Substituent effect on the allyl vinyl sulfide rearrangement (thio-Claisen rearrangement) and the vinylthioethanimine rearrangement. A theoretical study

Abstract

The transition structures for the [3,3] sigmatropic rearrangements of a variety of substituted allyl vinyl sulfides (X[double bond, length half m-dash]CH) and vinylthioethanimines (X[double bond, length half m-dash]N) H₂C[double bond, length half m-dash]CR–S–CH₂–CR′[double bond, length half m-dash]XR″ (R = NH₂; R′ = BH₂, CN; R″ = CF₃) have been located using ab initio and DFT (B3LYP) calculations and the 6-31G* basis set. Relative energies have been estimated using post-HF calculations up to the QCISD(T)/6-31G*//B3LYP/6-31G* level. Solvent effects on these processes have been simulated by means of SCRF computations associated with a continuum model. The results show that combined donor–acceptor disubstitutions (R = NH₂, R′ = BH₂ or CN) improve considerably the reactivity of the allyl vinyl sulfide (vinylthio-ethanimine). Thus, 2-amino-5-cyano disubstitution lowers the enthalpy of activation by 6.6 kcal mol^–1 (9.3 kcal mol^–1) (1 cal = 4.184 J) and increases the exothermicity of the rearrangement by 13.0 kcal mol^–1 (19.1 kcal mol^–1). In addition, as the corresponding saddle points are highly polar in nature, an additional transition state stabilization, even in moderately polar solvents, is predicted by the SCRF calculations.

References

1. P. Metzner, Phosphorus Sulfur Silicon, 1991, 59, 1; P. Metzner, Synthesis, 1992, 1185.
2. P. Metzner, T. N. Pham and J. Vialle, Nouv. J. Chim., 1978, 2, 179.
3. M. Schoufs, J. Meijeir, P. Vermeer and L. Brandsma, Synthesis, 1978, 439.
4. P. J. W. Schuijl and L. Brandsma, Recl. Trav. Chim. Pays-Bas, 1968, 87, 929; S. Takano, S. Tomita, M. Takakashi and K. Ogasawara, Chem. Lett., 1987, 1379.
5. R. Arnaud, V. Dillet, N. Leon-Pelloux and Y. Vallée, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 1996, 2065.
6. D. A. Hrovat, K. Morokuma and W. T. Borden, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1994, 116, 1072.
7. P. M. Kozlowski, M. Dupuis and E. R. Davidson, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1995, 117, 774.
8. GAUSSIAN94 (Revision A.1), M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, P. M. W. Gill, B. G. Johnson, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, T. A. Keith, G. A. Petersson, J. A. Montgomery, K. Raghavachari, M. A. Al-Laham, V. G. Zakrewski, J. V. Ortiz, J. B. Foresmen, B. Cioslowski, B. Stefanov, A. Nanayakkara, M. Challacombe, C. Y. Peng, P. Y. Ayala, W. Chen, M. W. Wong, J. L. Andres, E. S. Replogle, R. Gomperts, R. L. Martin, D. J. Fox, J. S. Binkley, D. J. Defrees, J. Baker, J. P. Stewart, M. Head-Gordon, C. Gonzalez and J. A. Pople, Gaussian Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1995.
9. W. J. Here, L. Radom, P. v. R. Schleyer and J. A. Pople, Ab Initio Molecular Orbital Theory, Wiley, New York, 1986.
10. A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 1993, 98, 5648 and references therein P. J. Stevens, F. J. Deerlin, C. F. Clabowski and M. J. Frish, J. Phys. Chem., 1994, 98, 11 623.
11. O. Wiest, K. A. Black and K. N. Houk, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1994, 116, 103 368.
12. O. Wiest and K. N. Houk, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1995, 117, 11 628.
13. J. W. McIver and A. K. Komornicki, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1972, 94, 2625.
14. S. Kato and K. Fukui, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1976, 98, 6395 and references therein.
15. C. Gonzalez and H. B. Schlegel, J. Chem. Phys., 1989, 90, 2154.
16. J. A. Pople, A. P. Scott, M. W. Wong and L. Radom, Isr. J. Chem., 1993, 33, 345.
17. For a review, see A. E. Reed, L. A. Curtiss and F. Weinhold, Chem. Rev., 1988, 88, 899.
18. For a description of this program, see E. D. Glendening, A. E. Reed, J. E. Carpenter and F. Weinhold, NBO3.0 Program Manual, QCPE Program No. 504.
19. V. Dillet, D. Rinaldi, J. P. Angyan and J. L. Rivail, Chem. Phys. Lett., 1993, 202, 18; V. Dillet, D. Rinaldi and J. L. Rivail, J. Phys. Chem., 1994, 98, 5034.
20. V. Dillet, D. Rinaldi, J. Bertran and J. L. Rivail, J. Chem. Phys., 1996, 104, 9437.
21. A. Sehgal, L. Shao and J. Gao, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1995, 117, 11 337.
22. L. Pauling, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1947, 69, 542 As suggested by Houk et al.(ref. 23), the constant 0.6 rather than 0.3 is used in the Pauling equation.
23. K. N. Houk, S. M. Gustavson and K. A. Black, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1992, 114, 8565.
24. R. Arnaud, P. Y. Chavant, K. Molvinger and Y. Vallée, J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun., 1995, 1897; V. Barone, R. Arnaud, P. Y. Chavant and Y. Vallée, J. Org. Chem., 1996, 61, 5121.
25. V. Barone and R. Arnaud, J. Chem. Phys., 1997, 106, 8727.
26. For a detailed discussion of the relative efficiency of a number of charge calculation methods, see K. B. Wiberg and P. R. Rablen, J. Comput. Chem., 1993, 14, 1504; M. A. McAllister and T. T. Tidwell, J. Org. Chem., 1994, 59, 4506.
27. (a) J. M. Guest, J. S. Craw, M. A. Vincent and I. H. Hillier, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 1997, 71; (b) M. M. Davidson, I. H. Hillier and M. A. Vincent, Chem. Phys. Lett., 1995, 246, 536.
28. M. M. Davidson, I. H. Hillier, R. J. Hall and N. A. Burton, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1994, 116, 9294.