.; Mennucci, B.; Cammi, R. Chem. Rev. 2005, 105, 2999 3093 DOI: 10.1021/cr9904009
  17. 17
    Grimme, S. Chem. - Eur. J. 2012, 18, 9955 9964 DOI: 10.1002/chem.201200497
  18. 18
    Frisch, M. J.; Trucks, G. W.; Schlegel, H. B.; Scuseria, G. E.; Robb, M. A.; Cheeseman, J. R.; Scalmani, G.; Barone, V.; Mennucci, B.; Petersson, G. A.; Nakatsuji, H.; Caricato, M.; Li, X.; Hratchian, H. P.; Izmaylov, A. F.; Bloino, J.; Zheng, G.; Sonnenberg, J. L.; Hada, M.; Ehara, M.; Toyota, K.; Fukuda, R.; Hasegawa, J.; Ishida, M.; Nakajima, T.; Honda, Y.; Kitao, O.; Nakai, H.; Vreven, T.; Montgomery, J. A., Jr.; Peralta, J. E.; Ogliaro, F.; Bearpark, M.; Heyd, J. J.; Brothers, E.; Kudin, K. N.; Staroverov, V. N.; Kobayashi, R.; Normand, J.; Raghavachari, K.; Rendell, A.; Burant, J. C.; Iyengar, S. S.; Tomasi, J.; Cossi, M.; Rega, N.; Millam, N. J.; Klene, M.; Knox, J. E.; Cross, J. B.; Bakken, V.; Adamo, C.; Jaramillo, J.; Gomperts, R.; Stratmann, R. E.; Yazyev, O.; Austin, A. J.; Cammi, R.; Pomelli, C.; Ochterski, J. W.; Martin, R. L.; Morokuma, K.; Zakrzewski, V. G.; Voth, G. A.; Salvador, P.; Dannenberg, J. J.; Dapprich, S.; Daniels, A. D.; Farkas, Ö.; Foresman, J. B.; Ortiz, J. V.; Cioslowski, J.; Fox, D. J.Gaussian 09, Revision D.01; Gaussian, Inc., Wallingford, CT, 2009.
  19. 19

    See ref 12 for a detailed computational study of the enantioselectivity of 4a for the allylation and propargylation of benzaldehyde.

  20. 20
    (a) Lehn, J. M.; Pietraszkiewicz, M.; Karpiuk, J. Helv. Chim. Acta 1990, 73, 106 111 DOI: 10.1002/hlca.19900730111
    (b) Lipkowski, J.; Suwinska, K.; Andreetti, G. D. J. Coord. Chem. 1990, 22, 83 98 DOI: 10.1080/00958979009410031
  21. 21
    Wheeler, S. E.; Houk, K. N. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2009, 5, 2301 2312 DOI: 10.1021/ct900344g
  22. 22

    The NPA charges on the formyl C and H are approximately +0.25e and +0.20e, respectively, across all TS structures.

  23. 23

    The lowest-lying TS structure is BP1(R), which is only 0.1 kcal mol–1 lower in energy than BP2(S).

  24. 24
    (a) Wheeler, S. E. Acc. Chem. Res. 2013, 46, 1029 1038 DOI: 10.1021/ar300109n
    (b) Wheeler, S. E.; Bloom, J. W. G. J. Phys. Chem. A 2014, 118, 6133 6147 DOI: 10.1021/jp504415p
  25. 25
    Tauer, T.; Sherrill, C. D. J. Phys. Chem. A 2005, 109, 10475 10478 DOI: 10.1021/jp0553479
  26. 26
    (a) Seguin, T. J.; Wheeler, S. E. ACS Catal. 2016, 6, 2681 2688 DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.6b00538
    (b) Seguin, T. J.; Lu, T.; Wheeler, S. E. Org. Lett. 2015, 17, 3066 3069 DOI: 10.1021/acs.orglett.5b01349
    (c) Seguin, T. J.; Wheeler, S. E. ACS Catal. 2016, 6, 7222 7228 DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.6b01915
  27. 27

    The corresponding energy difference is 1.5 kcal mol–1 for 1c.

  28. 28
    Guan, Y.; Rooks, B. J.; Wheeler, S. E.AARON: An Automated Reaction Optimizer for Non-metal catalyzed reactions, version 0.91; Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2016.

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 69 publications.

  1. Puck van Gerwen, Ksenia R. Briling, Charlotte Bunne, Vignesh Ram Somnath, Ruben Laplaza, Andreas Krause, Clemence Corminboeuf. 3DReact: Geometric Deep Learning for Chemical Reactions. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2024, 64 (15) , 5771-5785. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.4c00104
  2. Joshua A. Kammeraad, Soumik Das, Alonso J. Argüelles, Fareed Bhasha Sayyed, Paul M. Zimmerman. Conformational Sampling over Transition-Metal-Catalyzed Reaction Pathways: Toward Revealing Atroposelectivity. Organic Letters 2024, 26 (14) , 2867-2871. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.orglett.3c04047
  3. Jacqueline C. Calderón, Alberto Herrera, Frank W. Heinemann, Jens Langer, Anthony Linden, Ahmed Chelouan, Alexander Grasruck, Rafael Añez, Timothy Clark, Romano Dorta. Stereochemical Stability of Planar-Chiral Benzazepine Tricyclics: Inversion Energies of P- and S-Alkene Ligands. The Journal of Organic Chemistry 2023, 88 (23) , 16144-16154. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.joc.3c01447
  4. Michael P. Maloney, Brock A. Stenfors, Paul Helquist, Per-Ola Norrby, Olaf Wiest. Interplay of Computation and Experiment in Enantioselective Catalysis: Rationalization, Prediction, and─Correction?. ACS Catalysis 2023, 13 (21) , 14285-14299. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.3c03921
  5. Rajat Maji, Sharath Chandra Mallojjala, Steven E. Wheeler. Electrostatic Interactions in Asymmetric Organocatalysis. Accounts of Chemical Research 2023, 56 (14) , 1990-2000. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.3c00198
  6. Chaoying Wen, Yuqin Wang, Yanyan Yang, Ya-Nan Tian, Jinhua Wang, Shiqing Li. Hydrazone-oxime Selectively Directed Redox-Neutral [4 + 2] Annulations Cascade with Alkynes and Iodonium Ylides to Build 1,1′-Biisoquinoline Mono-N-oxides. Organic Letters 2023, 25 (15) , 2616-2621. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.orglett.3c00590
  7. Shihai Lv, Ya-Nan Tian, Yanyan Yang, Chaoying Wen, Shiqing Li. Rh(III)-Catalyzed One-Pot Three-Component Diannulation of Benzils, Ammonium Acetate, and Alkynes to Build 1,1′-Biisoquinolines. The Journal of Organic Chemistry 2022, 87 (23) , 16019-16025. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.joc.2c02157
  8. Nadia G. Léonard, Rakia Dhaoui, Teera Chantarojsiri, Jenny Y. Yang. Electric Fields in Catalysis: From Enzymes to Molecular Catalysts. ACS Catalysis 2021, 11 (17) , 10923-10932. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.1c02084
  9. Gabriela G. Gerosa, Maribel O. Marcarino, Rolando A. Spanevello, Alejandra G. Suárez, Ariel M. Sarotti. Re-Engineering Organocatalysts for Asymmetric Friedel–Crafts Alkylation of Indoles through Computational Studies. The Journal of Organic Chemistry 2020, 85 (15) , 9969-9978. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.joc.0c01256
  10. Shiqing Li, Hongxu Lv, Rongrong Xie, Yu Yu, Xiuqing Ye, Xiangfei Kong. The C–H Activation/Bidirecting Group Strategy for Selective Direct Synthesis of Diverse 1,1′-Biisoquinolines. Organic Letters 2020, 22 (11) , 4207-4212. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.orglett.0c01260
  11. Marco Foscato, Vidar R. Jensen. Automated in Silico Design of Homogeneous Catalysts. ACS Catalysis 2020, 10 (3) , 2354-2377. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.9b04952
  12. Seihwan Ahn, Mannkyu Hong, Mahesh Sundararajan, Daniel H. Ess, Mu-Hyun Baik. Design and Optimization of Catalysts Based on Mechanistic Insights Derived from Quantum Chemical Reaction Modeling. Chemical Reviews 2019, 119 (11) , 6509-6560. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00073
  13. Matthew D. Wodrich, Boodsarin Sawatlon, Ephrath Solel, Sebastian Kozuch, Clémence Corminboeuf. Activity-Based Screening of Homogeneous Catalysts through the Rapid Assessment of Theoretically Derived Turnover Frequencies. ACS Catalysis 2019, 9 (6) , 5716-5725. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.9b00717
  14. Konstantinos D. Vogiatzis, Mikhail V. Polynski, Justin K. Kirkland, Jacob Townsend, Ali Hashemi, Chong Liu, Evgeny A. Pidko. Computational Approach to Molecular Catalysis by 3d Transition Metals: Challenges and Opportunities. Chemical Reviews 2019, 119 (4) , 2453-2523. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00361
  15. Gregor N. Simm, Alain C. Vaucher, Markus Reiher. Exploration of Reaction Pathways and Chemical Transformation Networks. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 2019, 123 (2) , 385-399. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.8b10007
  16. Yanfei Guan, Victoria M. Ingman, Benjamin J. Rooks, Steven E. Wheeler. AARON: An Automated Reaction Optimizer for New Catalysts. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2018, 14 (10) , 5249-5261. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00578
  17. Carlyn Reep, Pierpaolo Morgante, Roberto Peverati, Norito Takenaka. Axial-Chiral Biisoquinoline N,N′-Dioxides Bearing Polar Aromatic C-H Bonds as Catalysts in Sakurai-Hosomi-Denmark Allylation. Organic Letters 2018, 20 (18) , 5757-5761. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.orglett.8b02457
  18. Feng Li, Toshinobu Korenaga, Taishi Nakanishi, Jun Kikuchi, and Masahiro Terada . Chiral Phosphoric Acid Catalyzed Enantioselective Ring Expansion Reaction of 1,3-Dithiane Derivatives: Case Study of the Nature of Ion-Pairing Interaction. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2018, 140 (7) , 2629-2642. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.7b13274
  19. Doo-Hyun Kwon, Jack T. Fuller, III, Uriah J. Kilgore, Orson L. Sydora, Steven M. Bischof, and Daniel H. Ess . Computational Transition-State Design Provides Experimentally Verified Cr(P,N) Catalysts for Control of Ethylene Trimerization and Tetramerization. ACS Catalysis 2018, 8 (2) , 1138-1142. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.7b04026
  20. Man Li, Xiao-Song Xue, and Jin-Pei Cheng . Mechanism and Origins of Stereoinduction in Natural Cinchona Alkaloid Catalyzed Asymmetric Electrophilic Trifluoromethylthiolation of β-Keto Esters with N-Trifluoromethylthiophthalimide as Electrophilic SCF3 Source. ACS Catalysis 2017, 7 (11) , 7977-7986. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.7b03007
  21. Lauren C. Burrows, Luke T. Jesikiewicz, Gang Lu, Steven J. Geib, Peng Liu, and Kay M. Brummond . Computationally Guided Catalyst Design in the Type I Dynamic Kinetic Asymmetric Pauson–Khand Reaction of Allenyl Acetates. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2017, 139 (42) , 15022-15032. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.7b07121
  22. Rajat Maji, Pier Alexandre Champagne, K. N. Houk, and Steven E. Wheeler . Activation Mode and Origin of Selectivity in Chiral Phosphoric Acid-Catalyzed Oxacycle Formation by Intramolecular Oxetane Desymmetrizations. ACS Catalysis 2017, 7 (10) , 7332-7339. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.7b02993
  23. Rajat Maji and Steven E. Wheeler . Importance of Electrostatic Effects in the Stereoselectivity of NHC-Catalyzed Kinetic Resolutions. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2017, 139 (36) , 12441-12449. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.7b01796
  24. Ralf Meyer, Daniel B K Chu, Heather J Kulik. Many-body expansion based machine learning models for octahedral transition metal complexes. Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2024, 5 (4) , 045080. https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/ad9f22
  25. Puck van Gerwen, Ksenia R. Briling, Yannick Calvino Alonso, Malte Franke, Clemence Corminboeuf. Benchmarking machine-readable vectors of chemical reactions on computed activation barriers. Digital Discovery 2024, 3 (5) , 932-943. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3DD00175J
  26. Stefan P Schmid, Leon Schlosser, Frank Glorius, Kjell Jorner. Catalysing (organo-)catalysis: Trends in the application of machine learning to enantioselective organocatalysis. Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry 2024, 20 , 2280-2304. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjoc.20.196
  27. Kevin A Spiekermann, Thijs Stuyver, Lagnajit Pattanaik, William H Green. Comment on ‘Physics-based representations for machine learning properties of chemical reactions’. Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2023, 4 (4) , 048001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/acee42
  28. Puck van Gerwen, Matthew D Wodrich, Ruben Laplaza, Clemence Corminboeuf. Reply to Comment on ‘Physics-based representations for machine learning properties of chemical reactions’. Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2023, 4 (4) , 048002. https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/acee43
  29. Taishi Nakanishi, Masahiro Terada. Computational molecular refinement to enhance enantioselectivity by reinforcing hydrogen bonding interactions in major reaction pathway. Chemical Science 2023, 14 (21) , 5712-5721. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3SC01637D
  30. Xinliang Ai, Xiaofeng Xie, Xueqing Song, Longfei Li, Henry F. Schaefer III. Is the polarization of the CC bond imperative for bifunctional outer-sphere CC hydrogenation?. Organic Chemistry Frontiers 2023, 10 (5) , 1301-1308. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2QO02020C
  31. Puck van Gerwen, Alberto Fabrizio, Matthew D Wodrich, Clemence Corminboeuf. Physics-based representations for machine learning properties of chemical reactions. Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2022, 3 (4) , 045005. https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/ac8f1a
  32. Simone Gallarati, Puck van Gerwen, Ruben Laplaza, Sergi Vela, Alberto Fabrizio, Clemence Corminboeuf. OSCAR: an extensive repository of chemically and functionally diverse organocatalysts. Chemical Science 2022, 13 (46) , 13782-13794. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SC04251G
  33. Nika Melnyk, Iñigo Iribarren, Eric Mates‐Torres, Cristina Trujillo. Theoretical Perspectives in Organocatalysis. Chemistry – A European Journal 2022, 28 (58) https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202201570
  34. Ingolf Harden, Frank Neese, Giovanni Bistoni. An induced-fit model for asymmetric organocatalytic reactions: a case study of the activation of olefins via chiral Brønsted acid catalysts. Chemical Science 2022, 13 (30) , 8848-8859. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SC02274E
  35. Ruben Laplaza, Simone Gallarati, Clemence Corminboeuf. Genetic Optimization of Homogeneous Catalysts. Chemistry–Methods 2022, 2 (6) https://doi.org/10.1002/cmtd.202100107
  36. Shusen Chen, Taylor Nielson, Elayna Zalit, Bastian Bjerkem Skjelstad, Braden Borough, William J. Hirschi, Spencer Yu, David Balcells, Daniel H. Ess. Automated Construction and Optimization Combined with Machine Learning to Generate Pt(II) Methane C–H Activation Transition States. Topics in Catalysis 2022, 65 (1-4) , 312-324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11244-021-01506-0
  37. Miguel Steiner, Markus Reiher. Autonomous Reaction Network Exploration in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Catalysis. Topics in Catalysis 2022, 65 (1-4) , 6-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11244-021-01543-9
  38. Wataru Kanna, Yu Harabuchi, Hideaki Takano, Hiroki Hayashi, Satoshi Maeda, Tsuyoshi Mita. Carboxylation of a Palladacycle Formed via C(sp 3 )−H Activation: Theory‐Driven Reaction Design. Chemistry – An Asian Journal 2021, 16 (24) , 4072-4080. https://doi.org/10.1002/asia.202100989
  39. Pierpaolo Morgante, Coty Deluca, Tegla E. Jones, Gregory J. Aldrich, Norito Takenaka, Roberto Peverati. Steps toward Rationalization of the Enantiomeric Excess of the Sakurai–Hosomi–Denmark Allylation Catalyzed by Biisoquinoline N,N’-Dioxides Using Computations. Catalysts 2021, 11 (12) , 1487. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11121487
  40. Ademola Soyemi, Tibor Szilvási. Trends in computational molecular catalyst design. Dalton Transactions 2021, 50 (30) , 10325-10339. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1DT01754C
  41. Victoria M. Ingman, Anthony J. Schaefer, Laura R. Andreola, Steven E. Wheeler. QChASM : Quantum chemistry automation and structure manipulation. WIREs Computational Molecular Science 2021, 11 (4) https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1510
  42. Simone Gallarati, Raimon Fabregat, Rubén Laplaza, Sinjini Bhattacharjee, Matthew D. Wodrich, Clemence Corminboeuf. Reaction-based machine learning representations for predicting the enantioselectivity of organocatalysts. Chemical Science 2021, 12 (20) , 6879-6889. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1SC00482D
  43. Edwin C. Constable, Richard M. Hartshorn, Catherine E. Housecroft. 1,1′-Biisoquinolines—Neglected Ligands in the Heterocyclic Diimine Family That Provoke Stereochemical Reflections. Molecules 2021, 26 (6) , 1584. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26061584
  44. Vladimir Yu. Vaganov, Yasuaki Fukazawa, Nikolay S. Kondratyev, Sergei A. Shipilovskikh, Steven E. Wheeler, Aleksandr E. Rubtsov, Andrei V. Malkov. Optimization of Catalyst Structure for Asymmetric Propargylation of Aldehydes with Allenyltrichlorosilane. Advanced Synthesis & Catalysis 2020, 362 (23) , 5467-5474. https://doi.org/10.1002/adsc.202000936
  45. Steven M. Maley, Doo-Hyun Kwon, Nick Rollins, Johnathan C. Stanley, Orson L. Sydora, Steven M. Bischof, Daniel H. Ess. Quantum-mechanical transition-state model combined with machine learning provides catalyst design features for selective Cr olefin oligomerization. Chemical Science 2020, 11 (35) , 9665-9674. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0SC03552A
  46. Ardita Kilaj, Hong Gao, Diana Tahchieva, Raghunathan Ramakrishnan, Daniel Bachmann, Dennis Gillingham, O. Anatole von Lilienfeld, Jochen Küpper, Stefan Willitsch. Quantum-chemistry-aided identification, synthesis and experimental validation of model systems for conformationally controlled reaction studies: separation of the conformers of 2,3-dibromobuta-1,3-diene in the gas phase. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2020, 22 (24) , 13431-13439. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0CP01396J
  47. Josefredo R. Pliego. Theoretical free energy profile and benchmarking of functionals for amino-thiourea organocatalyzed nitro-Michael addition reaction. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2020, 22 (20) , 11529-11536. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0CP00481B
  48. C. Rose Kennedy, Bo Young Choi, Mary‐Grace R. Reeves, Eric N. Jacobsen. Enantioselective Catalysis of an Anionic Oxy‐Cope Rearrangement Enabled by Synergistic Ion Binding. Israel Journal of Chemistry 2020, 60 (3-4) , 461-474. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijch.201900168
  49. Cuihuan Geng, Rongxiu Zhu, Dongju Zhang, Tongxiang Lu, Steven E. Wheeler, Chengbu Liu. Solvent dependence of the stereoselectivity in bipyridine N,N′-dioxide catalyzed allylation of aromatic aldehydes: A computational perspective. Molecular Catalysis 2020, 483 , 110712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcat.2019.110712
  50. Yangqiu Liu, Xin Yue, Chenguang Luo, Lin Zhang, Ming Lei. Mechanisms of Ketone/Imine Hydrogenation Catalyzed by Transition‐Metal Complexes. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS 2019, 2 (4) , 292-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/eem2.12050
  51. Lihan Zhu, Hend Mohamed, Haiyan Yuan, Jingping Zhang. The control effects of different scaffolds in chiral phosphoric acids: a case study of enantioselective asymmetric arylation. Catalysis Science & Technology 2019, 9 (22) , 6482-6491. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9CY01420A
  52. Kevin Kang, Jack Fuller, Alexander H. Reath, Joseph W. Ziller, Anastassia N. Alexandrova, Jenny Y. Yang. Installation of internal electric fields by non-redox active cations in transition metal complexes. Chemical Science 2019, 10 (43) , 10135-10142. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9SC02870F
  53. Jun Kikuchi, Masahiro Terada. Enantioselective Addition Reaction of Azlactones with Styrene Derivatives Catalyzed by Strong Chiral Brønsted Acids. Angewandte Chemie 2019, 131 (25) , 8546-8550. https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.201903111
  54. Jun Kikuchi, Masahiro Terada. Enantioselective Addition Reaction of Azlactones with Styrene Derivatives Catalyzed by Strong Chiral Brønsted Acids. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2019, 58 (25) , 8458-8462. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201903111
  55. Jun Kikuchi, Hiromu Aramaki, Hiroshi Okamoto, Masahiro Terada. F 10 BINOL-derived chiral phosphoric acid-catalyzed enantioselective carbonyl-ene reaction: theoretical elucidation of stereochemical outcomes. Chemical Science 2019, 10 (5) , 1426-1433. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8SC03587C
  56. Hiroaki Iwamoto, Tsuneo Imamoto, Hajime Ito. Computational design of high-performance ligand for enantioselective Markovnikov hydroboration of aliphatic terminal alkenes. Nature Communications 2018, 9 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04693-9
  57. Jolene P. Reid, Matthew S. Sigman. Comparing quantitative prediction methods for the discovery of small-molecule chiral catalysts. Nature Reviews Chemistry 2018, 2 (10) , 290-305. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-018-0040-8
  58. Matthew D. Wodrich, Michael Busch, Clémence Corminboeuf. Expedited Screening of Active and Regioselective Catalysts for the Hydroformylation Reaction. Helvetica Chimica Acta 2018, 101 (9) https://doi.org/10.1002/hlca.201800107
  59. Abdulrahiman Nijamudheen, Alexey V. Akimov. Quantum Dynamics Effects in Photocatalysis. 2018, 527-566. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527808175.ch19
  60. Matthew D. Wodrich, Boodsarin Sawatlon, Michael Busch, Clémence Corminboeuf. On the Generality of Molecular Volcano Plots. ChemCatChem 2018, 10 (7) , 1586-1591. https://doi.org/10.1002/cctc.201701709
  61. Amanda L. Dewyer, Alonso J. Argüelles, Paul M. Zimmerman. Methods for exploring reaction space in molecular systems. WIREs Computational Molecular Science 2018, 8 (2) https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1354
  62. Toshinobu Korenaga, Ryo Sasaki, Toshihide Takemoto, Toshihisa Yasuda, Masahito Watanabe. Computationally‐Led Ligand Modification using Interplay between Theory and Experiments: Highly Active Chiral Rhodium Catalyst Controlled by Electronic Effects and CH–π Interactions. Advanced Synthesis & Catalysis 2018, 360 (2) , 322-333. https://doi.org/10.1002/adsc.201701191
  63. Luis Simón. Enantioselectivity in CPA-catalyzed Friedel–Crafts reaction of indole and N -tosylimines: a challenge for guiding models. Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry 2018, 16 (13) , 2225-2238. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7OB02875J
  64. Teera Chantarojsiri, Joseph W. Ziller, Jenny Y. Yang. Incorporation of redox-inactive cations promotes iron catalyzed aerobic C–H oxidation at mild potentials. Chemical Science 2018, 9 (9) , 2567-2574. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7SC04486K
  65. Masahiro Shimizu, Jun Kikuchi, Azusa Kondoh, Masahiro Terada. Chiral Brønsted acid-catalyzed intramolecular S N 2′ reaction for enantioselective construction of a quaternary stereogenic center. Chemical Science 2018, 9 (26) , 5747-5757. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8SC01942H
  66. Yanfei Guan, Steven E. Wheeler. Automated Quantum Mechanical Predictions of Enantioselectivity in a Rhodium‐Catalyzed Asymmetric Hydrogenation. Angewandte Chemie 2017, 129 (31) , 9229-9233. https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.201704663
  67. Yanfei Guan, Steven E. Wheeler. Automated Quantum Mechanical Predictions of Enantioselectivity in a Rhodium‐Catalyzed Asymmetric Hydrogenation. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2017, 56 (31) , 9101-9105. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201704663
  68. Trevor J. Seguin, Steven E. Wheeler. Stacking and Electrostatic Interactions Drive the Stereoselectivity of Silylium‐Ion Asymmetric Counteranion‐Directed Catalysis. Angewandte Chemie 2016, 128 (51) , 16121-16125. https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.201609095
  69. Trevor J. Seguin, Steven E. Wheeler. Stacking and Electrostatic Interactions Drive the Stereoselectivity of Silylium‐Ion Asymmetric Counteranion‐Directed Catalysis. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2016, 55 (51) , 15889-15893. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201609095

ACS Catalysis

Cite this: ACS Catal. 2016, 6, 11, 7948–7955
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.6b02366
Published October 14, 2016

Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

3366

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Scheme 1

    Scheme 1. Asymmetric Propargylation of Benzaldehyde using Allenyltrichlorosilane, along with a Depiction of the Stereocontrolling Step

    Scheme 2

    Scheme 2. Library of Catalysts That Were Screened for Reaction 1

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Five distinct ligand configurations for C2-symmetric bidentate Lewis base catalyzed alkylation reactions, where Nu is the alkyl nucleophile.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. B97-D/TZV(2d,2p) predicted relative energies (kcal mol–1) of the thermodynamically accessible TS structures for catalysts 1a6j (N.B.: for 2aj, there are multiple low-lying conformers for some of the TS structures corresponding to different orientations of the phenyl rings).

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Key TS structures for catalysts 1a along with relative energies in kcal mol–1. Also displayed are the ESPs of the catalyst in the plane of the formyl group (red, −30 kcal mol–1; blue, +30 kcal mol–1; allenyl group removed for clarity).

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Key TS structures for catalysts 1g,j and 2j along with relative energies in kcal mol–1. BP1(R), which is low-lying for 1g, is not pictured.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Key TS structures for catalysts 1b,e along with relative energies in kcal mol–1. For 1e, the electrostatic potential of the catalyst in the plane of the formyl group of benzaldehyde is also plotted (red, −30 kcal mol–1; blue, +30 kcal mol–1; allenyl group removed for clarity).

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Key TS structures for catalysts 1h,i along with relative energies in kcal mol–1. The electrostatic potential of the catalyst in the plane of the formyl group of benzaldehyde is also plotted (red, −30 kcal mol–1; blue, +30 kcal mol–1; allenyl group removed for clarity).

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. Catalyst 7 along with the key (R)- and (S)-transition states and relative energies in kcal mol–1.

  • References


    This article references 28 other publications.

    1. 1
      (a) Lam, Y.; Grayson, M. N.; Holland, M. C.; Simon, A.; Houk, K. N. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 750 762 DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00006
      (b) Halskov, K. S.; Donslund, B. S.; Paz, B. M.; Jørgensen, K. A. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 974 986 DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00008
      (c) Sunoj, R. B. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 1019 1028 DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00053
      (d) Reid, J. P.; Simón, L.; Goodman, J. M. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 1029 1041 DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00052
      (e) Peng, Q.; Paton, R. S. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 1042 1051 DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00084
      (f) Wheeler, S. E.; Seguin, T. J.; Guan, Y.; Doney, A. C. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 1061 1069 DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00096
    2. 2
      (a) Fleming, E. M.; Quigley, C.; Rozas, I.; Connon, S. J. J. Org. Chem. 2008, 73, 948 956 DOI: 10.1021/jo702154m
      (b) Houk, K. N.; Cheong, P. H.-Y. Nature 2008, 455, 309 313 DOI: 10.1038/nature07368
      (c) Shinisha, C. B.; Janardanan, D.; Sunoj, R. B. In Challenges and Advances in Computational Chemistry and Physics; Leszczynski, J., Ed.; Springer: New York, 2010.
      (d) Sunoj, R. B. WIREs Comp. Mol. Sci. 2011, 1, 920 931 DOI: 10.1002/wcms.37
    3. 3
      Eksterowicz, J. E.; Houk, K. N. Chem. Rev. 1993, 93, 2439 2461 DOI: 10.1021/cr00023a006
    4. 4
      (a) Brown, J. M.; Deeth, R. J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 4476 4479 DOI: 10.1002/anie.200900697
      (b) Madarász, Á.; Dènes, B.; Paton, R. S. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2016, 12, 1833 1844 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b01237
      (c) Hansen, E.; Rosales, A. R.; Tutkowski, B.; Norrby, P. O.; Wiest, O. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 996 1005 DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00037
      (d) Norrby, P.-O.; Liljefors, T. J. Comput. Chem. 1998, 19, 1146 1166 DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(19980730)19:10<1146::AID-JCC4>3.0.CO;2-M
      (e) Nilsson Lill, S. O.; Forbes, A.; Donoghue, P.; Verdolino, V.; Wiest, O.; Rydberg, P.; Norrby, P.-O. Curr. Org. Chem. 2010, 14, 1629 1645 DOI: 10.2174/138527210793563224
      (f) Limé, E.; Norrby, P.-O. J. Comput. Chem. 2015, 36, 244 250 DOI: 10.1002/jcc.23797
      (g) Peña-Cabrera, E.; Norrby, P.-O.; Sjögren, M.; Vitagliano, A.; De Felice, V.; Oslob, J.; Ishii, S.; O’Neill, D.; Åkermark, B.; Helquist, P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 4299 4313 DOI: 10.1021/ja950860t
      (h) Norrby, P.-O.; Brandt, P.; Rein, T. J. Org. Chem. 1999, 64, 5845 5852 DOI: 10.1021/jo990318d
      (i) Norrby, P. O.; Rasmussen, T.; Haller, J.; Strassner, T.; Houk, K. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 10186 10192 DOI: 10.1021/ja992023n
      (j) Fristrup, P.; Jensen, G. H.; Andersen, M. L. N.; Tanner, D.; Norrby, P.-O. J. Organomet. Chem. 2006, 691, 2182 2198 DOI: 10.1016/j.jorganchem.2005.11.009
      (k) Donoghue, P. J.; Helquist, P.; Norrby, P.-O.; Wiest, O. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2008, 4, 1313 1323 DOI: 10.1021/ct800132a
      (l) Donoghue, P. J.; Helquist, P.; Norrby, P.-O.; Wiest, O. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 410 411 DOI: 10.1021/ja806246h
      (m) Limé, E.; Lundholm, M. D.; Forbes, A.; Wiest, O.; Helquist, P.; Norrby, P.-O. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2014, 10, 2427 2435 DOI: 10.1021/ct500178w
    5. 5
      Rooks, B. J.; Wheeler, S. E.AARON:Automated Alkylation Reaction Optimizer for N-Oxides, version 0.72; Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2015.
    6. 6
      Rooks, B. J.; Haas, M. R.; Sepúlveda, D.; Lu, T.; Wheeler, S. E. ACS Catal. 2015, 5, 272 280 DOI: 10.1021/cs5012553
    7. 7
      Kobayashi, S.; Nishio, K. J. Org. Chem. 1994, 59, 6620 6628 DOI: 10.1021/jo00101a021
    8. 8
      Denmark, S. E.; Coe, D. M.; Pratt, N. E.; Griedel, B. D. J. Org. Chem. 1994, 59, 6161 6163 DOI: 10.1021/jo00100a013
    9. 9
      (a) Nakajima, M.; Saito, M.; Shiro, M.; Hashimoto, S.-i. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 6419 6420 DOI: 10.1021/ja981091r
      (b) Nakajima, M.; Saito, M.; Hashimoto, S. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2002, 13, 2449 2452 DOI: 10.1016/S0957-4166(02)00640-7
    10. 10
      (a) Malkov, A. V.; Orsini, M.; Pernazza, D.; Muir, K. W.; Langer, V.; Meghani, P.; Kočovský, P. Org. Lett. 2002, 4, 1047 1049 DOI: 10.1021/ol025654m
      (b) Shimada, T.; Kina, A.; Ikeda, S.; Hayashi, T. Org. Lett. 2002, 4, 2799 2801 DOI: 10.1021/ol026376u
      (c) Malkov, A. V.; Bell, M.; Orsini, M.; Pernazza, D.; Massa, A.; Herrmann, P.; Meghani, P.; Kočovský, P. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 68, 9659 9668 DOI: 10.1021/jo035074i
      (d) Malkov, A. V.; Kočovský, P. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2007, 2007, 29 36 DOI: 10.1002/ejoc.200600474
      (e) Hrdina, R.; Valterová, I.; Hodačová, J.; Císařová, I.; Kotora, M. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2007, 349, 822 826 DOI: 10.1002/adsc.200600400
      (f) Malkov, A. V.; Ramirez-Lopez, P.; Biedermannova, L.; Rulisek, L.; Dufková, L.; Kotora, M.; Zhu, F.; Kočovky, P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 5341 5348 DOI: 10.1021/ja711338q
      (g) Malkov, A. V.; Westwater, M.-M.; Gutnov, A.; Ramírez-López, P.; Friscourt, F.; Kadlčíková, A.; Hodačová, J.; Rankovic, Z.; Kotora, M.; Kočovský, P. Tetrahedron 2008, 64, 11335 11348 DOI: 10.1016/j.tet.2008.08.084
      (h) Hrdina, R.; Dračínský, M.; Valterová, I.; Hodačová, J.; Císařová, I.; Kotora, M. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2008, 350, 1449 1456 DOI: 10.1002/adsc.200800141
      (i) Kadlčíková, A.; Hrdina, R.; Valterová, I.; Kotora, M. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2009, 351, 1279 1283 DOI: 10.1002/adsc.200900224
    11. 11
      (a) Lu, T.; Porterfield, M. A.; Wheeler, S. E. Org. Lett. 2012, 14, 5310 5313 DOI: 10.1021/ol302493d
      (b) Chen, J. S.; Captain, B.; Takenaka, N. Org. Lett. 2011, 13, 1654 1657 DOI: 10.1021/ol200102c
    12. 12
      Sepúlveda, D.; Lu, T.; Wheeler, S. E. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2014, 12, 8346 DOI: 10.1039/C4OB01719F
    13. 13
      Lu, T.; Zhu, R.; An, Y.; Wheeler, S. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 3095 3102 DOI: 10.1021/ja209241n
    14. 14
      (a) Chelucci, G.; Belmonte, N.; Benaglia, M.; Pignataro, L. Tetrahedron Lett. 2007, 48, 4037 4041 DOI: 10.1016/j.tetlet.2007.04.028
      (b) Hrdina, R.; Opekar, F.; Roithova, J.; Kotora, M. Chem. Commun. 2009, 2314 2316 DOI: 10.1039/b819545e
      (c) Sereda, O.; Tabassum, S.; Wilhelm, R. Top. Curr. Chem. 2009, 291, 349 393 DOI: 10.1007/128_2008_17
    15. 15
      (a) Becke, A. J. Chem. Phys. 1997, 107, 8554 8560 DOI: 10.1063/1.475007
      (b) Schafer, A.; Huber, C.; Ahlrichs, R. J. Chem. Phys. 1994, 100, 5829 5835 DOI: 10.1063/1.467146
      (c) Grimme, S. J. Comput. Chem. 2006, 27, 1787 1799 DOI: 10.1002/jcc.20495
    16. 16
      (a) Cancès, E.; Mennucci, B. J. Math. Chem. 1998, 23, 309 326 DOI: 10.1023/A:1019133611148
      (b) Cancès, E.; Mennucci, B.; Tomasi, J. J. Chem. Phys. 1997, 107, 3032 3041 DOI: 10.1063/1.474659
      (c) Tomasi, J.; Mennucci, B.; Cammi, R. Chem. Rev. 2005, 105, 2999 3093 DOI: 10.1021/cr9904009
    17. 17
      Grimme, S. Chem. - Eur. J. 2012, 18, 9955 9964 DOI: 10.1002/chem.201200497
    18. 18
      Frisch, M. J.; Trucks, G. W.; Schlegel, H. B.; Scuseria, G. E.; Robb, M. A.; Cheeseman, J. R.; Scalmani, G.; Barone, V.; Mennucci, B.; Petersson, G. A.; Nakatsuji, H.; Caricato, M.; Li, X.; Hratchian, H. P.; Izmaylov, A. F.; Bloino, J.; Zheng, G.; Sonnenberg, J. L.; Hada, M.; Ehara, M.; Toyota, K.; Fukuda, R.; Hasegawa, J.; Ishida, M.; Nakajima, T.; Honda, Y.; Kitao, O.; Nakai, H.; Vreven, T.; Montgomery, J. A., Jr.; Peralta, J. E.; Ogliaro, F.; Bearpark, M.; Heyd, J. J.; Brothers, E.; Kudin, K. N.; Staroverov, V. N.; Kobayashi, R.; Normand, J.; Raghavachari, K.; Rendell, A.; Burant, J. C.; Iyengar, S. S.; Tomasi, J.; Cossi, M.; Rega, N.; Millam, N. J.; Klene, M.; Knox, J. E.; Cross, J. B.; Bakken, V.; Adamo, C.; Jaramillo, J.; Gomperts, R.; Stratmann, R. E.; Yazyev, O.; Austin, A. J.; Cammi, R.; Pomelli, C.; Ochterski, J. W.; Martin, R. L.; Morokuma, K.; Zakrzewski, V. G.; Voth, G. A.; Salvador, P.; Dannenberg, J. J.; Dapprich, S.; Daniels, A. D.; Farkas, Ö.; Foresman, J. B.; Ortiz, J. V.; Cioslowski, J.; Fox, D. J.Gaussian 09, Revision D.01; Gaussian, Inc., Wallingford, CT, 2009.
    19. 19

      See ref 12 for a detailed computational study of the enantioselectivity of 4a for the allylation and propargylation of benzaldehyde.

    20. 20
      (a) Lehn, J. M.; Pietraszkiewicz, M.; Karpiuk, J. Helv. Chim. Acta 1990, 73, 106 111 DOI: 10.1002/hlca.19900730111
      (b) Lipkowski, J.; Suwinska, K.; Andreetti, G. D. J. Coord. Chem. 1990, 22, 83 98 DOI: 10.1080/00958979009410031
    21. 21
      Wheeler, S. E.; Houk, K. N. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2009, 5, 2301 2312 DOI: 10.1021/ct900344g
    22. 22

      The NPA charges on the formyl C and H are approximately +0.25e and +0.20e, respectively, across all TS structures.

    23. 23

      The lowest-lying TS structure is BP1(R), which is only 0.1 kcal mol–1 lower in energy than BP2(S).

    24. 24
      (a) Wheeler, S. E. Acc. Chem. Res. 2013, 46, 1029 1038 DOI: 10.1021/ar300109n
      (b) Wheeler, S. E.; Bloom, J. W. G. J. Phys. Chem. A 2014, 118, 6133 6147 DOI: 10.1021/jp504415p
    25. 25
      Tauer, T.; Sherrill, C. D. J. Phys. Chem. A 2005, 109, 10475 10478 DOI: 10.1021/jp0553479
    26. 26
      (a) Seguin, T. J.; Wheeler, S. E. ACS Catal. 2016, 6, 2681 2688 DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.6b00538
      (b) Seguin, T. J.; Lu, T.; Wheeler, S. E. Org. Lett. 2015, 17, 3066 3069 DOI: 10.1021/acs.orglett.5b01349
      (c) Seguin, T. J.; Wheeler, S. E. ACS Catal. 2016, 6, 7222 7228 DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.6b01915
    27. 27

      The corresponding energy difference is 1.5 kcal mol–1 for 1c.

    28. 28
      Guan, Y.; Rooks, B. J.; Wheeler, S. E.AARON: An Automated Reaction Optimizer for Non-metal catalyzed reactions, version 0.91; Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2016.
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.6b02366.

    • Additional data, absolute electronic energies, enthalpies, and free energies, and optimized Cartesian coordinates (PDF)

    • Cartesian coordinates of the calculated structures (XYZ)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.