From Wires to Cables: Attempted Synthesis of 1,3,5-Trifluorenylcyclohexane as a Platform for Molecular Cables

Talipov, M. R.; Abdelwahed, S. H.; Thakur, K.; Reid, S. A.; Rathore, R.  J. Org. Chem. 2016
Contributed by Steven Bachrach
Reposted from Computational Organic Chemistry with permission

Reid, Rathore and colleagues report on the attempted preparation of the interesting molecule 1,3,5-trifluorenylcyclohexane (TFC) 1.¹ They had hoped to prepare it by subjecting the precursor 2 to acid, which might then undergo a Friedel-Crafts reaction to prepare the last fluorenyl group, and subsequent loss of a proton would give 1. Unfortunately, they could not get this step to occur, even at high temperature and for long reaction times. What made it particularly frustrating was that they could get 3 to react under these conditions to give 1,4-difluorenylcyclohexane (14-DFC) 4, and convert 5 into 1,4-difluorenylcyclohexane (13-DFC) 6.

To get at why 1 could not be formed they utilized PCM(CH₂Cl₂)/M06-2X/6-31G(d) calculations. The lowest energy conformations of 1 and 4 are shown in Figure 1. While 4 is in a chair conformation, 1 is not in a chair conformation since this would bring the three fluorenyl groups into very close contact. Instead, the cyclohexyl ring of 1 adopts a twist-boat conformation, with a much flattened ring. They estimate that 1 is strained by about 17 kcal mol^-1, with 10 kcal mol^-1 coming from strain in the twist-boat conformation and another 7 kcal mol^-1 of strain due to steric crowding of the fluorenyl groups.

They next optimized the structures of the intermediates and transition states on the path taking 2 into 1 and 3 into 4. The transition states of the Friedel-Crafts reaction are the highest points on these paths, and their geometries are shown in Figure 1. The barrier through the TS for the Friedel-Crafts step forming 1 is about 17 kcal mol^-1 higher than for the barrier to form 4. This very large increase in activation barrier, due to the strains imposed by that third fluorenyl group, explains the lack of reaction. Furthermore, since the reaction 2 → 1 is 2.0 kcal mol^-1 endothermic, at high temperature the reaction is likely to be reversible and favors 2.

1	4
TS to 1	TS to 4

Figure 1. PCM(CH₂Cl₂)/M06-2X/6-31G(d) optimized geometries.

References

(1) Talipov, M. R.; Abdelwahed, S. H.; Thakur, K.; Reid, S. A.; Rathore, R. "From Wires to Cables: Attempted Synthesis of 1,3,5-Trifluorenylcyclohexane as a Platform for Molecular Cables," J. Org. Chem. 2016, DOI:10.1021/acs.joc.5b02792.

InChIs

1 (TFC): InChI=1S/C42H30/c1-7-19-34-28(13-1)29-14-2-8-20-35(29)40(34)25-41(36-21-9-3-15-30(36)31-16-4-10-22-37(31)41)27-42(26-40)38-23-11-5-17-32(38)33-18-6-12-24-39(33)42/h1-24H,25-27H2
InChIKey=CXXRVQFQMRJLAI-UHFFFAOYSA-N

4 (14-DFC): InChI=1S/C30H24/c1-5-13-25-21(9-1)22-10-2-6-14-26(22)29(25)17-19-30(20-18-29)27-15-7-3-11-23(27)24-12-4-8-16-28(24)30/h1-16H,17-20H2
InChIkey=ZZTDGVHNROVFMK-UHFFFAOYSA-N

6 (13-DFC):InChI=1S/C30H24/c1-2-11-22(12-3-1)24-14-4-5-15-25(24)23-13-10-20-30(21-23)28-18-8-6-16-26(28)27-17-7-9-19-29(27)30/h1-9,11-19H,10,20-21H2
InChIKey=TTZIUDUAWUTKAI-UHFFFAOYSA-N

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Development of a True Transition State Force Field from Quantum Mechanical Calculations

Ádám Madarász, Dénes Berta, and Robert S. Paton (2016)
Contributed by Jan Jensen

A true TS FF (TTSFF) is a force field for which the TS is a true saddle point on the PES, i.e. an unconstrained geometry with a zero gradient and exactly one imaginary frequency.  The idea is that you develop the FF parameters for each TS of interest from QM calculations and then use the TTSFF to do a conformational search to find the lowest energy TS structure. The TTSFF itself cannot be used to compute the barrier.

The main trick to making this work is to include harmonic stretch terms between 1-3 atom pairs (i.e. Urey-Bradley) terms in the FF expression. Some trial-and-error is required in selecting which FF parameters to optimise and exactly what to optimise against.

The approach is developed primarily to study selectivity, where the relative energies of TS structures determine which product is made.  However, one could imagine several other potential uses.  For example, one could probably parameterise the TTSFF using a small structural model and then use the TTSFF to find TS structures with large substituents, which would then be used a initial guesses for a QM TS search.  Furthermore, if QM//(TTS)FF barriers turn out to be reasonably accurate then one could save a tremendous amount of CPU time.

I thank @CompChemNews for bringing this paper to my attention


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

Accurate and Reliable Prediction of Relative Ligand Binding Potency in Prospective Drug Discovery by Way of a Modern Free-Energy Calculation Protocol and Force Field

Wang, L.; Wu, Y.; Deng, Y.; Kim, B.; Pierce, L.; Krilov, G.; Lupyan, D.; Robinson, S.; Dahlgren, M. K.; Greenwood, J.; Romero, D. L.; Masse, C.; Knight, J. L.; Steinbrecher, T.; Beuming, T.; Damm, W.; Harder, E.; Sherman, W.; Brewer, M.; Wester, R.; Murcko, M.; Frye, L.; Farid, R.; Lin, T.; Mobley, D. L.; Jorgensen, W. L.; Berne, B. J.; Friesner, R. A.; Abel, R.  J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 2695-2703
Contributed by Steven Bachrach
Reposted from Computational Organic Chemistry with permission

The ACS National Meeting this week in San Diego had computers in chemistry as its theme. A number of sessions featured computer-aided drug design, and the paper that garnered a lot of attention in many of these sessions was one I missed from last year. The work, done by the Schrödinger company, presents the application of some improved techniques for performing free energy perturbation (FEP) computations.¹ FEP involves changing a small number of atoms from one type to another and determining the free energy change with this perturbation. Since so much of the system is left unaffected, the idea is that errors in the non-perturbed parts of the system will cancel, allowing for accurate determination of the free energy change due to the perturbation.

This study features a number of new technologies that have enabled much more accurate predictions. First, they have employed a new force field, OPLS2.1, which appears to provide much improved energies. Second, they have improved sampling of configuration space using the Desmond program and replica exchange with solute tempering (REST). Third, these have been implemented on GPUs that results in dramatically improved throughput. And fourth, they developed a workflow to automate the selection of ligands, created by the perturbations with the protein of interest. They examined up to 10 atom perturbations within the initial ligand.

In a validation study of 8 proteins involving 330 ligands, the RMS error in the free energy of binding was about 1 kcal mol^-1. Case studies of different types of perturbations leading to gain or loss of hydrophobic or electrostatic interactions, loss of a binding water and exposure to solvent are detailed. Lastly, in a study of two new proteins, they report a high success in predicting both strong binders and weak binders, with very few false positives.

References

(1) Wang, L.; Wu, Y.; Deng, Y.; Kim, B.; Pierce, L.; Krilov, G.; Lupyan, D.; Robinson, S.; Dahlgren, M. K.; Greenwood, J.; Romero, D. L.; Masse, C.; Knight, J. L.; Steinbrecher, T.; Beuming, T.; Damm, W.; Harder, E.; Sherman, W.; Brewer, M.; Wester, R.; Murcko, M.; Frye, L.; Farid, R.; Lin, T.; Mobley, D. L.; Jorgensen, W. L.; Berne, B. J.; Friesner, R. A.; Abel, R. "Accurate and Reliable Prediction of Relative Ligand Binding Potency in Prospective Drug Discovery by Way of a Modern Free-Energy Calculation Protocol and Force Field," J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 2695-2703, DOI: 10.1021/ja512751q.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Cinchona Alkaloid-Catalyzed Asymmetric Conjugate Additions: The Bifunctional Brønsted Acid–Hydrogen Bonding Model

Grayson, M. N.; Houk, K. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 1170-1173
Contributed by Steven Bachrach
Reposted from Computational Organic Chemistry with permission

Cinchona alkaloids cat catalyze reactions, such as shown in Reaction 1. Wynberg¹ proposed a model to explain the reaction, shown in Scheme 1, based on NMR. Grayson and Houk have now used DFT computations to show that the mechanism actually reverses the arrangements of the substrates.²

Reaction 1

Scheme 1.

Wynberg Model

Grayson and Houk Model

M06-2X/def2-TZVPP−IEFPCM(benzene)//M06-2X/6-31G(d)−IEFPCM(benzene) computations show that the precomplex of catalyst 3 with nucleophile 1 and Michael acceptor 2 is consistent with Wynberg’s model. The alternate precomplex is 5.6 kcal mol^-1 higher in energy. These precomplexes are shown in Figure 1.

Wynberg precomplex

Grayson/Houk precomplex

Figure 1. Precomplexes structures

However, the lowest energy transition state takes the Grayson/Houk pathway and leads to the major isomer observed in the reaction. The Grayson/Houk TS that leads to the minor product has a barrier that is 3 kcal mol^-1 higher in energy. The lowest energy TS following the Wynberg path leads to the minor product, and is 2.2 kcal mol^-1 higher than the Grayson/Houk path. These transition states are shown in Figure 2. The upshot is that complex formation is not necessarily indicative of the transition state structure.

Wynberg TS (major) Rel ΔG = 5.3	Wynberg TS (minor) Rel ΔG = 2.2
Grayson/Houk TS (major) Rel ΔG = 0.0	Grayson/Houk TS (minor) Rel ΔG = 3.0

Figure 2. TS structures and relative free energies (kcal mol^-1).

References

(1) Hiemstra, H.; Wynberg, H. "Addition of aromatic thiols to conjugated cycloalkenones, catalyzed by chiral .beta.-hydroxy amines. A mechanistic study of homogeneous catalytic asymmetric synthesis," J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1981, 103, 417-430, DOI: 10.1021/ja00392a029.

(2) Grayson, M. N.; Houk, K. N. "Cinchona Alkaloid-Catalyzed Asymmetric Conjugate Additions: The Bifunctional Brønsted Acid–Hydrogen Bonding Model," J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 1170-1173, DOI:10.1021/jacs.5b13275.

InChIs

1: InChI=1S/C10H14S/c1-10(2,3)8-4-6-9(11)7-5-8/h4-7,11H,1-3H3
InChIKey=GNXBFFHXJDZGEK-UHFFFAOYSA-N

2: InChI=1S/C8H12O/c1-8(2)5-3-4-7(9)6-8/h3-4H,5-6H2,1-2H3
InChIKey=CDDGRARTNILYAB-UHFFFAOYSA-N

3: InChI=1S/C18H22N2O/c1-12-11-20-9-7-13(12)10-17(20)18(21)15-6-8-19-16-5-3-2-4-14(15)16/h2-6,8,12-13,17-18,21H,7,9-11H2,1H3/t12?,13?,17?,18-/m1/s1
InChIKey=ZOZLJWFJLBUKKL-NKHWWFDVSA-N

4: InChI=1S/C18H26OS/c1-17(2,3)13-6-8-15(9-7-13)20-16-10-14(19)11-18(4,5)12-16/h6-9,16H,10-12H2,1-5H3/t16-/m0/s1
InChIKey=XUTYYZOSKLYWLW-INIZCTEOSA-N

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.