Modular P‐Chirogenic Aminophosphane‐Phosphinite Ligands for Rh‐Catalyzed Asymmetric Hydrogenation: A New Model for Prediction of Enantioselectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An original series of P‐chirogenic aminophosphane‐phosphinite (AMPP) ligands has been synthesized from (+)‐ or(–)‐ephedrine in 23 to 61 % overall yields by a versatile three‐step methodology. The AMPP ligands, bearing either one or two P‐chirogenic centers, were used in the form of rhodium complexes for the catalyzed hydrogenation of α‐acetamidocinnamate as a test reaction. Notably, even with AMPP ligands all derived from (+)‐ephedrine, variation of the substituent on a P‐center allowed the phenylalanine derivatives to be obtained in either (S) or (R) absolute configurations, with ee values ranging from 99 % (S) to 88 % (R). The asymmetric induction was analyzed with the aid of X‐ray structures of AMPP complexes, and a new model for the enantioselectivity, taking into consideration the boat conformation and the steric and electronic dissymmetries at the dihydride rhodium‐substrate complex, has been proposed. This model offers an alternative to the quadrant rule, well adapted to the C2‐symmetry ligands and the chair conformation of their complex derivatives. In this work, the model, which schematizes the front side of the complex as a sextant in the direction of the cardinal points, fits with coordination of the substrate by the acetamido and the cinnamyl groups in the north and east (or west) parts, respectively. The enantioselectivity originates from the ligand residues located at the south‐east or south‐west parts of the dihydride rhodium intermediate. Computer modeling on several AMPP‐rhodium complexes with PCModel confirms the proposed predicting model.(© Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 69451 Weinheim, Germany, 2007)
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".