Skip to content
Publicly Available Published by De Gruyter March 12, 2019

Evaluation of benzthiazolidine-based formamidinium salts for the synthesis of penem-type β-lactams by uncatalysed carbonylation of acyclic diaminocarbenes

  • Markus Jonek , Hannes Buhl , Michael Leibold , Clemens Bruhn and Ulrich Siemeling EMAIL logo

Abstract

The reaction of [iPr2N=CHCl]Cl with 2-phenylbenzthiazolidine (Ph-BtzH) and subsequent anion metathesis afforded the formamidinium salt [(Ph-Btz)CH(NiPr2)][PF6] ([1aH][PF6]). The reaction of [1aH][PF6] with (Me3Si)2NNa in the presence of grey selenium furnished the selenourea derivative 1aSe as trapping product of the acyclic diaminocarbene 1a. In the absence of selenium, a 2H-1,4-benzothiazine derivative (2) was obtained, which is an isomer of 1a, whose formation is plausibly initiated by deprotonation of [1aH]+ not at the cationic N2CH unit, but at the neighbouring PhCH position. CO was ineffective as trapping reagent for 1a. [1aH][PF6], 1aSe and 2 have been structurally characterised by X-ray diffraction.

1 Introduction

Acyclic diaminocarbenes (ADACs) are divalent carbon compounds of the type (R2N)2C [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], which are conveniently accessible starting from readily available secondary amines R2NH. ADACs exhibit a much higher electrophilicity and nucleophilicity than N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs) and are superior even to cyclic (alkyl)(amino)carbenes (CAACs) [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] in this respect [15]. CAACs are suitable for the activation of fundamentally important small molecules like ammonia and carbon monoxide at room temperature or below [16], [17]. We recently found that ADACs, too, react with CO under very mild conditions [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], which is perfectly plausible in view of the similar ambiphilicities of CAACs and ADACs [15], [23]. The primary carbonylation product of an ADAC is the corresponding diaminoketene (R2N)2C=C=O, which is a transient species too unstable for isolation [24], [25], [26]. In sterically encumbered cases a retro-Wolff rearrangement of the diaminoketene takes place. The resulting transient (amido)(amino)carbene R2N–C–C(O)NR2 subsequently undergoes an intramolecular C–H insertion involving a substituent of its C(O)NR2 moiety. If the R group contains an α-CH group, this process affords a β-lactam derivative [18], [19], [20], [22]. We have shown that monocyclic [18], [22], bicyclic [20] and spirocyclic β-lactams [19] with useful antibiotic properties are accessible by the carbonylation of sterically encumbered ADACs, which is the first metal-free method for the synthesis of β-lactams using CO as a building block. It complements the metal-catalysed one recently developed by Gaunt [27], [28], [29], [30], which also starts from secondary amines, but only allows the synthesis of mono- and disubstituted β-lactams, while our method provides facile access to trisubstituted derivatives.

The penicillins (penams) constitute a particularly important family of β-lactam antibiotics, whose structural core is a five-membered thiazolidine ring fused to the four-membered β-lactam ring. Due to increasing bacterial resistance to traditional β-lactam antibiotics, “non-classical” ones with tri- or polycyclic structures such as, for example the tricyclic trinems, have become the object of intense studies [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. This has motivated us to investigate the suitability of benzthiazolidine-based formamidinium salts for the synthesis of the hitherto extremely scarce benzo-fused tricyclic penems [39], [40] by uncatalysed ADAC carbonylation (Scheme 1). Our hope that the process selectively leads to tricyclic β-lactam derivatives was based on our previous observation of such a selectivity in the case of diisopropylamino-cis-2,6-dimethylpiperidinocarbene (iPr2N)(PipMe2)C, where only the cyclic PipMe2 group undergoes the rearrangement and concomitant insertion [20].

Scheme 1: Intended synthesis of penem-type benzo-fused tricyclic β-lactam derivatives. The formation of monocyclic β-lactam derivatives shown in grey was assumed to be less favoured.
Scheme 1:

Intended synthesis of penem-type benzo-fused tricyclic β-lactam derivatives. The formation of monocyclic β-lactam derivatives shown in grey was assumed to be less favoured.

2 Results and discussion

Our recent systematic study addressing the synthesis of precursors for sterically encumbered ADACs has shown that formamidinium salts of the type [(iPr2N)CH(NRR’)][PF6] are easily accessible by the reaction of the Vilsmeyer complex [iPr2N=CHCl]Cl (formed by activation of the commercially available formamide iPr2N–CHO with COCl2 or POCl3) with the corresponding secondary amine RR’NH and subsequent anion exchange using an aqueous solution of ammonium hexafluorophospate [41]. We selected the readily available 2-phenylbenzthiazolidine (Ph-BtzH) as the secondary amine for our present purposes and obtained the target formamidinium salt [(Ph-Btz)CH(NiPr2)][PF6] ([1aH][PF6]) in 53% isolated yield (Scheme 2, top).

Scheme 2: Synthesis of [1aH][PF6] (top) and of the selenourea derivative 1aSe by trapping of the transient ACAD 1a generated in situ by deprotonation of the formamidinium unit of [1aH]+ (bottom).
Scheme 2:

Synthesis of [1aH][PF6] (top) and of the selenourea derivative 1aSe by trapping of the transient ACAD 1a generated in situ by deprotonation of the formamidinium unit of [1aH]+ (bottom).

1H and 13C NMR spectroscopic data are in accord with the assumed structure of the cation, which was further corroborated by a single-crystal X-ray diffraction study (see below). Due to the presence of a chiral centre in close proximity, namely the Ph-substituted carbon atom of the five-membered heterocycle, the two isopropyl groups give rise to four CH3 signals and two CH signals. The 1H and 13C NMR signals due to the cationic N2CH unit are located at δ=8.65 and 154.2 ppm, respectively, in acetone-d6, which compares well with data obtained for closely related compounds such as, for example [(Ph2N)CH(NiPr2)][PF6], where the corresponding signals were observed at δ=8.50 and 153.7 ppm in the same solvent. The nucleophilicity of the target ADAC (Ph-Btz)(NiPr2)C (1a) can be judged from the 1JCH value determined for the N2CH unit of its formamidinium cation. Ganter and Kunz have pointed out that such 1JCH coupling constants correlate inversely with the σ-donor strength, and hence the nucleophilicity, of the corresponding carbenes, since the σ-donor strength decreases with increasing s character of the σ orbital at the divalent carbon atom, and large 1JCH coupling constants reflect high s character of the carbon valence orbital involved in the C–H bond [42], [43]. 1JCH coupling constants determined for the protonated standard NHCs IMes and SIMes are 225 and 206 Hz, respectively [42], while the values determined for acyclic formamidinium cations are significantly lower (down to 183 Hz), indicating the comparatively high nucleophilicity of ADACs [19]. The value determined for [1aH][PF6] is 192 Hz, which is identical to that of the closely related [(Ph2N)CH(NiPr2)][PF6] as well as to that of [(Me2N)2CH]Cl, which is the precursor of the simplest persistent ADAC [44]. The electrophilicity of diaminocarbenes can be probed by a 77Se NMR-spectroscopic investigation of the corresponding easily available selenourea derivatives. This well-established method [45] was introduced by Ganter et al. [46] and recently applied by us for a broad range of ADAC-derived selenoureas [41]. We found that the chemical shifts of the 77Se NMR signals of these compounds in CDCl3 lie in the range from 381 to 758 ppm. The signal of (iPr2N)2CSe, which is the selenourea derivative of the iconic “Alder carbene”, is located in the middle of this range. In the case of selenoureas derived from standard five-membered ring NHCs the chemical shifts lie between approximately −20 and 200 ppm [42], [46], [47], [48], in line with the comparatively low electrophilicity of these widely used carbenes. The selenourea derivative 1aSe was obtained in 75% isolated yield by treating [1aH][PF6] with the sodium amide (Me3Si)2NNa in THF solution in the presence of grey selenium (Scheme 2, bottom). The 77Se NMR signal of the product has a chemical shift (δ=595 ppm) in between those of (iPr2N)2CSe (δ=563 ppm) and (Ph2N)(NiPr2)CSe (δ=660 ppm).

Taken together, the NMR spectroscopic data just discussed indicate that 1a exhibits an ambiphilic profile typical of ADACs which readily react with CO under mild conditions. Consequently, [1aH][PF6] was treated with (Me3Si)2NNa in THF solution under an atmospheric pressure of CO. However, the product (2), which was isolated after standard work-up, did not contain incorporated CO but was an isomer of ADAC 1a generated from 1aH+ by deprotonation. 2 was obtained in essentially identical yield (54%) when the deprotonation was performed under N2 atmosphere. Its structure was unequivocally established by single-crystal X-ray diffraction (see below). Scheme 3 shows a plausible mechanism for the formation of the 2H-1,4-benzothiazine derivative 2. It is of note that the synthesis of 2H-1,4-thiazine derivatives is attracting increased attention due to the important biological functions of the products [49], [50], [51].

Scheme 3: Plausible mechanism for the formation of 2.
Scheme 3:

Plausible mechanism for the formation of 2.

The sequence involves initial deprotonation not at the cationic N2CH unit, but at the neighbouring PhCH position of the heterocycle, which is plausible in view of the fact that the deprotonation of (benz-)thiazolidines at their 2-position has been described before for derivatives bearing electron-withdrawing OC(O)tBu (Boc) or CH=NtBu N-substituents [52], [53], [54]. In order to suppress the unwanted deprotonation at the 2-position of the heterocycle, iPr-BtzH and the spirocyclic (CH2)5-BtzH were utilised for the preparation of the corresponding formamidinium hexafluorophosphates [1bH][PF6] and [1cH][PF6] (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Compounds [1bH][PF6] and [1cH][PF6].
Fig. 1:

Compounds [1bH][PF6] and [1cH][PF6].

In the former case we envisaged that the acidity of the iPrCH unit will be significantly lower than that of the PhCH unit present in [1aH][PF6]. [1cH][PF6] contains no such acidic hydrogen atom, because, being the spiro-atom, the carbon atom in the 2-position of the heterocycle is quaternary. The structures of both compounds have been determined by single-crystal X-ray diffraction (see below). Disappointingly, however, the deprotonation of [1bH][PF6] or [1cH][PF6] in the presence of elemental selenium as carbene trapping reagent did not furnish the corresponding selenourea derivative, but afforded only intractable material, whose very complex NMR spectra pointed to unspecific decomposition of the respective ADACs generated in the deprotonation step. Essentially identical results were obtained when the deprotonation was performed under CO atmosphere. The reactions were monitored by in situ FTIR spectroscopy, which gave no indication for the formation of carbonyl compounds.

We finally come to the solid-state structures of [1aH][PF6] (Fig. 2), 1aSe (Fig. 3) and 2 (Fig. 4).

Fig. 2: Molecular structure of [1aH][PF6] in the crystal (ball-and-stick model). Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): C1–N1 1.331(2), C1–N2 1.306(2), C2–C9 1.519(3), C2–N1 1.475(2), C2–S1 1.8424(19), C3–S1 1.759(2), C4–N1 1.433(2); N1–C1–N2 129.6(2), C1–N1–C2 128.53(16), C1–N1–C4 120.30(16), C2–N1–C4 110.50(14), C2–S1–C3 89.47(9).
Fig. 2:

Molecular structure of [1aH][PF6] in the crystal (ball-and-stick model). Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): C1–N1 1.331(2), C1–N2 1.306(2), C2–C9 1.519(3), C2–N1 1.475(2), C2–S1 1.8424(19), C3–S1 1.759(2), C4–N1 1.433(2); N1–C1–N2 129.6(2), C1–N1–C2 128.53(16), C1–N1–C4 120.30(16), C2–N1–C4 110.50(14), C2–S1–C3 89.47(9).

Fig. 3: Molecular structure of 1aSe in the crystal (ball-and-stick model). Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): C1–N1 1.432(3), C1–N2 1.332(3), C1–Se1 1.829(2), C2–S1 1.753(2), C3–N1 1.411(3), C8–C9 1.505(3), C8–N1 1.484(2), C8–S1 1.835(2); N1–C1–N2 114.75(17), N1–C1–Se1 118.15(14), N2–C1–Se1 127.05(15), C1–N1–C3 117.49(16), C1–N1–C8 115.73(16), C3–N1–C8 111.10(16), C2–S1–C8 91.07(9).
Fig. 3:

Molecular structure of 1aSe in the crystal (ball-and-stick model). Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): C1–N1 1.432(3), C1–N2 1.332(3), C1–Se1 1.829(2), C2–S1 1.753(2), C3–N1 1.411(3), C8–C9 1.505(3), C8–N1 1.484(2), C8–S1 1.835(2); N1–C1–N2 114.75(17), N1–C1–Se1 118.15(14), N2–C1–Se1 127.05(15), C1–N1–C3 117.49(16), C1–N1–C8 115.73(16), C3–N1–C8 111.10(16), C2–S1–C8 91.07(9).

Fig. 4: Molecular structure of 2 in the crystal (ball-and-stick model). Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): C1–C2 1.528(4), C1–N2 1.420(3), C1–S1 1.874(3), C2–C9 1.488(4), C2–N1 1.275(4), C3–N1 1.428(4), C4–S1 1.748(3); C2–C1–S1 107.74(18), N2–C1–C2 111.0(2), N2–C1–S1 120.01(19), C2–N1–C3 121.7(3), C1–S1–C4 100.27(14). Compound 2 crystallises in the space group P21/c as a racemic compound. Only one enantiomer is shown.
Fig. 4:

Molecular structure of 2 in the crystal (ball-and-stick model). Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): C1–C2 1.528(4), C1–N2 1.420(3), C1–S1 1.874(3), C2–C9 1.488(4), C2–N1 1.275(4), C3–N1 1.428(4), C4–S1 1.748(3); C2–C1–S1 107.74(18), N2–C1–C2 111.0(2), N2–C1–S1 120.01(19), C2–N1–C3 121.7(3), C1–S1–C4 100.27(14). Compound 2 crystallises in the space group P21/c as a racemic compound. Only one enantiomer is shown.

The formamidinium unit of [1aH][PF6] exhibits structural features typical for acyclic formamidinium salts [41]. The bond lengths in the N2C unit [1.306(2) and 1.331(2) Å] and the N–C–N angle of 129.6(2)° are very similar to the values reported for the closely related [(Ph2N)CH(NiPr2)][PF6] [1.305(3) and 1.345(3) Å, 131.5(2)°]. The dihedral angle between the N2C plane of [1aH][PF6] and the NC2 plane of the NiPr2 group is 9.7°, and that involving the heterocyclic amino group is 17.1°. These fairly small dihedral angles can be ascribed to π delocalisation in the N2C unit, in line with trigonal-planar N atoms (sum of angles 359.3 and 360°) and C–N bond lengths in between the values typical of C(sp2)–N(sp2) single (1.41 Å) and double bonds (1.28 Å) [55]. In contrast, only the N atom of the iPr2N unit of the selenourea derivative 1aSe is trigonal-planar (sum of angles 359.9°). The N atom of the heterocyclic amino group is significantly pyramidalised (sum of angles 344.3°), indicating that its lone pair is not involved in π delocalisation, which is supported by the large dihedral angle of 71.7° between the NC2 plane of this amino group and of the N2C unit and is also in line with the fact that the corresponding N–CSe bond length of 1.432(3) Å is typical for a C(sp2)–N(sp3) single bond. In contrast, the length of the corresponding bond involving the N atom of the iPr2N unit is 1.332(3) Å, similar to the value determined for [1aH][PF6]. The dihedral angle between the NC2 plane of the iPr2N and of the N2C unit is only 2.6°. The C–Se bond length of 1.829(2) Å in 1aSe is unexceptional and lies in the close range between ca. 1.80 and 1.85 Å found for closely related compounds [41]. Such distances are in between the values typical of carbon−selenium single and double bonds, which has been rationalised in terms of a significant contribution of zwitterionic structures that feature single N2C+−Se dative bonds [56], [57], [58]. Taken together, these structural data strongly suggest that the dominant resonance structure of 1aSe is iPr2N+=C(Se)–(Ph-Btz).

The six-membered heterocycle of 2 adopts a half-chair type conformation, as is commonly observed for 2H-1,4-benzothiazine derivatives [49], [59], [60], [61]. The most notable structural features of 2 are the two rather different C–S bond lengths of 1.748(3) and 1.874(3) Å. Considering the fact that the respective single bond covalent radii of C(sp3), C(sp2), and S are 0.76, 073, and 1.05 Å [62], respectively, it is evident that the difference between the two C–S bond lengths of ca. 0.12 Å is due more to an elongated C(sp3)–S than to a shortened C(sp2)–S bond, owing to a negative hyperconjugation of the type nN→σ*S−C involving the NiPr2 group. This stereoelectronic effect can also explain the fact that the C–NiPr2 bond of 2 (1.42 Å) is significantly shorter than C(sp3)–N(sp3) bonds in organic amines (1.46–1.48 Å) [63]. Substantially elongated carbon sigma bonds accompanied by shortened C–N bonds due to the negative hyperconjugative effect of neighbouring amino groups are not unprecedented [64]. Our hypothesis is more specifically supported by the fact that a structurally related amino-substituted benzothiopyran also exhibits an elongated C(sp3)–S bond (ca. 1.91 Å) [65], whereas no such elongation is found in 3-(4-methoxyphenyl)-2-(2-naphthylmethyl)-2H-3,4-benzothiazine, which contains an alkyl instead of the amino group and has a C(sp3)–S bond length of ca. 1.81 Å [59]. We have performed DFT calculations at the B97D/Def2-TZVP level to shed more light on the elongated C–S bond in 2. The natural bond orbital (NBO) analysis of the optimised gas phase structure gives a Wiberg Bond Index (WBI) of 0.88 for this C–S bond. Furthermore, the NBO analysis has shown that the lone pair of the nitrogen atom of the NiPr2 group is involved in the C–NiPr2 bond, since only 1.74 electrons are localised on the nitrogen atom and the WBI of this bond is slightly enhanced (1.06). These computational results are fully consistent with a negative hyperconjugation of the type nN→σ*S−C involving the NiPr2 group as described above.

3 Experimental section

All reactions involving air-sensitive compounds were performed in an inert atmosphere (argon or dinitrogen) by using standard Schlenk techniques or a conventional glovebox. Starting materials were procured from standard commercial sources and used as received. 2-Phenylbenzthiazolidine (Ph-BtzH) [66], its homologues iPr-BztH and (CH2)5-BtzH [67], and the Vilsmeyer complex [iPr2N=CHCl]Cl [68] were synthesised by using adapted versions of the published procedures. NMR spectra were recorded at ambient temperature with Varian NMRS-500 and MR-400 spectrometers operating at 500 and 400 MHZ, respectively, for 1H. 77Se NMR spectra were recorded with a Varian NMRS-500 spectrometer. Neat dimethylselenide was used as external standard (δ=4 ppm) [69]. High-resolution (HR) ESI mass spectra were obtained with a micrOTOF time-of-flight mass spectrometer (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) using an Apollo™ “ion funnel” ESI source. Mass calibration was performed immediately prior to the measurement with ESI Tune Mix Standard (Agilent, Waldbronn, Germany). IR spectra were obtained with a Bruker ALPHA FT-IR spectrometer (ATR mode). Elemental analyses were carried out with a HEKAtech Euro EA-CHNS elemental analyser at the Institute of Chemistry, University of Kassel, Germany.

3.1 Synthesis of [1aH][PF6]

Dichloromethane (5 mL) and triethylamine (121 mg, 1.20 mmol) were added to Ph-BtzH (256 mg, 1.20 mmol). The mixture was stirred for 10 min and the resulting clear solution added dropwise to a stirred solution of [iPr2N=CHCl]Cl (221 mg, 1.20 mmol) in dichloromethane (10 mL) cooled to 0°C with an ice bath. The ice bath was removed and the mixture stirred at ambient temperature for 2 h. Volatile components were removed under reduced pressure. Acetone (10 mL) was added to the residue and the suspension filtered through a Celite pad. The solvent was removed from the filtrate under reduced pressure and the residue dissolved in ethanol (5 mL). The solution was added dropwise to an ice-cold solution of ammonium hexafluorophospate (600 mg, 3.68 mmol) in water (10 mL). The precipitate was filtered off, washed with ice-cold water (2×20 mL) and diethyl ether (2×20 mL) and dried under reduced pressure. Yield 301 mg (53%). – 1H NMR (acetone-d6): δ=8.65 (s, 1 H, NCHN), 7.71 (m, 1 H, Ar-H), 7.53 (m, 2 H, Ar-H), 7.48–7.32 (m, 6 H, Ar-H), 7.27 (s, 1 H, NCHS), 4.52 (sept, 3JHH=6.5 Hz, 1 H, CHMe2), 4.37 (sept, 3JHH=6.8 Hz, 1 H, CHMe2), 1.70 (d, 3JHH=6.8 Hz, 3 H, CHMe2), 1.58 (d, 3JHH=6.6 Hz, 3 H, CHMe2), 1.57 (d, 3JHH=6.8 Hz, 3 H, CHMe2), 1.12 (d, 3JHH=6.5 Hz, 3 H, CHMe2). – 13C{1H} NMR (acetone-d6): δ=154.2 (NCHN), 140.2, 140.1, 130.4, 129.8, 129.6, 127.4, 125.7, 124.3, 117.9 (9×Ar-C), 71.0 (s, NCHS), 55.6, 52.7 (2×CHMe2), 25.0, 22.6, 20.3, 19.9 (4×Me). – MS ((+)-ESI): m/z (%)=470.1 (100) [M–PF6]+.

3.2 Synthesis of [1bH][PF6]

The synthesis of this compound was performed in strict analogy to that described for [1aH][PF6] using iPr-BtzH (305 mg, 1.70 mmol), triethylamine (172 mg, 1.20 mmol), [iPr2N=CHCl]Cl (313 mg, 1.70 mmol) and ammonium hexafluorophosphate (555 mg, 3.40 mmol). Yield 320 mg (43%). – 1H NMR (acetone-d6): δ=8.40 (s, 1 H, NCHN), 7.54, 7.49, 7.35, 7.28 (4 m, 4×1 H, Ar-H), 6.14 (d, 3JHH=4.1 Hz, 1 H, NCHS), 4.82 (sept, 3JHH=6.6 Hz, 1 H, NCHMe2), 4.45 (sept, 3JHH=6.8 Hz, 1 H, NCHMe2), 2.55 (m, 1 H, CCHMe2), 1.69, 1.67 (2 d, 3JHH=6.8 Hz, 2×3 H, NCHMe2), 1.60 (d, 3JHH=6.6 Hz, 3 H, NCHMe2), 1.57 (d, 3JHH=6.7 Hz, 3 H, NCHMe2), 1.07 (d, 3JHH=6.7 Hz, 3 H, CCHMe2), 0.83 (d, 3JHH=6.4 Hz, 3 H, CCHMe2). – 13C{1H} NMR (acetone-d6): δ=152.9 (NCHN), 140.8, 131.6, 129.3, 127.0, 123.8 117.3 (6×Ar-C), 75.9 (NCHS), 55.0, 52.6 (2×NCHMe2), 35.8 (CCHMe2), 24.6, 22.9, 20.4, 19.9, 18.5, 15.6 (6×Me). – MS ((+)-ESI): m/z=291.2 [M–PF6]+. – C17H27N2F6PS (436.4): calcd. C 46.78, H 6.24, N 6.24, S 7.35; found C 46.76, H 6.24, N 6.17, S 7.23.

3.3 Synthesis of [1cH][PF6]

The synthesis of this compound was performed in strict analogy to that described for [1aH][PF6] using (CH2)5-BtzH (801 mg, 3.90 mmol), triethylamine (395 mg, 3.90 mmol), [iPr2N=CHCl]Cl (718 mg, 3.90 mmol) and ammonium hexafluorophosphate (1.30 g, 8.0 mmol). Yield 847 mg (47%). – 1H NMR (acetone-d6): δ=8.59 (s, 1 H, NCHN), 7.53 (m, 1 H, Ar-H), 7.35 (m, 3 H, Ar-H), 4.45 (sept, 3JHH=6.8 Hz, 1 H, CHMe2), 4.34 (sept, 3JHH=6.6 Hz, 1 H, CHMe2), 2.39 (m, 4 H, CH2), 1.93 (m, 2 H, CH2), 1.74 (m, 1 H, CH2), 1.67 (d, 3JHH=6.8 Hz, 6 H, CHMe2), 1.61 (m, 2 H, CH2), 1.47 (d, 3JHH=6.6 Hz, 6 H, CHMe2), 1.35 (m, 1 H, CH2). – 13C{1H} NMR (acetone-d6): δ=151.6 (NCHN), 137.3, 131.5, 129.1, 126.5, 125.5, 119.5 (6×C-Ar), 90.0 (NCS), 55.9, 52.5 (2×CHMe2), 37.3, 25.3, 24.7 (3×CH2), 23.7, 19.2 (2×Me). – MS ((+)-ESI): m/z=317.2 [M–PF6]+. – C19H29N2F6PS (462.5): calcd. C 49.34, H 6.32, N 6.06, S 6.93; found C 49.30, H 6.22, N 6.04, S 6.73.

3.4 Synthesis of 1aSe

A solution of (Me3Si)2NNa (128 mg, 0.70 mmol) in THF (5 mL) was added dropwise to a stirred suspension of grey selenium powder (79 mg, 1.00 mmol) and [1aH][PF6] (306 mg, 0.65 mmol) in THF (15 mL) cooled to −80°C. The cooling bath was removed after 20 min and stirring continued for 4 h. Volatile components were removed under reduced pressure. Hexane (20 mL) was added to the residue. Insoluble material was removed by filtration through a Celite pad. The solvent was removed from the filtrate under reduced pressure. Purification of the residue by flash chromatography (silica gel, diethyl ether) afforded the product as a yellow oil, which slowly solidified upon standing. Yield 196 mg (75%). – 1H NMR (CDCl3): δ=7.79 (m, 2 H, Ar-H), 7.34 (m, 3 H, Ar-H), 7.23 (s, 1 H, NCHS), 7.11 (m, 1 H, Ar-H), 6.99, 6.85, 6.35 (3 m, 3×1 H, Ar-H), 5.22 (sept, 3JHH=6.7 Hz, 1 H, CHMe2), 4.12 (br. m, 1 H, CHMe2), 1.79 (d, 3JHH=6.4 Hz, 3 H, CHMe2), 1.58 (d, 3JHH=7.0 Hz, 3 H, NCHMe2), 1.17 (d, 3JHH=6.8 Hz, 3 H, CHMe2), 0.60 (d, 3JHH=6.7 Hz, 3 H, CHMe2). – 13C{1H} NMR (CDCl3): δ=144.1 (Ar-C), 136.8 (CSe), 130.0, 129.2, 128.2, 127.6, 125.6, 121.8, 121.7, 110.6 (8×Ar-C), 76.9 (NCS), 55.2 (CHMe2), 52.2 (br., CHMe2), 20.3, 20.0, 19.5, 19.2 (4×Me). – 77Se NMR (CDCl3): δ=595.

3.5 Synthesis of 2

A solution of (Me3Si)2NNa (128 mg, 0.70 mmol) in THF (5 mL) was added dropwise to a stirred suspension of [1aH][PF6] (306 mg, 0.65 mmol) in THF (15 mL) cooled to −80°C. The cooling bath was removed after 20 min and stirring continued for 4 h. Volatile components were removed under reduced pressure. Hexane (20 mL) was added to the residue. Insoluble material was removed by filtration through a Celite pad. The solvent was evaporated from the filtrate under reduced pressure. The residue was dissolved in ethanol (5 mL). Layering of the solution with water afforded the product as yellow crystals, which were filtered off and dried under reduced pressure. Yield 114 mg (54%). – 1H NMR (CDCl3): δ=7.95 (m, 2 H, Ar-H), 7.54 (m, 1 H, Ar-H), 7.42 (m, 3 H, Ar-H), 7.33, (m, 1 H, Ar-H), 7.20 (m, 2 H, Ar-H), 5.58 (s, 1 H, NCHS), 2.83 (sept, 3JHH=6.6 Hz,2 H, CHMe2), 1.04 (d, 3JHH=6.6 Hz, 6 H, CHMe2), 0.89 (d, 3JHH=6.7 Hz, 6 H, CHMe2). – 13C{1H} NMR (CDCl3): δ=154.4 (N=C), 141.2, 140.3, 129.7, 129.2, 128.4, 128.1, 128.0, 127.4, 125.6, 124.2 (10×Ar-C), 54.6 (NCS), 46.9 (CHMe2), 23.2, 21.8 (2×Me). – MS ((+)-ESI): m/z=325.2 [M+H]+. – C20H24N2S (324.5): calcd. C 74.03, H 7.46, N 8.63, S 9.88; found C 74.07, H 7.50, N 8.56, S 9.86.

3.6 Crystal structure determinations

For each data collection a single crystal was fixed on a micro-mount and all geometric and intensity data was taken from this sample by ω scans with steps of 1°. Data collections were carried out using Mo radiation (λ=0.71073 Å); monochromatisation was done with graded multilayer mirrors on a Stoe IPDS2 diffractometer equipped with a 2-circle goniometer and an area detector or on a STOE StadiVari diffractometer equipped with a 4-circle goniometer and a DECTRIS Pilatus 200K detector. The data sets were corrected for absorption (by integration), Lorentz and polarisation effects. The structures were solved by Direct Methods (Sir 2008) [70] and refined using alternating cycles of least-squares refinements against F2 (Shelxl2014/7) [71]. H atoms were included to the models in calculated positions with the 1.2 fold isotropic displacement parameter of their bonding partner. Experimental details for each diffraction experiment are given in Table 1.

Table 1:

Crystallographic data for the structurally characterised compounds prepared in this study.

[1aH][PF6]1aSe2
Crystal shape and size, mm3plate, 0.20×0.14×0.04block, 0.31×0.21×0.13block, 0.23×0.11×0.10
Chemical formulaC20H25F6N2PSC20H24N2SSeC20H24N2S
Formula Mass470.45403.43324.47
T, K100(2)100(2)100(2)
Crystal systemMonoclinicMonoclinicMonoclinic
Space groupP21/c (No. 14)P21/n (No. 14)P21/c (No. 14)
a, Å9.5446(5)7.5077(3)7.7392(2)
b, Å15.5362(6)17.8280(8)24.7974(9)
c, Å14.9737(8)13.9541(7)9.6157(3)
β, deg104.911(498.876(4)103.557(2)
Unit cell volume, Å32145.63(18)1845.35(15)1793.95(10)
Z444
Dcalcd, g cm−31.461.451.20
θ range, deg1.923–25.4991.867–25.7201.642–25.998
hkl range−11≤h≤11−9≤h≤9−9≤h≤7
−18≤k≤18−21≤k≤21−30≤k≤30
−18≤l≤18−16≤l≤16−11≤l≤11
μ, mm−10.32.20.2
Absorption correctionIntegrationIntegrationIntegration
Tmin/Tmax0.945/0.9880.580/0.7740.973/0.984
F(000), e976832696
No. of refl. measured109511970016337
Unique refl./Rint3983/0.02853477/0.04943537/0.0221
Parameters/restraints275/0221/0212/0
Final R1/wR2 [I>2 σ(I)]0.0372/0.08810.0374/0.09930.0685/0.1753
Final R1/wR2 (all data)0.0472/0.09320.0405/0.10110.0853/0.1895
Weighting scheme w1/[σ2(Fo2)+(0.0451P)2+ 1.5780P]a1/[σ2(Fo2)+(0.0687P)2+1.1883P]a1/[σ2(Fo2)+(0.0865P)2+ 3.1553P]a
Δρfin (max/min), e Å−30.50/−0.310.65/−0.891.40/−0.38
  1. aP=(Fo2+2Fc2)/3.

CCDC 1897048–1897050 contain the supplementary crystallographic data for this paper. These data can be obtained free of charge from The Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre viawww.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/data_request/cif.

4 Supporting information

Computational details are given as supplementary material.

Award Identifier / Grant number: SI 429/19-2

Funding statement: We are grateful to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for generous financial support of this work (SI 429/19-2). We thank Prof. Max C. Holthausen and his co-worker Dr. Martin Diefenbach (Institut für Anorganische und Analytische Chemie, Goethe Universität, Frankfurt am Main) for help with the DFT calculations.

References

[1] V. P. Boyarskiy, N. A. Bokach, K. V. Luzyanin, V. Yu. Kukushkin, Chem. Rev.2015, 115, 2698.10.1021/cr500380dSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] M. A. Kinzhalov, V. P. Boyarski, Russ. J. Gen. Chem.2015, 85, 2313.10.1134/S1070363215100175Search in Google Scholar

[3] L. M. Slaughter in N-Heterocyclic Carbenes (Ed.: S. P. Nolan), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2014, p. 499.10.1002/9783527671229.ch16Search in Google Scholar

[4] V. P. Boyarskiy, K. V. Luzyanin, V. Yu. Kukushkin in Advances in Organometallic Chemistry and Catalysis: The Silver/Gold Jubilee International Conference on Organometallic Chemistry Celebratory Book (Ed.: A. J. L. Pombeiro), Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2014, p. 145.Search in Google Scholar

[5] H. G. Raubenheimer, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.2012, 51, 5042.10.1002/anie.201200739Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[6] V. P. Boyarskiy, K. V. Luzyanin, V. Yu. Kukushkin, Coord. Chem. Rev.2012, 256, 2029.10.1016/j.ccr.2012.04.022Search in Google Scholar

[7] L. M. Slaughter, ACS Catal.2012, 2, 1802.10.1021/cs300300ySearch in Google Scholar

[8] M. Barbazanges, L. Fensterbank, ChemCatChem2012, 4, 1065.10.1002/cctc.201200224Search in Google Scholar

[9] J. Vignolle, X. Cattoën, D. Bourissou, Chem. Rev.2009, 109, 3333.10.1021/cr800549jSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[10] M. Melaimi, R. Jazzar, M. Soleilhavoup, G. Bertrand, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.2017, 56, 10046.10.1002/anie.201702148Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] U. S. D. Paul, U. Radius, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem.2017, 3362.10.1002/ejic.201700397Search in Google Scholar

[12] S. Roy, K. C. Mondal, H. W. Roesky, Acc. Chem. Res.2016, 49, 357.10.1021/acs.accounts.5b00381Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] M. Soleilhavoup, G. Bertrand, Acc. Chem. Res.2015, 48, 256.10.1021/ar5003494Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[14] D. Martin, M. Soleilhavoup, G. Bertrand, Chem. Sci.2011, 2, 389.10.1039/C0SC00388CSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[15] D. Martin, Y. Canac, V. Lavallo, G. Bertrand, J. Am. Chem. Soc.2014, 136, 5023.10.1021/ja412981xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[16] G. D. Frey, V. Lavallo, B. Donnadieu, W. W. Schoeller, G. Bertrand, Science2007, 316, 439.10.1126/science.1141474Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] V. Lavallo, Y. Canac, B. Donnadieu, W. W. Schoeller, G. Bertrand, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.2006, 45, 3488.10.1002/anie.200600987Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[18] L. Wallbaum, T. Schulz, C. Bruhn, U. Siemeling, Z. Naturforsch.2019, 74b, 221.10.1515/znb-2018-0255Search in Google Scholar

[19] L. Wallbaum, D. Weismann, D. Löber, C. Bruhn, P. Prochnow, J. E. Bandow, U. Siemeling, Chem. Eur. J.2019, 25, 1488.10.1002/chem.201805307Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] T. Schulz, C. Färber, M. Leibold, C. Bruhn, P. Prochnow, J. E. Bandow, T. Schneider, T. Porsch, M. C. Holthausen, U. Siemeling, Chem. Commun.2014, 50, 2341.10.1039/C3CC48538BSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] T. Schulz, C. Färber, M. Leibold, C. Bruhn, W. Baumann, D. Selent, T. Porsch, M. C. Holthausen, U. Siemeling, Chem. Commun.2013, 49, 6834.10.1039/c3cc42888eSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] U. Siemeling, C. Färber, C. Bruhn, M. Leibold, D. Selent, W. Baumann, M. von Hopffgarten, C. Goedecke, G. Frenking, Chem. Sci.2010, 1, 697.10.1039/c0sc00451kSearch in Google Scholar

[23] C. Goedecke, M. Leibold, U. Siemeling, G. Frenking, J. Am. Chem. Soc.2011, 133, 3557.10.1021/ja109812rSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] V. P. Gupta, A. Sharma, S. G. Agrawal, Bull. Korean Chem. Soc.2006, 27, 1297.10.5012/bkcs.2006.27.9.1297Search in Google Scholar

[25] M. A. McAllister, T. T. Tidwell, J. Org. Chem.1994, 59, 4506.10.1021/jo00095a028Search in Google Scholar

[26] L. Gong, M. A. McAllister, T. T. Tidwell, J. Am. Chem. Soc.1991, 113, 6021.10.1021/ja00016a014Search in Google Scholar

[27] K. F. Hogg, A. Trowbridge, A. Alvarez-Pérez, M. J. Gaunt, Chem. Sci.2017, 8, 8198.10.1039/C7SC03876CSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[28] J. R. Cabrera-Pardo, A. Trowbridge, M. Nappi, K. Ozaki, M. J. Gaunt, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.2017, 56, 11958.10.1002/anie.201706303Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[29] D. Willcox, B. G. N. Chappell, K. F. Hogg, J. Calleja, A. P. Smalley, M. J. Gaunt, Science2016, 354, 851.10.1126/science.aaf9621Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[30] A. McNally, B. Haffemayer, B. S. L. Collins, M. J. Gaunt, Nature2014, 510, 129.10.1038/nature13389Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[31] Y. Kumar, P. Singh, G. Bhargava, RSC Adv.2016, 6, 99220.10.1039/C6RA20973DSearch in Google Scholar

[32] C. Bebrone, P. Lassaux, L. Vercheval, J.-S. Sohier, A. Jehaes, E. Sauvage, M. Galleni, Drugs2010, 70, 651.10.2165/11318430-000000000-00000Search in Google Scholar

[33] B. Alcaide, P. Amendros, Top. Heterocycl. Chem.2010, 22, 1.10.1007/7081_2009_7Search in Google Scholar

[34] S. S. Bari, A. Bhalla, Top. Heterocycl. Chem.2010, 22, 49.10.1007/7081_2009_8Search in Google Scholar

[35] P. Almendros, B. Alcaide, Curr. Med. Chem.2004, 11, 1921.10.2174/0929867043364856Search in Google Scholar

[36] B. Alcaide, P. Amendros, Curr. Org. Chem.2002, 6, 245.10.2174/1385272024605050Search in Google Scholar

[37] M. Gómez-Gallego, M. J. Mancheño, M. A. Sierra, Tetrahedron2000, 56, 5743.10.1016/S0040-4020(00)00378-1Search in Google Scholar

[38] C. Ghiron, T. Rossi in Targets in Heterocyclic Systems, Vol. 1 (Eds.: O. A. Attanasi, D. Spinelli), Societá Chimica Italiana, Rome, 1997, p. 161.Search in Google Scholar

[39] G. Santer, K.-H. Ongania, K. Hofer, A. Gieren, Z. Naturforsch.1988, 43b, 758.10.1515/znb-1988-0620Search in Google Scholar

[40] A. L. J. Beckwith, D. R. Boate, J. Org. Chem.1988, 53, 4339.10.1021/jo00253a028Search in Google Scholar

[41] T. Schulz, D. Weismann, L. Wallbaum, R. Guthardt, C. Thie, M. Leibold, C. Bruhn, U. Siemeling, Chem. Eur. J.2015, 21, 14107.10.1002/chem.201502315Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[42] K. Verlinden, H. Buhl, W. Frank, C. Ganter, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem.2015, 2416.10.1002/ejic.201500174Search in Google Scholar

[43] D. M. Buck, D. Kunz, Organometallics2015, 34, 5335.10.1021/acs.organomet.5b00805Search in Google Scholar

[44] L. Wallbaum, Doctoral Thesis, University of Kassel, Kassel (Germany) 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[45] M. Bochmann, Organometallic and Catalysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015, p. 106.Search in Google Scholar

[46] A. Liske, K. Verlinden, H. Buhl, K. Schaper, C. Ganter, Organometallics2013, 32, 5269.10.1021/om400858ySearch in Google Scholar

[47] S. V. C. Vummaleti, D. J. Nelson, A. Poater, A. Gómez-Suárez, D. B. Coreds, A. M. Z. Slawin, S. P. Nolan, L. Cavallo, Chem. Sci.2015, 6, 1895.10.1039/C4SC03264KSearch in Google Scholar

[48] D. J. Nelson, A. Collado, S. Manzini, S. Meiries, A. M. Z. Slawin, D. B. Coredes, S. P. Nolan, Organometallics2014, 33, 2048.10.1021/om5001919Search in Google Scholar

[49] X. Huang, N. Rong, P. Li, G. Shen, Q. Li, N. Xin, C. Cui, J. Cui, B. Yang, D. Li, C. Zhao, J. Dou, B. Wang, Org. Lett.2018, 20, 3332.10.1021/acs.orglett.8b01238Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[50] Y.-m. Lin, G.-p. Lu, R.-k. Wang, W.-b. Li, Org. Lett.2016, 18, 6424.10.1021/acs.orglett.6b03324Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[51] A. Napolitano, L. Panzella, L. Leone, M. D’Ischia, Acc. Chem. Res.2013, 46, 519.10.1021/ar300219uSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[52] A. I. Meyers, P. D. Edwards, W. F. Rieker, T. R. Bailey, J. Am. Chem. Soc.1984, 106, 3270.10.1021/ja00323a035Search in Google Scholar

[53] L. Wang, S. Nakamura, T. Toru, Org. Biomol. Chem.2004, 2, 2168.10.1039/b408509dSearch in Google Scholar

[54] L. Wang, S. Nakamura, Y. Ito, T. Toru, Tetrahedron Asymmetry2004, 15, 3059.10.1016/j.tetasy.2004.08.010Search in Google Scholar

[55] J. Harada, M. Harakawa, K. Ogawa, Acta Crytallogr.2004, B60, 578.10.1107/S0108768104016532Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[56] Y. Rong, A. Al-Harbi, B. Kriegel, G. Parkin, Inorg. Chem.2013, 52, 7172.10.1021/ic400788gSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[57] J. H. Palmer, Polyhedron2013, 52, 658.10.1016/j.poly.2012.07.090Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[58] V. K. Landry, M. Minoura, K. Pang, D. Buccella, B. V. Kelly, G. Parkin, J. Am. Chem. Soc.2006, 128, 12490.10.1021/ja063168eSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[59] H. Loghmani-Khouzani, P. Tamjidi, I. Mohammadpoor-Baltork, M. Yaeghoobi, N. A. Rahman, A. R. Khosropour, M. Moghadam, S. Tangestaninejad, V. Mirkhani, M. H. Habibi, A. Kashima, T. Suzuki, J. Heterocycl. Chem.2014, 51, 138.10.1002/jhet.1827Search in Google Scholar

[60] A. De Meijere, I. D. Kuchuk, V. V. Sokolov, T. Labahn, K. Rauch, M. Es-Sayed, T. Krämer, Eur. J. Org. Chem.2003, 985.10.1002/ejoc.200390154Search in Google Scholar

[61] K. Uneyama, H. Ohkura, J. Hao, H. Amii, J. Org. Chem.2001, 66, 1026.10.1021/jo0010330Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[62] B. Cordero, V. Gómez, A. E. Platero-Prats, M. Revés, J. Echeverría, E. Cremades, F. Barragán, S. Alvarez, Dalton Trans.2008, 2832.10.1039/b801115jSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[63] E. V. Ansly, D. A. Dougherty, Modern Physical Organic Chemistry, University Science Books, Sausalito, CA, 2006, p. 22.Search in Google Scholar

[64] J. Li, R. Pang, Z. Li, G. Lai, X.-Q. Xiao, T. Müller, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.2019, 58, 1397.10.1002/anie.201812555Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[65] M. Hirano, K. Osakada, H. Nohira, A. Miyashita, J. Org. Chem.2002, 67, 533.10.1021/jo011011tSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[66] H. Chikashita, M. Miyazaki, K. Itoh, Synthesis1984, 308.10.1055/s-1984-30819Search in Google Scholar

[67] A. K. Chakraborti, S. Rudrawar, K. B. Jadhav, G. Kaur, S. V. Chankeshwara, Green Chem.2007, 9, 1335.10.1039/b710414fSearch in Google Scholar

[68] G. Wieland, G. Simchen, Liebigs Ann. Chem.1985, 2178.10.1002/jlac.198519851108Search in Google Scholar

[69] H. Duddeck, Prog. NMR Spectrosc.1995, 27, 1.10.1016/0079-6565(94)00005-FSearch in Google Scholar

[70] M. C. Burla, R. Caliandro, M. Camalli, B. Carrozzini, G. L. Cascarano, L. De Caro, C. Giacovazzo, G. Polidori, R. Spagna, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2007, 40, 609.10.1107/S0021889807010941Search in Google Scholar

[71] G. M. Sheldrick, Acta Crystallogr.2008, A64, 112.10.1107/S0108767307043930Search in Google Scholar PubMed


Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/znb-2019-0017).


Received: 2019-02-13
Accepted: 2019-02-23
Published Online: 2019-03-12
Published in Print: 2019-04-24

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 11.12.2023 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/znb-2019-0017/html
Scroll to top button