Electronic dissymmetry in chiral recognition

Journal of the American Chemical Society

Volumn 127, Issue 46, 2005, Pages 16010-16011

  Brown, Seth N ^a   Chu, Everett T ^a   Hull, Michael W ^a   Noll, Bruce C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

2,2' DIHYDROXY 1,1' BINAPHTHYL;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL BINDING; CHIRALITY; CONFORMATION; DIASTEREOISOMER; ENANTIOMER; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; MOLECULAR RECOGNITION; STEREOCHEMISTRY;

EID: 28044473200     PISSN: 00027863     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ja055598v     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. (a) Lipkowitz, K. B. Acc. Chem. Res. 2000, 33, 555-562.
2. (b) Pirkle, W. H.; Pochapsky, T. C. Chem. Rev. 1989, 89, 347-362.
3. Gladysz, J. A.; Boone, B. J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1997, 36, 551-583.
4. (a) Bradley, D. C.; Holloway, C. E. J. Chem. Soc. A 1969, 282-285.
5. (b) Bickley, D. G.; Serpone, N. Inorg. Chim. Acta 1980, 38, 177-181.
6. Bickley, D. G.; Serpone, N. Inorg. Chim. Acta 1980, 40, 213-216.
7. 3) must be strictly nonbonding with respect to the diketonates.
8. Frisch, M. J. et al. Gaussian 03, revision C.01; Gaussian Inc.: Wallingford CT, 2004.
9. At least some of the splitting in the dπ manifold may be due to interactions with the acac LUMOs, which are calculated to be much closer in energy to the dπ orbitals than the acac HOMOs (ΔE ≈ 1.3 and 4 eV, respectively). Since the nodal pattern of the acac LUMO is reversed relative to the HOMO, the effects are synergistic in the A manifold, with the higher dπ orbital interacting only with the filled acac orbital and the lower-energy dπ orbital interacting only with the empty acac orbital. More details on the calculations are given in the Supporting Information.
10. Saito, Y. Inorganic Molecular Diasymmetry; New York: Springer-Verlag, 1979; Chapter 4.
11. Balsells, J.; Davis, T. J.; Carroll, P.; Walsh, P. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 10336-10348.
12. (a) Wild, F. R. W. P.; Zsolnai, L.; Huttner, G.; Brintzinger, H. H. J. Organomet. Chem. 1982, 232, 233-247.
13. (b) Erickson, M. S.; Fronczek, F. R.; McLaughlin, M. L. J. Organomet. Chem. 1991, 415, 75-85.
14. Kuntz, B. A.; Ramachandran, R.; Taylor, N. J.; Guan, J.; Collins, S. J. Organomet. Chem. 1995, 497, 133-142.
15. Huttenloch, M. E.; Dorer, B.; Rief, U.; Prosenc, M.-H.; Schmidt, K.; Brintzinger, H. H. J. Organomet. Chem. 1997, 541, 219-232.
16. Full preparative and spectroscopic details are given in the Supporting Information.
17. (a) Baggett, N.; Poolton, D. S. P.; Jennings, W. B. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1979, 1128-1134.
18. (b) Fay, R. C.; Lindmark, A. F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983, 105, 2118-2127.
19. 13C satellites of the major compound, so 100:1 is a conservative estimate of the preponderance of the major diastereomer. More modest lower limits on the dr must be given for the progressively less soluble dbm and acac complexes; the latter also exists in a monomer/dimer equilibrium.
20. 2Sn(BINOL) (where both diastereomers can be observed) confirms that the methyl groups in the minor diastereomer exchange with the axial and equatorial methyl groups in the major diastereomer at comparable rates.
21. (a) Kutzelnigg, W. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1984, 23, 272-295.
22. (b) Reed, A. E.; Schleyer, P. v. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990, 112, 1434-1445.
23. (a) Adams, R. D.; Chodosh, D. F.; Faller, J. W.; Rosan, A. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1979, 101, 2570-2578.
24. (b) Faller, J. W.; Linebarrier, D. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1989, 111, 1937-1939.
25. (a) RajanBabu, T. V.; Casalnuovo, A. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 6325-6326.
26. (b) Vasse, J.-L.; Stranne, R.; Zalubovskis, R.; Gayet, C.; Moberg, C. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 65, 3258-3270.
27. (c) Faller, J. W.; Grimmond, B. J.; D'Alliessi, D. G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 2525-2529 and references therein.