The endocyclic restriction test: The geometries of nucleophilic substitutions at sulfur(VI) and sulfur(II)

Journal of Organic Chemistry

Volumn 73, Issue 24, 2008, Pages 9627-9632

  Jarboe, Stephen G ^a   Terrazas, Michael S ^a   Beak, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL EQUATIONS; LEAVING GROUPS; NUCLEOPHILIC SUBSTITUTIONS; SULFUR TRANSFER REACTIONS; TRANSITION STATES; TRANSITION STRUCTURES;

CHEMICAL REACTIONS; VEGETATION;

SULFUR;

CHROMATOGRAPHY, GAS; INDICATORS AND REAGENTS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; MOLECULAR CONFORMATION; SULFONAMIDES; SULFUR COMPOUNDS;

EID: 58049198511     PISSN: 00223263     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jo8016428     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. (a) Cremlyn, R. An Introduction to Organosulfur Chemistry; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1996.
2. (b) Perspectives in the Organic Chemistry of Sulfur; Elsevier: New York, 1987.
3. (c) Organic Sulfur Chemistry; Elsevier: New York, 1985.
4. (a) Do, Q. T.; Elothmani, D.; Guillanton, G. L. Tetrahedron Lett. 1998, 39, 4657-4658.
5. (b) Kobayashi, K.; Sato, S.; Horn, E.; Furukawa, N. Tetrahedron Lett. 1998, 39, 2593-2596.
6. (a) Cox, R. A. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1997, 1743.
7. (b) Kutuk, H.; Bekdemir, Y.; Soydas, Y. J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2001, 14, 224-228.
8. (a) Bunton, C. A.; Hendy, B. N. J. Chem. Soc. 1962, 2562.
9. (b) Kaiser, E. T. Acc. Chem. Res. 1970, 3, 145-151.
10. (c) Oae, S.; Fukumoto, R.; Kiritani, R. Bull. Chem. Soc. 1963, 36, 346-348.
11. For examples of linear free energy studies of sulfur substitution, see: (a) Wilson, J. M.; Bayer, R. J.; Hupe, D. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1977, 99, 7922-7926.
12. (b) Ciuffarin, E.; Fava, A. Prog. Phys. Org. Chem. 1968, 6, 81-109.
13. (c) Biasotti, J. B.; Andersen, K. K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1971, 93, 1178-1182.
14. (d) Choi, J. H.; Lee, B. C.; Lee, H. W.; Lee, I. J. Org. Chem. 2002, 67, 1277-1281.
15. (e) Baxter, N. J.; Rigoreau, L. J. M.; Laws, A. P.; Page, M. I. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 3375-3385.
16. (f) Andersen, K. K.; Bray, D. D.; Chumpradit, S.; Clark, M. E.; Habgood, G. J.; Hubbard, C. D.; Young, K. M. J. Org. Chem. 1991, 56, 6508-6516.
17. For examples of calculations of sulfur substitutions, see: (a) Bachrach, S. M.; Hayes, J. M.; Dao, T.; Mynar, J. L. Theor. Chem. Acc. 2002, 107, 266-271.
18. (b) Lee, I.; Kim, C. K.; Li, H. G.; Sohn, C. K.; Kim, C. K.; Lee, H. W.; Lee, B.-S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 11162-11172.
19. (c) Bachrach, S. M.; Mulhearn, D. C. J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100, 3535-3540.
20. (d) Cameron, D. R.; Thatcher, R. J. J. Org. Chem. 1996, 61, 5986-5997.
21. (e) Bachrach, S. M.; Woody, J. J.; Mulhearn, D. C. J. Org. Chem. 2002, 67, 8983.
22. (a) Johnson, C. R.; Jonsson, E. U.; Wambsgans, A. J. Org. Chem. 1979, 44, 2061-2065.
23. (b) Mikolajczyk, M.; Drabowicz, J. Top. Stereochem. 1992, 13, 333.
24. (c) Wudl, F.; Lee, T. B. K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1973, 95, 6349-6358.
25. (d) Oae, S.; Yokoyama, M.; Furakawa, N. Tetrahedron Lett. 1968, 38, 4131-4134.
26. (e) Andersen, K. K.; Chumpradit, S.; McIntyre, D. J. J. Org. Chem. 1988, 53, 4667-4675.
27. (f) Hellwinkel, D.; Supp, M. Chem. Ber. 1976, 51, 1525-1529.
28. (g) Baxter, N. J.; Laws, A. P.; Rigoreau, L.; Page, M. Chem. Commun. 1997, 2037, 2038.
29. (a) Hogg, D. R.; Vipond, P. W. J. Chem. Soc. C 1970, 2142-2144.
30. (b) Rosenfield, R. C., Jr.; Parthasarathy, R.; Dunitz, J. D J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1977, 4860.
31. (c) Singh, R.; Whitesides, G. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990, 112, 6340.
32. (d) Luczak, L.; Lopusinski, A.; Michalski, J. Tetrahedron 1998, 54, 9731.
33. (e) Fachini, M.; Lucchini, V.; Modena, G.; Pasi, M.; Pasquato, L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 3944-3950.
34. Lee, S. J.; Terrazas, M. S.; Pippel, D. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 7307, and references cited therein for other cases using the endocyclic restriction test. The data from double-labeling experiments provide definitive distinctions between intermolecular and intramolecular pathways for these sulfur transfers. Assignments for the favored geometries for atom-transfer reactions under this test are conclusive and independent of yields. Low yields of the atom-transferred products or the operation of pathways which give other products do not compromise the test under this protocol.
35. n had tended to rearrange prior to mixing with 8. Careful purification of each component and analysis was carried out to show this did not occur prior to the reaction. The fact that there was not scrambling of the labels in the conversion of 7 to 9 under the same conditions establishes that label scrambling prior to phenyl sulfonyl transfer is not occurring in this case.
36. 8a (Chemical Equation Presented)
37. Tollefson, M. B.; Beak, P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 9052.