Sulfite-Catalyzed Nucleophilic Substitution Reactions with Thiamin and Analogous Pyrimidine Donors Proceed <i>via</i> an S<sub>N</sub>AE Mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When treated with SO32–, thiamin undergoes a substitution reaction to release a thiazole leaving group and the corresponding sulfonate. Although this reaction could proceed via a simple SN2-like mechanism, a multistep addition–elimination (SNAE) mechanism involving the addition of SO32– to C6′ of the 4-aminopyrimidine of thiamin has also been proposed. Although this reaction has potential utility in the synthesis of substituted pyrimidines and provides a direct analogue to reactions catalyzed by thiaminases, a detailed mechanistic picture of the SO32–-catalyzed cleavage of thiamin has remained elusive. Here, DFT calculations have been used to probe the relative energetics and the factors that shape the potential energy surfaces that define the possible mechanisms of substitution. These calculations provide clear support for the SNAE mechanism over an SN2-like process and illustrate that the unique ability of SO32– to activate thiamin toward nucleophilic displacement is due to the combined nucleophilicity and relatively poor leaving group ability of SO32–. Both of these factors favor the forward partitioning of the sulfite adduct toward the cleavage products whereas adducts formed with other nucleophiles overwhelmingly revert to reactants. Calculations performed with a range of substrates with various electrophilicities and nucleofugalities consistently suggest that the SNAE pathway is significantly lower in energy than the direct substitution, illustrating that this SO32–-catalyzed multistep process is likely to be broadly applicable both in solution and in catalysis by thiaminases.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".