Posts Tagged ‘computational chemist’

The Dieneone-phenol controversies.

Monday, April 30th, 2012

During the 1960s, a holy grail of synthetic chemists was to devise an efficient route to steroids. R. B. Woodward was one the chemists who undertook this challenge, starting from compounds known as dienones (e.g. 1) and their mysterious conversion to phenols (e.g. 2 or 3) under acidic conditions. This was also the golden era of mechanistic exploration, which coupled with an abundance of radioactive isotopes from the war effort had ignited the great dienone-phenol debates of that time (now largely forgotten). In a classic recording from the late 1970s, Woodward muses how chemistry had changed since he started in the early 1940s. In particular he notes how crystallography had revolutionised the reliability and speed of molecular structure determination. Here I speculate what he might have made of modern computational chemistry, and in particular whether it might cast new light on those mechanistic controversies of the past.

Charting the mechanistic pathway connecting 1 and 2 was first done by Capsi using 14C labels (* in the diagram above, on a steroid derivative),  when after claimed selective Birch reduction of the blue double bond in 2, alkene ozonolysis and decarboxylative loss of *, all the radioactivity ended up in the CO2. This showed that the mechanism involved path (a). For paths (b) or (c), the label would have ended up at * and hence not oxidatively lost as CO2. Futaki did the experiment in a different way, putting his 14C label in the position * where he found that only about half of the label was retained in this position (and then lost when he specifically degraded 2 by oxidatively removing that carbon). This now strongly implicated path (b), and also seemed to disprove not only path (a) but also mechanism (c), where a [1,5] shift should have retained the label at the original position (and caused all of it to be lost upon decarboxylation). It was these two apparently contradictory results that helped ignite the controversies.

All the routes (a)-(e) above involve pericyclic sigmatropic reactions, the understanding of which was about to be revolutionised by Woodward (with Hoffmann) in the mid 1960s. In fact, the mechanism here comprises a mixture of [1,2] cationic sigmatropic migrations and [1,5] neutral sigmatropic migrations. To balance one against the other, can computational chemistry come to the rescue? I first note that the mechanisms above are all shown as cations. Until recently, a computational chemist would simply set the charge on their model to +1 and proceed onwards and upwards. But now we can do a bit better. We can (arguably we always should) include the counterion, and so in my own exploration, I have included a perchlorate anion, and the whole study then becomes one of a neutral system (charge =0), a zwitterion. A B3LYP/6-311G(d,p) model with SCRF=water continuum solvent was employed. Let us see what emerges:

  1. Path (a) involves a [1,2] angular methyl (R=Me) migration, which turns out to have ΔG28.5 kcal/mol. The IRC for this migration is shown below. 

    The (Wheland) intermediate then loses a proton to give 2.

  2. Path (b) involves an alternative rate-limiting migration of the angular methyl, ΔG30.2 kcal/mol, followed by two lower energy [1,2] migrations of the ring ΔG27.8 and 25.3via a spiro-ring Wheland intermediate (relative energy +3.8 kcal/mol), and deprotonation to again give 2.

    Path b-1. Click for 3D

    Path b-2. Click for 3D

    Path b-3. Click for 3D

    Notice how the perchlorate counterion is relatively free to change its position relative to the substituents, and not all these positions have been explored here. This stochastic problem is an issue with counter ions (more accurately, this problem is almost always massaged away by simply ignoring this counterion. But if its ultimate positioning does matter, then one must argue that its inclusion is essential in order to build a good model). 

  3. The energy of path (a) is thus seen to be 1.7 kcal/mol lower than (b/c), which is sufficient to favour positioning of most of the 14C tracer on * rather than and which seems to favour the Capsi mechanism over the Futaki one, although clearly the balance between the two is a fine one. The  Capsi mechanism does seem to hinge on the observation that  Birch reduction of  1 reduces the blue bond entirely specifically, and the evidence for this does need to be reviewed (in an informatics sense, this evidence is buried in a string of logically connected semantic inferences, each of which may well be contained as a passing comment in a different article).
  4. Regarding the matter of whether path (b) or  path (c) is the better representation, this goes to the heart of whether the path is respectively stepwise or concerted. The barriers for escape out of the spiro-ring intermediate defining the steps in path  (b) are key. The IRC for a reaction path with a shallow intermediate  is shown below. If the depth of the well it finds itself in imparts sufficient lifetime for it to lose all  (dynamic) memory of where it came from, then the probability of the  * label remaining in its original position is only 50%, since the other (symmetrically equivalent but unlabeled) position may also migrate in the next step. This seems to be the case for path (b), where the intermediate is in quite a deep well (21.5 kcal/mol for escape), and this is consistent with Futaki’s experiment. If the intermediate however were to be in only in a shallow minimum (2-4 kcal/mol), the momentum it inherits from the previous transition state may carry it over to the second stage without scrambling the isotope. For systems such as these, we do encounter a serious limitation of simple transition state theory, and must start to adopt a molecular dynamics approach. This might also apply to the positioning of the counterion, although perhaps less so for the relatively heavy perchlorate. It may also be an interesting issue of electron dynamics. Path (c) formally involves six electrons, path (b) only two. In a previous post, I speculated whether the electronic pack size for proton transfer was 4,6 or 8 electrons. Perhaps one day it will be possible to either measure (attosecond spectroscopy) or compute the preferred dynamics.
The points made in the last section come to the fore in a result obtained by Hopff and Drieding (he of the models). They confirmed the formation of 2 from 1, and also reported that at 80°C in 70% perchloric acid, 2 was itself then converted in two hours to 3. The debate again turns to whether this is accomplished via path (d) involving 2-electron shifts or path (e) involving a 6-electron shift. No radio-labelling experiments have been reported on this system. 
 
Well, as suspected perhaps, the computational analysis of the dienone-phenol rearrangements has shown the system to be poised on a knife-edge (of chaos). Tiny changes might swing things one way or the other. Adding two further (steroid rings) to  1 might of itself change the balance between e.g. path (a) and  path (b). So too might a change of counterion, or indeed solvent. One needs to identify the evidence that selective reduction of 2 reduces just the blue bond. If computational chemistry has not (yet) provided a clear-cut resolution to the chemistry of this system, at least it can identify new experiments that might.

Postscript:  I posed the question above about  Capsi’s identification of the reduction product of 2. The two possible products would give different outcomes for whether the * label would be lost upon subsequent oxidation or not.

If the reaction is thermodynamically controlled, then the relative free energies of 3 and 4 would determine the outcome. A B3LYP/6-311G(d,p) calculation (in ethanol as solvent, which has a very similar dielectric to liquid ammonia) predicts 4 is about 0.3 kcal/mol lower than 3. This does not suggest that the reaction is going to be particularly regioselective, and of course Capsi’s interpretation depends on the product being entirely 4, with no 3 formed.

Capturing penta-coordinate carbon! (Part 1).

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

The bimolecular nucleophilic substitution reaction at saturated carbon is an icon of organic chemistry, and is better known by its mechanistic label, SN2. It is normally a slow reaction, with half lives often measured in hours. This implies a significant barrier to reaction (~15-20 kcal/mol) for the transition state, shown below (X is normally both a good nucleophile and a good nucleofuge/leaving group, such as halide, cyanide, etc.  Y can have a wide variety of forms).

The Sn2 transition state

The Sn2 transition state

This transition state is normally regarded as the only situation in which carbon can sustain penta-coordination (there are some exceptions), and this is often contrasted with the analogous situation for silicon, which demonstrates an abundance of stable penta- (and hexa-)coordinate (crystal) structures. Perhaps inevitably therefore, chemists have set themselves the goal of capturing a penta-coordinate carbon, not as a transition state with fleeting lifetime, but as a stable (and perchance crystalline) species.  The best strategy is to explore potential systems computationally, and the latest report of such an exploration has some suggestions for synthesis (Pierrefixe, S. C. A. H.; van Stralen, S. J. M.; van Strale, J. N. P.; Guerra, C. F.; Bickelhaupt, F. M., “Hypervalent Carbon Atom: “Freezing” the SN2 Transition State,” DOI: 10.1002/anie.200902125). Their suggestion corresponds to Y=CN and X=At (Astatine), a rather esoteric combination it has to be said.  In the manner of the blogosphere, Steve Bachrach has noted this report in his own blog, where a discussion has opened up on the origins of why carbon can be regarded as abnormal (at least compared to silicon), and more particularly whether such a species should be regarded as merely hypercoordinate, or as Bickelhaupt and co-workers suggest, hypervalent.

In fact, such reports are not new. As I note in the discussion of Steve’s blog, a crystalline structure of a hexa-coordinate carbon compound was reported in 2008 (DOI: 10.1021/ja710423d (below), and it is also tentatively described as possibly hexavalent near the end of the article! I shall return to this compound in the second part of this post.

Hexa-coordinate carbon

Hexa-coordinate carbon

The astatine system reported above is unusual, and it really only contains three carbon-carbon bonds surrounding the pentacoordinate carbon. The compound above contains only two such C-C “bonds”. It would be perhaps more interesting to ask if one could design a compound with five C-C bonds surrounding the putative pentacoordinate atom. Whilst mulling over Steve’s post, and pondering my contribution to that blog, a colleague in my department wandered into my office (my door is almost always open) and without saying a word, he wrote a structure on my blackboard (yes, I really do have such).  He then walked out (almost;  I believe he did mutter perhaps two words before leaving). He had sketched the key feature of an article by Ethan L. Fisher and Tristan H. Lambert entitled Leaving Group Potential of a Substituted Cyclopentadienyl Anion Toward Oxidative Addition (DOI: 10.1021/ol901598n). This triggered the following question in my mind: could the aromatic cyclopentadienyl anion act as the X group in the pentacoordinate carbon example above? The essential property of group X is that it must be big!  Well, cyclopentadienyl can be made big! It would also achieve the purpose of forming a penta-coordinate carbon with  five  C…C bonds.

So in it goes for a B3LYP/6-311+G(2df) calculation. Surely, the life of a computational chemist is an easy one; all one  has to do is wait a few hours (or, with a large basis set, days) for an answer. The result is shown below.

The SN2 reaction captured with cyclopentadienyl anion

The SN2 reaction captured with cyclopentadienyl anion

The key vibrational mode (which you can see animated if you click on the image above) has a wavenumber of 194 cm-1 (B3LYP/6-311+G(2df); other basis sets show similar values). It corresponds to the SN2 mode,  and is what we normally think of as the  transition or reaction normal mode for this reaction. But  in this case, it is not an imaginary mode, but a real mode!  The SN2 has been (virtually) captured for a penta-coordinate carbon with five C…C interactions. How does it compare with the astatine system noted in 10.1002/anie.200902125? Well, unfortunately, the umbrella-mode for that system  is only reported as a force constant without mass weighting, so it cannot be compared to the mass-weighted value we have here. The calculation is digitally archived (e.g. as 10042/to-2407 or 10042/to-2415) so you can analyze it for yourself!

An obvious question to ask is what the nature of the  axial bonds for X=cyclopentadienyl is. Is the central carbon hypercoordinate, or hypervalent, or both? But this blog is quite long enough already, and so this will all be discussed in part 2, to follow shortly.

Oh, one final comment. The issue of hypervalency and hypercoordination of carbon has previously been discussed largely in conventional scientific publications (for which DOIs are provided above). The forum moved to Salt Lake  City in the  USA, where some of the results were presented orally at the ACS spring conference in 2009.  Now that it  has been formally published, it has been taken up by Bachrach in his blog, where some of the discussion has continued. So where should I have presented the present result?  In the primary scientific literature? Or perhaps another ACS meeting? Well, here it is in another blog (I have been variously told I am either brave or very foolish for doing so!). And as I write this, of course it is not peer reviewed (but there is nothing to stop people from commenting on this of course, as has happened in Bachrach’s blog). Will it “count” here – in other words, does it (yet) have any scientific respectability? Should  blogs report new scientific results, or merely be reserved for commenting on such results which have been reported in the “proper scientific manner”? Will indeed this result appear in the future in the scientific literature under different authorship, but with no accreditation for this blog? If I do choose to “write it up properly” (assuming the journals now let me), can I cite this blog in the way one can cite the ACS conferences? I do not suppose many people know what the answers are to all these questions. Perhaps the appearance of this post might provide some?