Daria E. Kim, Joshua E. Zweig and Timothy R. Newhouse (2018)
This paper presents a rare example of using quantum chemical TS calculations to guide, rather than post-rationalise, organic synthesis. The authors wanted to design a retrosynthetic path that could be used to make two related natural products, paspaline A and emindole PB, that require either a ring closure (paspaline A) or a methyl shift (emindole PB). Three different routes were possible that lead to different functionalities that were relatively distant from the ring closure/methyl shift, which made it hard to predict the best route by chemical intuition.
Instead the authors used mPW1PW91/6-31+G(d,p)//B3LYP/6-31G(d) to find the TSs for both reactions for each of the three routes to predict the best route, which turns out to be "C". Route C did indeed work great in practice, while route A (predicted to be worst route) didn't give the desired results.
My guess is that the key here is that the synthetic question was reduced to a question of relative barrier heights of closely related reactions, i.e. ΔΔΔG‡ = ΔΔG‡(4→5) - ΔΔG‡(4→6), which leads to maximum error cancellation. I hope this paper will lead to more use of QM to guide synthetic decisions and more work on making TS calculations even more accessible to synthetic chemists
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b67b2/b67b296c4d3b028c918eaf7bf864d9ab589a7b44" alt=""
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Highlighted by Jan Jensen
Figure 2 from the paper reproduced under the CC-BY-NC-ND licence
This paper presents a rare example of using quantum chemical TS calculations to guide, rather than post-rationalise, organic synthesis. The authors wanted to design a retrosynthetic path that could be used to make two related natural products, paspaline A and emindole PB, that require either a ring closure (paspaline A) or a methyl shift (emindole PB). Three different routes were possible that lead to different functionalities that were relatively distant from the ring closure/methyl shift, which made it hard to predict the best route by chemical intuition.
Instead the authors used mPW1PW91/6-31+G(d,p)//B3LYP/6-31G(d) to find the TSs for both reactions for each of the three routes to predict the best route, which turns out to be "C". Route C did indeed work great in practice, while route A (predicted to be worst route) didn't give the desired results.
My guess is that the key here is that the synthetic question was reduced to a question of relative barrier heights of closely related reactions, i.e. ΔΔΔG‡ = ΔΔG‡(4→5) - ΔΔG‡(4→6), which leads to maximum error cancellation. I hope this paper will lead to more use of QM to guide synthetic decisions and more work on making TS calculations even more accessible to synthetic chemists
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b67b2/b67b296c4d3b028c918eaf7bf864d9ab589a7b44" alt=""
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.