Talk:Hajos-Parrish-Eder-Sauer-Wiechert reaction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.. |
|||
andOrganocatalysis User:Zghajos From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Remarks to the Wikipedia Organocatalytic aldol reactions
Zoltan G. Hajos zghajos(AT)t-online.hu
The reaction scheme (a) as shown in the Wikipedia Organocatalytic aldol reactions page has only been described in the Hajos, Parrish Patent (b) and the Hajos, Parrish paper (c).
Since Hajos and Parrish worked at ambient temperature using a catalytic amount (3% molar equiv.) of (S)-(-)-proline they could isolate the optically active intermediate bicyclic ketols a prerequisite of elucidating the reaction mechanism. This was most likely the reason for Professor Claude Agami to call the reaction the Hajos-Parrish reaction in his paper in J.Chem.Soc., Chemical Commun., 1985, 441-442 (d).
The Hajos, Parrish Patent (b) also described the Asymmetric synthesis utilizing (S)-(-)-proline even in the absence of added solvent.
The last few lines of the Hajos, Parrish 1974 paper read: "We believe our results may be considered an example of a simplified model of a biological system in which (S)-(-)-proline plays the role of an enzyme." This has been referred in a publication by Mohammad Movassaghi and Eric N. Jacobsen of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA: The Simplest "Enzyme" Science, 6 December 2002, Vol. 298, 1904-1905 (e).
The above is also described in the Benjamin List Tetrahedron report number 613 in 2002 (f). This Tetrahedron report shows that the Schering group executed the reaction under non biological conditions using (S)-Proline (47 mol%), 1N perchloric acid, in acetonitrile at 80 degrees C. Hence, they could not isolate the Hajos, Parrish intermediate bicyclic ketols. The original 1985 naming of the reaction by Claude Agami (d) has been expanded in this 2002 paper (f) by adding three more names of the Schering group.
References to the Zoltan G. Hajos Remarks. a.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Organocatalytic1.gif]
b. Hajos, Z, G.; Parrish, D. R. Asymmetric Synthesis of Optically Active Polycyclic Organic Compunds. German Patent DE 2102623, July 29, 1971.
c. Hajos, Z. G.; Parrish, D. R. J. Org. Chem. 1974,39,1615.
d. Agami, C.; Levisalles, J.; Puchot, C. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1985, 8, 441-442. doi:10.1039/C39850000441
e. Movassaghi, M.; Jacobsen, E. N., Science, 2002, 298, 1904-1905. doi:10.1126/science.1076547
f. List, B, Tetrahedron 2002, 58, 5573-5590 doi:10.1016/S0040-4020(02)00516-1 references 12 doi:10.1021/jo00925a003 and 13 doi:10.1002/anie.197104961
- Thanks Zoltan for your comments, I have incorporated some of it in the article itself but feel free to make edits yourself. I have been trying to find the German patent (nowadays I would expecting these patents to be freely available on the internet) but no luck. Help would be appreciated V8rik (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
German patents are not as freely accessible as US Patents.You have to establish an account with Delphion(http://www.delphion.com).Of course, you do have access to their paper in Angew.Chem.Intl.Ed.Engl.10(1971);pp. 496-497.zoltan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zghajos (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, by the way: you can sign your comments by adding four tildes ~ in a row V8rik (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- If there's a difference in the Hajos-Parrish and the Hajos-Parrish-Eder-Sauer-Wiechert reaction, then why don't we create a separate article for the first one? And if there's no difference, then why do we add the name of those three gentlemen to the name of the inventors? What is their added value? Tom A. Jansen (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
