Stereoselective Formation of (Aminoalkyl)platinum Complexes from Imines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reaction of [PtMe 2 (μ-SMe 2 )] 2 with cis -1,2-C 6 H 10 (N CH-2-C 5 H 4 N) 2 ( 1 ) and cis -1,2-C 6 H 10 (N CH-2-C 9 H 6 N) 2 ( 2 ) gives the complexes [PtMe 2 { cis -1,2-C 6 H 10 (N CH-2-C 5 H 4 N) 2 }] ( 3 ) and [PtMe 2 { cis -1,2-C 6 H 10 (N CH-2-C 9 H 6 N) 2 }] ( 4 ), respectively (C 5 H 4 N = pyridyl; C 9 H 6 N = quinolyl), in which the ligand is bidentate such that each complex is chiral and contains a free imine substituent. Complexes 3 and 4 react with protic acids, HCl and CF 3 CO 2 H, to form (aminoalkyl)platinum(IV) products that contain a new asymmetric carbon center, often with very high stereoselectivity. In these products the complex ligand may act as a tridentate N,N,C donor or, in complexes containing an azaplatinacyclobutane ring, as a tetradentate N,N,N,C donor. The absolute configurations of five (aminoalkyl)platinum(IV) products were determined by X-ray crystal structure determinations and gave a benchmark such that the stereochemistries of other complexes could be assigned by NMR. It is suggested that the reactions occur by protonation at the free imine nitrogen to give an iminium ion, and the carbocation then adds to the adjacent platinum(II) center. The initially formed products may rearrange by mechanisms involving reversible ligand dissociation from platinum(IV) or deprotonation of the aminoalkyl group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.222 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".