Erratum: The Report “Predicting reaction performance in C–N cross-coupling using machine learning”(Science (2018)360: 6385(eaat7648)Doi: 10.1126/science.aar5169);Predicting reaction performance in C–N cross-coupling using machine learning

Science

Volumn 360, Issue 6385, 2018, Pages 186-190

  Ahneman, Derek T ^a   Estrada, Jesús G ^a   Lin, Shishi ^b   Dreher, Spencer D ^b   Doyle, Abigail G ^a  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

4 METHYLANILINE; HALIDE; PALLADIUM;

CARBON; CATALYSIS; HALIDE; INHIBITION; MACHINE LEARNING; MODEL; NITROGEN; ORGANIC NITROGEN COMPOUND; PALLADIUM; PREDICTION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; ATOM; CATALYST; CHEMICAL REACTION; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CROSS COUPLING REACTION; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MACHINE LEARNING; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOM FOREST;

EID: 85042381667     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.aat7648     Document Type: Erratum

References (36)

1. T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, J. Friedman, The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction (Springer, 2009).
2. M. I. Jordan, T. M. Mitchell, Science 349, 255–260 (2015).
3. A. Lavecchia, Drug Discov. Today 20, 318–331 (2015).
4. V. Svetnik et al., J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43, 1947–1958 (2003).
5. J. Ma, R. P. Sheridan, A. Liaw, G. E. Dahl, V. Svetnik, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 55, 263–274 (2015).
6. M. H. Todd, Chem. Soc. Rev. 34, 247–266 (2005).
7. S. Szymkuć et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 55, 5904–5937 (2016).
8. M. A. Kayala, C.-A. Azencott, J. H. Chen, P. Baldi, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51, 2209–2222 (2011).
9. J. N. Wei, D. Duvenaud, A. Aspuru-Guzik, ACS Cent. Sci. 2, 725–732 (2016).
10. C. W. Coley, R. Barzilay, T. S. Jaakkola, W. H. Green, K. F. Jensen, ACS Cent. Sci. 3, 434–443 (2017).
11. B. Liu et al., ACS Cent. Sci. 3, 1103–1113 (2017).
12. S. Kite, T. Hattori, Y. Murakami, Appl. Catal. A Gen. 114, L173–L178 (1994).
13. K. Omata, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50, 10948–10954 (2011).
14. P. Raccuglia et al., Nature 533, 73–76 (2016).
15. G. Skoraczyński et al., Sci. Rep. 7, 3582 (2017).
16. A. Buitrago Santanilla et al., Science 347, 49–53 (2015).
17. K. D. Collins, T. Gensch, F. Glorius, Nat. Chem. 6, 859–871 (2014).
18. N. R. Draper, H. Smith, Applied Regression Analysis (Wiley, 1998).
19. M. S. Sigman, K. C. Harper, E. N. Bess, A. Milo, Acc. Chem. Res. 49, 1292–1301 (2016).
20. S. E. Denmark, N. D. Gould, L. M. Wolf, J. Org. Chem. 76, 4337–4357 (2011).
21. L. P. Hammett, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 59, 96–103 (1937).
22. E. N. Bess, A. J. Bischoff, M. S. Sigman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 14698–14703 (2014).
23. A. Milo, E. N. Bess, M. S. Sigman, Nature 507, 210–214 (2014).
24. A. Milo, A. J. Neel, F. D. Toste, M. S. Sigman, Science 347, 737–743 (2015).
25. P. Ruiz-Castillo, S. L. Buchwald, Chem. Rev. 116, 12564–12649 (2016).
26. P. S. Kutchukian et al., Chem. Sci. 7, 2604–2613 (2016).
27. E. Vitaku, D. T. Smith, J. T. Njardarson, J. Med. Chem. 57, 10257–10274 (2014).
28. K. D. Collins, F. Glorius, Acc. Chem. Res. 48, 619–627 (2015).
29. M. Shahlaei, Chem. Rev. 113, 8093–8103 (2013).
30. L. Breiman, Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).
31. M. Cruz-Monteagudo et al., Drug Discov. Today 19, 1069–1080 (2014).
32. Another possible source of incompatibility is Pd-catalyzed isoxazole C–H arylation. However, these reactions favor electron-rich isoxazoles and typically require more forcing conditions (>100°C) than the amination. See (33, 34).
33. Y. Fall, C. Reynaud, H. Doucet, M. Santelli, Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2009, 4041–4050 (2009).
34. M. Shigenobu, K. Takenaka, H. Sasai, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 54, 9572–9576 (2015).
35. Y. Tan, J. F. Hartwig, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132, 3676–3677 (2010).
36. S. Yu et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 55, 8696–8700 (2016).