Enantioselective C–H Amination Catalyzed by Nickel Iminyl Complexes Supported by Anionic Bisoxazoline (BOX) Ligands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trityl-substituted bisoxazoline ( TrH BOX) was prepared as a chiral analogue to a previously reported nickel dipyrrin system capable of ring-closing amination catalysis. Ligand metalation with divalent NiI 2 (py) 4 followed by potassium graphite reduction afforded the monovalent ( TrH BOX)Ni(py) ( 4 ). Slow addition of 1.4 equiv of a benzene solution of 1-adamantylazide to 4 generated the tetrazido ( TrH BOX)Ni(κ 2 -N 4 Ad 2 ) ( 5 ) and terminal iminyl adduct ( TrH BOX)Ni(NAd) ( 6 ). Investigation of 6 via single-crystal X-ray crystallography, NMR and EPR spectroscopies, and computations revealed a Ni(II)-iminyl radical formulation, similar to its dipyrrinato congener. Complex 4 exhibits enantioselective intramolecular C–H bond amination to afford N -heterocyclic products from 4-aryl-2-methyl-2-azidopentanes. Catalytic C–H amination occurs under mild conditions (5 mol % catalyst, 60 °C) and provides pyrrolidine products in decent yield (29%–87%) with moderate ee (up to 73%). Substrates with a 3,5-dialkyl substitution on the 4-aryl position maximized the observed enantioselectivity. Kinetic studies to probe the reaction mechanism were conducted using 1 H and 19 F NMR spectroscopies. A small, intermolecular kinetic isotope effect (1.35 ± 0.03) suggests an H-atom abstraction step with an asymmetric transition state while the reaction rate is measured to be first order in catalyst and zeroth order in substrate concentrations. Enantiospecific deuterium labeling studies show that the enantioselectivity is dictated by both the H-atom abstraction and radical recombination steps due to the comparable rate between radical rotation and C–N bond formation. Furthermore, the competing elements of the two-step reaction where H-removal from the pro -R configuration is preferred while the preferential radical capture occurs with the Si face of the carboradical likely lead to the diminished ee observed, as corroborated by theoretical calculations. Based on these enantio-determining steps, catalytic enantioselective synthesis of 2,5-bis-tertiary pyrrolidines is demonstrated with good yield (50–78%) and moderate ee (up to 79%).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".