Talk:Asymmetric synthesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Contents 1 Proposal to rename 2 Mistake in the structure of DiPAMP, in Knowles' L-DOPA Synthesis 3 confusing paragraph 4 Garbled English 5 William S. Knowles 6 Willy Marckwald

[edit] Proposal to rename

I propose that this article be renamed asymmetric synthesis, which is (in my experience) the more usual term. Are the two terms completely synonymous, as I believe, or is there some subtle difference I'm unaware of? A Google search gives around 400,000 hits for "asymmetric synthesis", which is ten times the number found for "chiral synthesis". Comments, anyone? Walkerma 05:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Chirality is a property of a compound, object, or geometrical construct. Other comments about the article:

- would more clearly define asymmetric synthesis as the production of one enantiomer of a desired compound, rather than a racemate. - the approach where one starts from a cheap, naturally available material is called the "chiral pool" approach - the diagram is odd. perhaps a more conventional wedged and dashed bond diagram? - the term "chiral catalysis" is unusal. the more typical term is "catalytic, asymmetric", with the same arguments applying to catalysis as synthesis. it may, or may not be more efficient than the chiral pool approach, depending on a number of factors. for example, one enantiomer of the ligand may be very expensive. - synthesis of a racemate, followed by resolution, should probably be considered a form of asymmetric synthesis, although this process is not made clear in the article - the term "Sharpless bishydroxylation" is unusal; more typically, one sees it referred to as a "dihydroxylation" - the mechanism of how chiral ligands works is vague. i recommend not mentioning the mechanism of action at all. there may be electronic factors at work at well. see the review on the conservation of helicity at phil baran's webpage at scripps. - epimerization does not necessarily occur through an isotropic intermediate; SN1 reactions may proceed via a planar carbocation, but this does not mean the molecules itself becomes planar; SN2 substitution may or may not invert the chirality--there may be no chirality to begin with - there need to be more examples to illustrate the points made in this article, preferably with chemdraw schemes Eugene Kwan 16:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Asymmetric synthesis is by far a more common term than chiral synthesis (and more precise too) among those that actually do asymmetric synthesis. As to Eugene's comments, they all sound like great suggestions to me. They should be incorporated into the article. Edgar181 18:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll request a move (can't move because of the redirect) --Rifleman 82 03:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Page moved. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

From the words of Eliel...

"Asymmetric Synthesis. This term is probably too deeply embedded in the chemical nomenclature to be eradicated. Nonetheless two problems with this term should be pointed out. First of all, the term, in its most general sense, applies to dissymmetric (or, as we now say, chiral) reagents, catalysts, products, and chiral auxiliaries. In fact, some of the most effective chiral auxiliaries have C2 symmetry, i.e., they are not asymmetric at all! Secondly, of course, it is the catalysts, products, etc., that are chiral (not necessarily asymmetric!), not the syntheses as such. (We shall find this kind of wrong apposition in many of the other examples below.) The proper term to use, in lieu of "asymmetric synthesis" would be "enantioselective synthesis" (if one of two enantiomers is produced in predominance) or, in some cases, "diastereoselective synthesis" when one of two or more diastereomers is produced predominantly. (This, also, has been called an asymmetric synthesist i.e., when both starting material and product are enantiopure or enantioenriched, for example in the hydride reduction of cholestanone to 33-cholestanol where a new chiral center is introduced stereoselectively at C(3). Such dual use of "asymmetric synthesis" is, in this author's opinion, confusing.)"

Eugene Kwan 05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are quoting from this Eliel, is that right? While I can see his points, we all know that chemistry in general (and organic chemistry in particular) has the most confusing naming systems and cunventions. I have always taken the term "asymmetric synthesis" to be shorthand for "the synthesis of an asymmetric product in enantiomerically pure or enriched form." OK, maybe we should say dissymmetric to be precise, but we're stuck with the rather sloppy term that is widely used. Wikipedia follows the name that is widely used, not the one we might like to have instead! Walkerma 05:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I quote Eliel purely for interest's sake, not to suggest any nomenclature eradication. Eugene Kwan 00:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake in the structure of DiPAMP, in Knowles' L-DOPA Synthesis

There is a serious mistake in the reaction scheme of the L-DOPA synthesis. DiPAMP is a diphosphine, in which the chirality is actually born by the Phosphorus atoms. In the current drawing, the chirality was mistakenly drawn as born by a supplementary neighbouring atom. I enclose a new PNG drawing, send me your suggestions.

comment was added by AlChimini (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Have incorporated the change, let me know what you think of it. Cheers! comment was added by AlChimini (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm on holiday and can't check the literature, but I'm pretty sure you're right. I'll let V8rik know, to confirm it. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

see [1] in [2] which seems at least to be now the correct structure of the ligand -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, guys. What do You think of the idea of creating a new category "chiral ligands", probably as a subcategory of "organometallic chemistry" and starting a series of short pages on the most important chiral ligands for this subcategory, with their enantioselective synthesis and a list of references for some examples of their uses (pages for BINAP, BINOL, BOX already exist. In my opinion, deeply missed are the oxaborolidine ligands for CBS reduction, TADDOL, DIOP, DIAB, DuPhos, the Solvias MandyPhos and TaniaPhos, Buchwald's X-Phos, Helmchen's ligands, the Bolm ferrocenyl ligands... and probably many more). Do You think there is an audience for this? Anyway, I'd like to try and start working on it anytime soon. If anybody wants to collaborate, let me know... comment added by AlChimini (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, it would be great to cover these ligands, in fact I'm a little surprised there is such a gap on wiki in this regard ... sounds like you're the chap to get the ball rolling on this! Thanks and happy editing -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds good to me. Walkerma (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] confusing paragraph

The following paragraph is confusing:

For example, a SN1 substitution reaction converts a molecule that is chiral by merit of non-planarity into a planar molecule, which has no handedness. (To visualise, draw the outlines of both of your hands on paper, and cut the images out. You can now superimpose the images, even if the hands themselves do not superimpose.) In a SN2 substitution reaction on the other hand the chirality inverts, i.e. when you start with a right-handed mixture, you'll end up with left-handed one. (A visualization could be inverting an umbrella. The mechanism looks just the same.)

Explanation:

SN1 generates a racemate (mixture of chiral, *nonplanar* molecules), and the "planar molecule" (carbocation) is only a transient species. The word "mixture" in the following sentence about SN2 should rather be replaced with "molecule"/"system"/"compound". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.105.129.208 (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Garbled English

What is meant by "trajectory" in the second paragraph?

Asymmetric induction can also occur intramolecularly when given a chiral starting material. This chirality transfer can be exploited, especially when the goal is to make several consecutive chiral centers to give a specific enantiomer of a specific diastereomer. Aldol reaction, for example, is inherently diastereoselective; if the aldehyde is enantiopure, the resulting aldol adduct is diastereomerically and enantiomerically pure.

One such strategy is the use of a chiral auxiliary which forms an adduct to the starting materials and physically blocks the other trajectory for attack, leaving only the desired trajectory open. Assuming the chiral auxiliary is enantiopure, the different trajectories are not equivalent, but diastereomeric.

77.98.79.252 02:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing fancy here, just the usual meaning of trajectory: the direction or path of motion. DMacks 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William S. Knowles

According to the Nobel info Knowles was the first with chiral ligands in 1968. I have also been reading other articles completely ignoring Knowles so I am wondering what is going on. The article

Design of chiral ligands for asymmetric catalysis: From C2-symmetric P,P- and N,N-ligands to sterically and electronically nonsymmetrical P,N-ligands Andreas Pfaltz and William J. Drury III PNAS, April 20, 2004 vol. 101 no. 16 5723-5726 doi:10.1073/pnas.0307152101

credits Kagan (1972) as the originator and continues

The design principles that led Dang and Kagan to this ligand had a marked influence on the course of research in asymmetric catalysis, and many diphosphine ligands that were introduced subsequently were patterned after DIOP. Knowles (7), for example, prepared a dimeric analogue of one of his previously synthesized monophosphines, which he termed DiPAMP

with a reference (7) from 2003 (!). Is this a falsification of history? V8rik 22:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Willy Marckwald

Willy Marckwald lifed from 1864 til 1942. Willy Marckwald discovered Polonium in 1902 and called it radio­tellurium.

• Rassow (1925). "Willy Marckwald zum sechzigsten Geburtstage, gewidmet von Freunden und Schülern. 5. Dez. 1924. Verlag Chemie, G. m. b. H., Leipzig-Berlin". Zeitschrift für Angewandte Chemie 38 (22): 508. doi:10.1002/ange.19250382213. 
• H. W. Kirby (1971). "The Discovery of Actinium" 62 (3): 290-308. 
• doi:10.1524/ract.2000.88.3-4.123doi:10.1002/cber.190603901118doi:10.1038/070627a0doi:10.1002/cber.19340670647doi:10.1002/cber.19380710515