Next Article in Journal
Unravelling the Structure of the Tetrahedral Metal-Binding Site in METP3 through an Experimental and Computational Approach
Next Article in Special Issue
Ring-Opening Polymerization of ε-Caprolactone and Styrene Oxide–CO2 Coupling Reactions Catalyzed by Chelated Dehydroacetic Acid–Imine Aluminum Complexes
Previous Article in Journal
Davidone C Induces the Death of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cells by Promoting Apoptosis and Autophagy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Synthesis, Characterization, and Catalytic Application of Palladium Complexes Containing Indolyl-NNN-Type Ligands
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Molecules
Volume 26
Issue 17
10.3390/molecules26175220
molecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ruthenium Olefin Metathesis Catalysts Featuring N-Heterocyclic Carbene Ligands Tagged with Isonicotinic and 4-(Dimethylamino)benzoic Acid Rests: Evaluation of a Modular Synthetic Strategy

by
Stefan Czarnocki
†,
Louis Monsigny
†,
Michał Sienkiewicz
,
Anna Kajetanowicz
* and
Karol Grela
*
Biological and Chemical Research Centre, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Warsaw, Żwirki i Wigury Street 101, 02-089 Warsaw, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally.
Molecules 2021, 26(17), 5220; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26175220
Submission received: 30 June 2021 / Revised: 11 August 2021 / Accepted: 20 August 2021 / Published: 28 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Ligands for Organometallic Catalysis)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A modular and flexible strategy towards the synthesis of N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) ligands bearing Brønsted base tags has been proposed and then adopted in the preparation of two tagged NHC ligands bearing rests of isonicotinic and 4-(dimethylamino)benzoic acids. Such tagged NHC ligands represent an attractive starting point for the synthesis of olefin metathesis ruthenium catalysts tagged in non-dissociating ligands. The influence of the Brønsted basic tags on the activity of such obtained olefin metathesis catalysts has been studied.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Olefin metathesis has been well established as a key route in the formation of C-C double bonds in the canon of modern organometallic chemistry [1,2]. Its privileged role would not be possible without the development of well-defined ruthenium complexes, especially stable and easily adjustable Grubbs, Hoveyda–Grubbs, and indenylidene type second-generation catalysts possessing N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHC) (Figure 1, top) [3,4]. Besides improving the control over the (E)/(Z) selectivity [5,6] and substrate scope of olefin metathesis reactions themselves [7,8,9,10,11], considerable process-related efforts have been undertaken to increase their attractiveness for industrial applications with respect to catalyst activity and stability, possibility of its recycling, and minimizing the level of toxic and polluting metal contaminants in the final products [12,13,14]. An attractive solution for the latter issue is the heterogenization of the catalyst on solid (or liquid) supports. Over the past decades, both covalent [15,16] and non-covalent [17,18] anchoring of the catalyst to the support has been explored (Figure 1) [19,20,21]. Covalent immobilization is often accompanied with the costly development of sophisticated linkers, in catalysts as well as supports [22]. Once spent, the catalyst cannot be easily recharged/replaced on the support, further increasing costs [12,22]. Moreover, most of the covalently linked catalysts reported show diminished activity, and their reusability remains moderate. Non-covalent binding can rely on electrostatic interactions [23,24,25,26,27], reversible π-π interactions [28,29], or physio-sorption on porous materials, such as silica [30,31,32,33,34,35], charcoal, cellulose, wool, and filter paper [36], dendrimers [37,38,39], SBA-15 [40], or MOF [41,42,43].
Despite the preparation of non-covalently immobilized catalysts is in general considered to be simpler and more straightforward compared to the manufacturing of their covalently bound analogues [21], the preparation of tagged catalysts is in any case complicated from the synthetic point of view. For example, the synthesis of quaternary ammonium tagged catalysts, such as Ru3 or Ru4, consists of 3–4 additional synthetic steps compared to the synthesis of their most close non-tagged analogues [31,44,45] and is sometimes associated with problems [46,47].
Therefore, we believe that there is a space for developing a more universal and direct method for the synthesis of ligands bearing a handle for various tags. Here, we present a modular and flexible strategy towards N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) ligands bearing Brønsted base tags that is based on ester formation (benzoylation) [48]. Such tagged NHC ligands bearing rests of isonicotinic and 4-(dimethylamino)benzoic acids were used in synthesis of the corresponding olefin metathesis ruthenium catalysts. The non-ionic nature of the tagged fragments shall help to circumvent some previously noted problems during the synthesis of quaternary ammonium precursors (vide supra), while their basicity shall open a venue for the non-covalent immobilization of such obtained catalysts (not studied in this work).

2. Results

It is well known that the introduction of a group (tag) that could non-covalently bind to various solid supports would allow for the reversible immobilization of the corresponding catalyst opening the possibility of its heterogeneous use. At the same time, the introduction of such a tag could allow the catalyst easier removal after reaction, if the system is used under homogeneous conditions [21]. The most popular method for tagging of ruthenium benzylidene catalysts is to modify the NHC ligand or the benzylidene fragment [17,18,21]. As the benzylidene ligand dissociates in the first step of the catalytic cycle, the NHC ligand—the one which is bound to the ruthenium throughout the whole process—was chosen by us as the preferred handle for a tag.
Our present goal was to blueprint and then execute a direct, modular synthetic protocol for manufacturing tagged ruthenium catalysts. In our plan, the basic nitrogen-containing tags could be protonated in the presence of Brønsted acids, a feature that we plan to utilize later for the non-covalent immobilization of the ruthenium complexes (not studied in this report). Looking for the most convenient synthetic route leading to such tagged NHC ligands, we envisioned that the ester formation reaction shall be used, as it would allow to install various carboxylic acid rests (modularity), following a relatively simple and standard synthetic protocol. The structures of two imagined tagged NHC ligands (referred as NHCdmab and NHCisonico) with Brønsted basic tags are shown in Figure 2. They contain rests of isonicotinic and 4-(dimethylamino)benzoic acids attached to a CH2OH handle placed in position 4 of the imidazolidin-2-ylidene ligand backbone.
To reduce this plan to reality, salt 4 was prepared in three-step procedure (Scheme 1). First, 2,3-dibromopropanol (1) was treated with 2,4,5-trimethylaniline (mesidine, 2) to yield diamine 3 which was treated with ammonium tetrafluoroborate in refluxing triethyl orthoformate (TEOF) to give the desired product 4 in 90% yield. Next, the hydroxyl group was protected, to assure compatibility with the next steps that consist of deprotonation of the NHC precursor with a strong base and then metallation. In related syntheses described in the literature, usually silicon protecting groups or tetrahydropyran (THP) are used for this purpose [49,50,51]. In our synthesis, however, we simply used triethyl orthoformate as a cheap “temporal” protecting group, providing salt 5 in 54% yield.
Further improvement of the synthesis of 5 led us to consider the direct formation of the protected ligand from the precursor 3. To do so, the treatment of 3 with NH4BF4 in refluxing TEOF was undertaken to form first a mixture of imidazolium salts 4 + 5 which was transformed one-pot to 5. After the evaporation of the volatiles, the crude mixture was composed of product 4 and corresponding protected ligand 5 (ratio 4/5: 7/3). Instead of working up the crude mixture with an acid to obtain 4, we forced the protection of 4 in situ by adding a fresh portion of TEOF and heat the resulting mixture at 120 °C for 2 h. Such procedure led to the formation of the protected imidazolium salt which has been isolated in 68% yield. Of interest, the iteration of the second step on the crude mixture did not improve further the yield of this reaction and led to corresponding product in similar yield than previously after purification (68%). It shall be noted that this one-pot procedure is not only more convenient experimentally, but also provides higher yield (68%) as compared with the two-step procedure, which gave 5 in 49% total yield.
With the ligand precursor 5 in hand, we proceeded to synthesize complex 7 (Scheme 2). To do so, the free carbene was generated in situ by treatment of 5 with KHMDS (potassium bis(trimethylsilyl)amide) and the resulting species reacted with Ind I to provide a protected catalyst 6 with a very good yield of 91% (Scheme 2). Two drops of HCl in dioxane (4M solution) were used to obtain “unprotected” complex 7 possessing free OH group with good yield.
In the next step, we tried direct esterification of ruthenium complex 7 with 4-(dimethylamino)benzoyl chloride to form the corresponding indenylidene type complex (Scheme 3). The obtained complex would be not only a potentially immobilizable catalyst, but we planned to use it as a precursor for various functionalized Hoveyda–Grubbs-type catalysts [9]. To do esterification of ruthenium complex 7, we adopted the conditions developed previously by Buchmeiser and Fürstner for acylation of related HO-tagged Ru complex with AcCl, that utilizes tricyclohexylphosphine as a mild base to neutralize the produced HCl [52]. Unfortunately, despite numerous efforts, the direct benzoylation of 7 with 4-(dimethylamino)benzoyl chloride was unsuccessful in our hands and the desired product was not formed. Next, a number of attempts for the esterification of complex 7 with both 4-(dimethylamino)benzoyl chloride and isonicotinoyl chloride hydrochloride were undertaken by us using different bases such as pyridine and triethylamine. While the use of pyridine was found to decompose rapidly complex 7, the reaction in the presence of triethylamine led to the formation of the expected products which has been observed both on TLC and in 1H–NMR spectra of the crude reaction mixture. Unfortunately, almost as they were formed, the products rapidly decomposed during the workup process involving column chromatography. Finally, we also tried the classical coupling of complex 7 and the isonicotinic acid in presence of dicyclohexylcarbodiimide (DCC) and a catalytic quantity of 4-dimethylaminopyridine (DMAP). Here again, the desired product was not formed in such conditions and only the decomposition of complex 7 was observed (Scheme 3).
At this point, we took a step back and decided to first obtain an NHC ligand precursor containing already the tag fragments and then metallated it with Ru precursor to obtain the corresponding ruthenium complexes. To do so, we performed an esterification reaction between salt 4 and two acid chlorides, (4-(dimethylamino)benzoyl chloride and isonicotinoyl chloride hydrochloride). The process was performed in pyridine at room temperature for 16 h, giving salts 8 and 9 in 63 and 60% yield, respectively. The next step was to form the corresponding NHC-Ru alkylidene complexes 10 and 11, which were synthesized in 40% and 60% yield, respectively (after silica gel chromatography). We are satisfied to see that their synthesis was straightforward and followed the standard procedure consisting of deprotonation of the NHC ligand precursor with KHMDS and treatment of the resulting free carbene with the Hoveyda first generation complex (Scheme 4).
The stability of such obtained complexes, which were isolated as green (10) and orange-brownish (11) microcrystalline solids was very high, which is typical for Hoveyda–Grubbs complexes. We noted that they are stable in non-degassed deuterated DCM (after two days no sign of decomposition was observed) and can be stored for several months in a solid form (+4 °C, under argon) without any sign of decomposition. In 1H-NMR spectrum, the benzylidene proton signals of 10 and 11 were observed at 16.51 and 16.47 ppm, respectively, which is also a typical value for Hoveyda–Grubbs complexes. However, an atypical feature was observed in the ESI MS spectra of complex 11, suggesting that this catalyst exists in solution in the form of dimers, trimers, and in part as higher oligomers, probably formed via pyridine tag → Ru chelation (Scheme 5).
Next, we were interested to see how the presence of Brønsted base fragments influenced the catalytic activity of the formed complexes. To do so, we used a model ring-closing metathesis (RCM) reaction of diethyl diallylmalonate (S1) leading to the formation of the cyclic product P1 [53]. We set out to compare the newly prepared complexes 10 and 11 with the parent Hoveyda–Grubbs catalyst (Hov II) which has found broad application in metathesis and thus is a commonly accepted benchmark [39]. To limit the reaction rate to a level useful for comparison, relatively mild conditions (0.5 mol% of catalyst, 23 °C) were employed. The course of the reaction was monitored by 1H-NMR. Interestingly, we found a difference between the behavior of catalysts 10 and 11. The first one, containing a dimethylaniline fragment in the tag, proved to be more reactive than the pyridine tagged complex 11. Strongly limited activity of the latter can be explained by self-poisoning of the Lewis basic pyridine fragment, which by coordinating to the Ru center can arrest the catalyst blocking it from entering into the catalytic cycle. As illustrated in Figure 3, there is a dramatic improvement in the activity of catalyst 11 in the presence of mineral acid (1.1 equivalent HCl in dioxane), probably due to protonation of the basic pyridine center and inhibition of catalyst decomposition.
Having in hand catalyst 10 demonstrating a good reactivity in RCM of S1 without any additives, we decided to explore the scope of such complex in challenging RCM reaction of highly functionalized substrates such as Sildenafil derivative S2 (Scheme 6). Because of the density of functionalities, such RCM has been undertaken with 2.5 mol% of 10 in DCM (0.1 M). Gratifyingly, the RCM rapidly occurred in these conditions, and complex 10 promoted the RCM of S2 to afford to the corresponding product P2 with an excellent yield of 95%. Further investigations of the scope led us to consider reaction of cross metathesis (CM) of the silylated hex-5-en-1-ol derivative (S3) with a challenging electron poor CM partner, methyl acrylate (S3′). The reaction reached completion with 2.5 mol% of the catalyst 10 in DCM (0.2 M) within 1 h to yield selectively to the corresponding product P3 (82%) for which only the E isomer has been observed. Based on this result, CM-reluctant Taladafil derivative P4 has been considered a substrate for the CM reaction promoted by 10. We reported recently such CM reaction of P4 with (Z)-1,4-diacetoxybutene S4′ (5 equivalents) as cross partner with 1 mol% of a sulfonamide activated Hoveyda type Ru-based catalyst [54]. In such conditions, the CM reaction at room temperature afford the corresponding product in 68% with an E/Z ratio of 95/5 within 15 h. Based on this report, the RCM of S4 (1 equivalent, 0.5 M in DCM) was undertaken with 5 equivalents of the cross partner S4′ and with 5 mol% of complex 10. Remarkably, the CM reaction took place at room temperature and reached completion within 3 h in these conditions. A simple purification through column chromatography on silica led to the isolation of the expected product in 97% yield and an E/Z ratio of 9/1. Of high interest, complex 10 surpassed in term of productivity the sulfonamide activated Hoveyda–Grubbs catalysts at the expense of the E/Z selectivity.

3. Experimental Data

All reagents were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company and used without further purification. Toluene was distilled over potassium under an argon atmosphere. Analytical thin-layer chromatography (TLC) was performed using silica gel 60 F254 pre-coated plates (0.25 mm thickness) with a fluorescent indicator. Visualization of TLC plates was performed using UV light and either KMnO4 or I2 stains. Flash chromatography was performed using silica gel 60 (230–400 mesh). NMR spectra were recorded in CDCl3 or C6D6 on a Varian VNMRS 500 MHz spectrometer. The 1H and 13C chemical shifts are referenced to SiMe4 (δ = 0 ppm). The following abbreviations are used in reporting NMR data: s (singlet), d (doublet), t (triplet), q (quartet), m (multiplet), br (broad). Coupling constants (J) are given in Hz. Spectra are reported as follows: chemical shift (δ, ppm), multiplicity, integration, coupling constants (Hz). IR spectra were recorded on a Perkin-Elmer Spectrum One FTIR spectrometer with diamond ATR accessory. Wave numbers are in cm−1. Micro-analyses were made using Vario EL III apparatus. MS spectra were recorded by LCT Micromass. Experimental details for the unsuccessful direct esterification of complex 7, the metathesis reactions and spectroscopic data can be found in the Supplementary Materials.

3.1. N,N′-Dimesityl-2,3-diamino-1-propanol (3)

2,3-Dibromopropanol (61.9 g, 284 mmol) was treated with 2,4,6-trimethylaniline (160.0 mL, 1136 mmol). After stirring at 125 °C for 24 h, DCM and an aqueous 15% sodium hydroxide solution (34.0 g, 852 mmol) were added and the reaction mixture was stirred until all solid was completely dissolved. The organic layer was separated, washed with water, dried over sodium sulphate, and concentrated. Crystallization from hexane gave the product as a colorless solid (66.8 g, 72%). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 6.81 (d, J = 9.8, Hz, 4H), 3.94 (dd, J = 11.0, 2.7 Hz, 1H), 3.82 (ddd, J = 11.0, 4.2, 1.2 Hz, 1H), 3.54 (br s, 3H), 3.41–3.35 (m, 1H), 3.21 (ddd, J = 12.0, 5.1, 1.2 Hz, 1H), 2.98 (dd, J = 12.0, 3.9 Hz, 1H), 2.28 (s, 6H), 2.22 (s, 3H), 2.21 (s, 3H), 2.16 (s, 6H).

3.2. 1,3-Bis(1-mesityl)-4,5-dihydro-4-hydroxymethyl-1H-imidazol-3-ium Tetrafluoroborate (4)

N,N′-Dimesityl-2,3-diamino-1-propanol [55] (52.5 g, 161 mmol) and ammonium tetrafluoroborate (16.9 g, 161 mmol) were dissolved in triethyl orthoformate (66.9 mL, 402 mmol). After stirring at 120 °C for 2 h, the reaction mixture was cooled and the volatiles were removed under vacuum. The resulting yellow oil was treated with acetic acid. Crystallization from DCM/CCl4 gave the product as a colorless solid (61.5 g, 90%). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.76 (s, 1H), 6.97–6.90 (m, 4H), 4.93–4.86 (m, 1H), 4.49 (s, 1H), 4.47 (d, J = 2.2 Hz, 1H), 3.82–3.75 (m, 1H), 3.60 (d, J = 11.2 Hz, 2H), 2.40 (s, 3H), 2.33 (s, 3H), 2.32–2.28 (m, 6H), 2.27 (s, 6H).

3.3. 1,3-Bis(1-mesityl)-4,5-dihydro-4-diethyloxymethoxymethyl-1H-imidazol-3-ium Tetrafluoroborate (5)

1,3-Bis(1-mesityl)-4,5-dihydro-4-hydroxymethyl-1H-imidazol-3-ium tetrafluoroborate [55] (30.0 g, 70.7 mmol) was dissolved in triethyl orthoformate (35.3 mL, 212 mmol). After stirring at 100 °C for 2 h, the reaction mixture was cooled and the volatiles were removed under vacuum. Purification by flash column chromatography (10% DCM/acetone) gave a white solid (20.2 g, 54%). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.97 (s, 1H), 6.99–6.75 (m, 4H), 5.17 (s, 1H), 5.17–5.12 (m, 1H), 4.65 (t, J = 12.2 Hz, 1H), 4.37 (dd, J = 12.2, 8.1 Hz, 1H), 3.79 (dd, J = 12.0, 2.9 Hz, 1H), 3.64–3.45 (m, 5H), 2.40 (s, 3H), 2.36 (s, 6H), 2.32 (brs, 3H), 2.29 (s, 6H), 1.20–1.12 (m, 6H). 13C NMR (125 MHz, CDCl3) δ 158.8, 140.8, 140.5, 136.3, 135.6, 130.7, 130.5, 130.4, 128.6, 113.2, 63.8, 61.1, 60.8, 60.7, 52.8, 21.3, 21.2, 18.4, 18.0, 17.7, 15.1. HRMS (ESI): M+, found 439.2972, requires C27H39N2O3 439.2961.

3.4. Alternative Synthesis of 1,3-bis(1-mesityl)-4,5-dihydro-4-diethyloxymethoxymethyl-1H-imidazol-3-ium Tetrafluoroborate (5)

N,N′-Dimesityl-2,3-diamino-1-propanol (1.0 g, 3.1 mmol) and ammonium tetrafluoroborate (0.321 g, 3.1 mmol, 1 equivalent) were dissolved in triethyl orthoformate (1.3 mL, 1.16 mg, 7.66 mmol, 2.5 equivalents). After stirring at 120 °C for 2 h, the reaction mixture was cooled and the volatiles were removed under vacuum. The resulting brown solid was dissolved in triethyl orthoformate (2.6 mL, 2.32 mg, 15.32 mmol, 5 equivalent). After stirring at 120 °C for 2 h, the reaction mixture was cooled and the volatiles were removed under vacuum. Purification by flash column chromatography (10% DCM/acetone) gave a white solid (735 mg, 68%).

3.5. Catalyst 6

To a solution of ligand 5 (1.053 g, 2.00 mmol) in toluene (10 mL) was added a solution of KHMDS in THF (8.0 mL, 2.00 mmol). After stirring at rt for 20 min, Ind I (0.925 g, 1.00 mmol) was added and stirring was continued for 20 min at 70 °C. The reaction mixture was then concentrated in vacuo. Purification by flash column chromatography (5% ethyl acetate/cyclohexane) gave a brown solid (1.650 g, 91%). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, Benzene-d6) δ 9.24–9.04 (m, 1H), 7.94–7.80 (m, 1H), 7.38–7.17 (m, 5H), 7.15–6.93 (m, 5H), 6.52–6.41 (m, 1H), 6.06–5.96 (m, 1H), 4.92–4.76 (m, 1H), 4.34–4.12 (m, 1H) 3.94–3.48 (m, 3H), 3.44–3.20 (m, 4H), 3.08–2.76 (m, 4H), 2.52–2.18 (m, 9H), 1.94–1.34 (m, 28H), 1.33–0.89 (m, 17H). 13C NMR (125 MHz, Benzene-d6) δ 293.7, 220.2, 146.0, 145.9, 145.7, 142.0, 141.9, 140.5, 140.4, 140.2, 140.0, 139.8, 139.6, 131.0, 129.8, 129.7, 129.6, 128.5, 128.3, 128.1, 127.5, 127.1, 127.0, 126.9, 116.7, 113.2, 60.4, 60.3, 60.2, 57.1, 56.6, 33.9, 33.7, 30.2, 30.1, 28.5, 27.6, 27.0, 22.6, 21.6, 21.5, 21.4, 21.3, 21.1, 15.5, 15,4. HRMS (ESI): [M+–Cl], found 1086.4988, requires C62H84N3O3PClRu 1086.4982. IR (KBr) 3053, 2922, 2848, 1724, 1608, 1589, 1539, 1480, 1444, 1418, 1377, 1356, 1266, 1252, 1173, 1094, 1058, 1028, 1006, 973, 847, 774, 752, 697.

3.6. Catalyst 7

To a solution of complex 6 (1.802 g, 1.67 mmol) in toluene (20 mL) was added two drops of concentrated hydrochloric acid and the mixture was stirred at rt for 20 min. The reaction mixture was then concentrated in vacuo. Purification by flash column chromatography (5–10% ethyl acetate/cyclohexane) gave a brown solid (1.260 g, 77%). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, Benzene-d6) δ 9.06 (ddd, J = 48.7, 30.7, 7.1 Hz, 1H), 8.00–7.59 (m, 3H), 7.38–7.18 (m, 3H), 7.14–6.80 (m, 6H), 6.42 (dd, J = 33.3, 27.5 Hz, 1H), 6.09–5.85 (m, 1H), 4.34–3.22 (m, 5H), 3.15–2.60 (m, 6H), 2.52–2.09 (m, 12H), 1.91–0.91 (m, 36H). 13C NMR (125 MHz, Benzene-d6) δ 293.9, 167.2, 145.6, 141.7, 141.5, 140.9, 139.8, 137.8, 137.2, 137.0, 136.6, 131.0, 130.9, 130.4, 129.5, 129.4, 129.3, 128.6, 128.3, 128.0, 126.8, 126.7, 126.6, 121.6, 118.8, 116.4, 83.8, 63.5, 56.0, 34.8, 34.5, 33.9, 30.3, 30.1, 29.9, 28.6, 28.5, 28.4, 27.6, 27.0, 22.7, 22.3, 21.6, 21.5, 21.4, 21.3, 20.8, 20.6, 20.2, 19.9, 19.7. HRMS (ESI): [M+–Cl], found 984.4324, requires C57H74N3OPClRu 984.4302. IR (KBr) 3436, 3053, 2923, 2848, 1945, 1738, 1608, 1590, 1538, 1485, 1444, 1419, 1378, 1357, 1266, 1249, 1203, 1174, 1112, 1040, 1029, 1005, 973, 847, 774, 752, 697.

3.7. 1,3-Bis(1-mesityl)-4,5-dihydro-4-[4-(dimethylamino)benzoyloxymethyl]-1H-imidazol-3-ium Tetrafluoroborate (8)

To a solution of 1,3-bis(1-mesityl)-4,5-dihydro-4-hydroxymethyl-1H-imidazol-3-ium tetrafluoroborate (4) (1.650 g, 3.9 mmol) in pyridine (6 mL) was added 4-(dimethylamino)benzoyl chloride (1.00 g, 5.45 mmol). After stirring at rt for 24 h, the reaction mixture was concentrated in vacuo and dissolved in DCM (15 mL). The organic layer was washed with water (3 × 15 mL), dried over MgSO4 and concentrated. Crystallization from DCM/Et2O gave the product as a colorless solid (1.397 g, 63%). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 8.30 (s, 1H), 7.75–7.68 (m, 2H), 7.00–6.93 (m, 4H), 6.64–6.57 (m, 2H), 5.37–5.27 (m, 1H), 4.76–4.64 (m, 2H), 4.34–4.22 (m, 2H), 3.07 (s, 6H), 2.42 (s, 3H), 2.38 (s, 3H), 2.37–2.30 (m, 3H), 2.28 (s, 3H), 2.28 (s, 3H), 1.57 (s, 3H). 13C NMR (125 MHz, CDCl3) δ 166.0, 159.8, 153.8, 140.9, 140.7, 135.6, 135.2, 131.6, 130.6, 130.4, 129.9, 128.5, 114.6, 110.6, 62.9, 60.7, 52.9, 40.0, 21.1, 21.0, 18.2, 18.0, 17.7. HRMS (ESI): M+, found 484.2962, requires C31H38N3O2 484.2964.

3.8. 1,3-Bis(1-mesityl)-4,5-dihydro-4-isonicotinoyloxymethyl-1H-imidazol-3-ium Tetrafluoroborate (9)

To a solution of 1,3-bis(1-mesityl)-4,5-dihydro-4-hydroxymethyl-1H-imidazol-3-ium tetrafluoroborate (4) (1.70 g, 4.0 mmol) in pyridine (6.5 mL) was added isonicotinoyl chloride hydrochloride (0.997 g, 5.6 mmol). After stirring at rt for 16 h, the reaction mixture was concentrated in vacuo, dissolved in DCM (15 mL). The organic layer was washed with water (15 mL) and the aqueous layer was extracted with DCM (3 × 15 mL). The combined organic layers were dried over MgSO4 and concentrated. Crystallization from DCM/Et2O gave the product as a colorless solid (1.28 g, 60%). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 8.73–8.66 (m, 2H), 8.22 (s, 1H), 7.52–7.47 (m, 2H), 6.92 (s, 3H), 6.85 (s, 1H), 5.48–5.38 (m, 1H), 4.78 (t, J = 12.6 Hz, 1H), 4.71 (dd, J = 12.7, 6.0 Hz, 1H), 4.45 (dd, J = 12.7, 3.0 Hz, 1H), 4.16 (dd, J = 12.8, 9.2 Hz, 1H), 2.36 (s, 3 H), 2.29 (br s, 6H), 2.27 (s, 3H), 2.26 (s, 3H), 2.21 (s, 3H). 13C NMR (125 MHz, CDCl3) δ 164.3, 159.6, 150.6, 140.8, 140.6, 135.8, 135.3, 130.5, 130.2, 129.8, 129.0, 128.2, 125.3, 122.6, 63.3, 62.2, 53.1, 21.0, 20.9, 18.0, 17.9, 17.6. HRMS (ESI): M+, found 442.2491, requires C28H32N3O2 442.2495.

3.9. Catalyst 10

To a solution of ligand 8 (1.89 g, 3.3 mmol) in toluene (165 mL) was added a solution of KHMDS in THF (13.2 mL, 3.3 mmol). After stirring at rt for 10 min, Hov I (1.82 g, 3.0 mmol) was added and stirred for another 10 min at rt and 40 min at 65 °C. Then CuCl (0.30 g, 3.0 mmol) was added and stirring and heating were continued for another 20 min. The reaction mixture was concentrated in vacuo. Purification by flash column chromatography (10–20% ethyl acetate/cyclohexane) gave a green solid (1.45 g, 60%). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 16.51 (s, 1H), 7.85–7.78 (m, 2H), 7.51–7.44 (m, 1H), 7.06 (s, 3H), 7.02 (s, 1H), 6.96–6.88 (m, 1H), 6.85 (t, J = 7.4 Hz, 1H), 6.79 (d, J = 8.3 Hz, 1H), 6.63–6.53 (m, 2H), 4.90 (hept, J = 6.2 Hz, 1H), 4.84–4.75 (m, 1H), 4.54 (dd, J = 11.8, 4.5 Hz, 1H), 4.38–4.25 (m, 2H), 4.08 (t, J = 9.7 Hz, 1H), 3.02 (s, 6H), 2.77–2.21 (m, 18H), 1.28 (d, J = 6.1 Hz, 6H). 13C NMR (125 MHz, CDCl3) δ 298.0, 214.7, 166.6, 153.5, 152.2, 145.3, 139.7, 138.9, 138.8, 133.9, 131.7, 131.5, 130.0, 129.7, 129.6, 129.3, 122.8, 122.2, 115.7, 112.9, 110.6, 110.5, 74.9, 63.2, 61.2, 53.6, 40.0, 21.2–21.0 (m). HRMS (ESI): M+–Cl, found 768.2513, requires C41H49N3O3ClRu 768.2506. IR (KBr) 3503, 2964, 2917, 1951, 1703, 1606, 1527, 1476, 1452, 1420, 1373, 1316, 1272, 1182, 1112, 1034, 938, 840, 828, 768, 745, 698, 574 cm−1.

3.10. Catalyst 11

To a solution of ligand 9 (2.04 g, 3.85 mmol) in toluene (50 mL) was added a solution of KHMDS in THF (16.8 mL, 4.2 mmol). After stirring at rt for 10 min, Hov I (2.11 g, 3.5 mmol) was added and stirred 40 min at 60 °C. Then CuCl (0.35 g, 3.5 mmol) was added and stirring and heating was continued for another 20 min. The reaction mixture was concentrated in vacuo. Purification by flash column chromatography (20% ethyl acetate/cyclohexane) gave a brown solid (1.066 g, 40%). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 16.47 (s, 1H), 8.74 (s, 2H), 7.74 (s, 2H), 7.54–7.45 (m, 1H), 7.10–6.76 (m, 7H), 4.97–4.79 (m, 2H), 4.60 (dd, J = 11.8, 5.0 Hz, 1H), 4.47 (dd, J = 11.9, 4.2 Hz, 1H), 4.40–4.28 (m, 1H), 4.02 (t, J = 10.6, 1H), 2.94–2.25 (m, 9H), 1.96–1.66 (m, 3H), 1.46–1.17 (m, 12H). 13C NMR (125 MHz, CDCl3) δ 298.2, 190.2, 165.0, 152.3, 150.6, 145.3, 139.1, 136.3, 135.7, 130.2, 129.9, 129.7, 129.5, 128.3, 122.9, 123.0, 122.3, 120.4, 114.0, 112.9, 75.1, 65.1, 61.8, 50.8, 42.0, 22.00, 21.2–21.0 (m). HRMS (ESI): M+–Cl, found 726.2044, requires C38H43N3O3ClRu 726.2036. IR (KBr) 3452, 2974, 2918, 1948, 1732, 1682, 1682, 1625, 1597, 1589, 1575, 1478, 1453, 1418, 1382, 1325, 1272, 1156, 1113, 1061, 1035, 937, 851, 754, 704, 574 cm−1.

4. Conclusions

In summary, two new ruthenium catalysts, 10 and 11, which bear neutral, basic tag-moieties attached to the N-heterocyclic carbene ligand, were successfully obtained in a straightforward manner using the benzoylation strategy. These new tagged complexes are very stable and are catalytically active in a model metathesis reaction, however their activity depends strongly on the nature of the tag used. Catalyst 11, bearing a strongly coordinating pyridine tag, is visibly less active in the model RCM reaction than its dimethylaniline analogue (10) and the parent Hoveyda–Grubbs catalyst, although the use of a mineral acid significantly offsets this difference. Having established a convenient way to prepare Hoveyda–Grubbs catalysts bearing basic tags in the NHC ligand, in a future study, we plan to immobilize them on selected solid supports and study catalysis under heterogeneous conditions.

Supplementary Materials

The following information may be found in the supplementary materials: 1. Unsuccessful attempts to direct esterification of complex 7; 2: Metathesis reactions; 3. NMR spectra.

Author Contributions

Initial investigation, S.C. and M.S., direct esterification attempts, optimization of a one-pot ligand synthesis, catalysts profiling, L.M.; supervision, writing—original draft preparation, A.K. and K.G., review and editing, L.M., A.K. and K.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Authors are grateful to the Catalysis for the Twenty-First Century Chemical Industry project carried out within the TEAM-TECH programme of the Foundation for Polish Science co-financed by the European Union from the European Regional Development under the Operational Programme Smart Growth. The study was carried out at the Biological and Chemical Research Centre, University of Warsaw, established within the project co-financed by European Union from the European Regional Development Fund under the Operational Programme Innovative Economy, 2007–2013.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting the reported results are available from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Sample Availability

Not available.

References

  1. Grela, K. Preface. In Olefin Metathesis: Theory and Practice; Grela, K., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. ix–x. [Google Scholar]
  2. Handbook of Metathesis; Grubbs, R.H.; Wenzel, A.G.; O’Leary, D.J.; Khosravi, E. (Eds.) Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. Vougioukalakis, G.C.; Grubbs, R.H. Ruthenium-Based Heterocyclic Carbene-Coordinated Olefin Metathesis Catalysts. Chem. Rev. 2009, 110, 1746–1787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Samojłowicz, C.; Bieniek, M.; Grela, K. Ruthenium-Based Olefin Metathesis Catalysts Bearing N-Heterocyclic Carbene Ligands. Chem. Rev. 2009, 109, 3708–3742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Montgomery, T.P.; Johns, A.M.; Grubbs, R.H. Recent Advancements in Stereoselective Olefin Metathesis Using Ruthenium Catalysts. Catalysts 2017, 7, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Müller, D.S.; Baslé, O.; Mauduit, M. A tutorial review of stereoretentive olefin metathesis based on ruthenium dithiolate catalysts. Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2018, 14, 2999–3010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Grela, K.; Kajetanowicz, A.; Szadkowska, A.; Czaban-Jóźwiak, J. Alkene Cross-Metathesis Reactions. In Organic Reactions; Weinreb, S.M., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; Volume 106, pp. 1–1189. [Google Scholar]
  8. Lin, S.; Wang, L.; Sharma, A. Acrylic boronate: A multifunctional C3 building block for catalytic synthesis of rare organoborons and chemoselective heterobifunctional ligations. Chem. Sci. 2021, 12, 7924–7929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kajetanowicz, A.; Grela, K. Nitro and Other Electron Withdrawing Group Activated Ruthenium Catalysts for Olefin Metathesis Reactions. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2021, 60, 13738–13756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Messina, M.S.; Maynard, H.D. Modification of proteins using olefin metathesis. Mater. Chem. Front. 2020, 4, 1040–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yelchuri, V.; Srikanth, K.; Prasad, R.B.N.; Karuna, M.S.L. Olefin metathesis of fatty acids and vegetable oils. J. Chem. Sci. 2019, 131, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Clavier, H.; Grela, K.; Kirschning, A.; Mauduit, M.; Nolan, S.P. Sustainable Concepts in Olefin Metathesis. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 6786–6801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Barbaras, D.; Brozio, J.; Johannsen, I.; Allmendinger, T. Removal of Heavy Metals from Organic Reaction Mixtures: Preparation and Application of Functionalized Resins. Org. Process. Res. Dev. 2009, 13, 1068–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vougioukalakis, G.C. Removing Ruthenium Residues from Olefin Metathesis Reaction Products. Chem. A Eur. J. 2012, 18, 8868–8880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Suriboot, J.; Bazzi, H.S.; Bergbreiter, D.E. Supported Catalysts Useful in Ring-Closing Metathesis, Cross Metathesis, and Ring-Opening Metathesis Polymerization. Polymers 2016, 8, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Bek, D.; Balcar, H.; Zílková, N.z.d.; Zukal, A.t.; Horáček, M.; Čejka, J. Grubbs Catalysts Immobilized on Mesoporous Molecular Sieves via Phosphine and Pyridine Linkers. ACS Catal. 2011, 1, 709–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Olszewski, T.K.; Bieniek, M.; Skowerski, K. Ruthenium-Based Complexes Bearing Quaternary Ammonium Tags as Versatile Catalysts for Olefin Metathesis: From the Discovery to Practical Applications. Org. Process. Res. Dev. 2020, 24, 125–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jana, A.; Grela, K. Forged and fashioned for faithfulness—Ruthenium olefin metathesis catalysts bearing ammonium tags. Chem. Commun. 2018, 54, 122–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Buchmeiser, M.R. Polymer-Supported Well-Defined Metathesis Catalysts. Chem. Rev. 2009, 109, 303–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Buchmeiser, M.R. Immobilization of Olefin Metathesis Catalysts. In Olefin Metathesis: Theory and Practice. Grela, K., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Szczepaniak, G.; Kosinski, K.; Grela, K. Towards “cleaner” olefin metathesis: Tailoring the NHC ligand of second generation ruthenium catalysts to afford auxiliary traits. Green Chem. 2014, 16, 4474–4492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hübner, S.; de Vries, J.G.; Farina, V. Why Does Industry Not Use Immobilized Transition Metal Complexes as Catalysts? Adv. Synth. Catal. 2016, 358, 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mennecke, K.; Grela, K.; Kunz, U.; Kirschning, A. Immobilisation of the Grubbs III Olefin Metathesis Catalyst with Polyvinyl Pyridine (PVP). Synlett 2005, 2005, 2948–2952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pastva, J.; Skowerski, K.; Czarnocki, S.J.; Žilková, N.; Čejka, J.; Bastl, Z.; Balcar, H. Ru-Based Complexes with Quaternary Ammonium Tags Immobilized on Mesoporous Silica as Olefin Metathesis Catalysts. ACS Catal. 2014, 4, 3227–3236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Michrowska, A.; Mennecke, K.; Kunz, U.; Kirschning, A.; Grela, K. A New Concept for the Noncovalent Binding of a Ruthenium-Based Olefin Metathesis Catalyst to Polymeric Phases:  Preparation of a Catalyst on Raschig Rings. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 13261–13267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kirschning, A.; Harmrolfs, K.; Mennecke, K.; Messinger, J.; Schön, U.; Grela, K. Homo- and heterogeneous Ru-based metathesis catalysts in cross-metathesis of 15-allylestrone—towards 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 inhibitors. Tetrahedron Lett. 2008, 49, 3019–3022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chołuj, A.; Nogaś, W.; Patrzałek, M.; Krzesiński, P.; Chmielewski, M.J.; Kajetanowicz, A.; Grela, K. Preparation of Ruthenium Olefin Metathesis Catalysts Immobilized on MOF, SBA-15, and 13X for Probing Heterogeneous Boomerang Effect. Catalysts 2020, 10, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, G.; Wu, B.; Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Shao, M.; Wang, J. Controlled Reversible Immobilization of Ru Carbene on Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes: A New Strategy for Green Catalytic Systems Based on a Solvent Effect on π−π Interaction. Inorg. Chem. 2009, 48, 2383–2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nasrallah, H.; Germain, S.; Queval, P.; Bouvier, C.; Mauduit, M.; Crévisy, C.; Schulz, E. Non covalent immobilization of pyrene-tagged ruthenium complexes onto graphene surfaces for recycling in olefin metathesis reactions. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2016, 425, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cabrera, J.; Padilla, R.; Bru, M.; Lindner, R.; Kageyama, T.; Wilckens, K.; Balof, S.L.; Schanz, H.-J.; Dehn, R.; Teles, J.H.; et al. Linker-Free, Silica-Bound Olefin-Metathesis Catalysts: Applications in Heterogeneous Catalysis. Chem. A Eur. J. 2012, 18, 14717–14724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Skowerski, K.; Wierzbicka, C.; Szczepaniak, G.; Gulajski, L.; Bieniek, M.; Grela, K. Easily removable olefin metathesis catalysts. Green Chem. 2012, 14, 3264–3268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Van Berlo, B.; Houthoofd, K.; Sels, B.F.; Jacobs, P.A. Silica Immobilized Second Generation Hoveyda-Grubbs: A Convenient, Recyclable and Storageable Heterogeneous Solid Catalyst. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2008, 350, 1949–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kirschning, A.; Gułajski, Ł.; Mennecke, K.; Meyer, A.; Busch, T.; Grela, K. Highly Active Ammonium-Tagged Olefin-Metathesis Catalyst for Simplified Purification. Synlett 2008, 2008, 2692–2696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Solodenko, W.; Doppiu, A.; Frankfurter, R.; Vogt, C.; Kirschning, A. Silica Immobilized Hoveyda Type Pre-Catalysts: Convenient and Reusable Heterogeneous Catalysts for Batch and Flow Olefin Metathesis. Aust. J. Chem. 2013, 66, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Michrowska, A.; Gulajski, L.; Grela, K. A simple and practical phase-separation approach to the recycling of a homogeneous metathesis catalyst. Chem. Commun. 2006, 8, 841–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Skowerski, K.; Białecki, J.; Czarnocki, S.J.; Żukowska, K.; Grela, K. Effective immobilisation of a metathesis catalyst bearing an ammonium-tagged NHC ligand on various solid supports. Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2016, 12, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Diallo, A.K.; Boisselier, E.; Liang, L.; Ruiz, J.; Astruc, D. Dendrimer-Induced Molecular Catalysis in Water: The Example of Olefin Metathesis. Chem. A Eur. J. 2010, 16, 11832–11835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Astruc, D.; Diallo, A.K.; Gatard, S.; Liang, L.; Ornelas, C.; Martinez, V.; Méry, D.; Ruiz, J. Olefin metathesis in nano-sized systems. Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2011, 7, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Garber, S.B.; Kingsbury, J.S.; Gray, B.L.; Hoveyda, A.H. Efficient and Recyclable Monomeric and Dendritic Ru-Based Metathesis Catalysts. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 8168–8179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Balcar, H.; Čejka, J. SBA-15 as a Support for Effective Olefin Metathesis Catalysts. Catalysts 2019, 9, 743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Chołuj, A.; Zieliński, A.; Grela, K.; Chmielewski, M.J. Metathesis@MOF: Simple and Robust Immobilization of Olefin Metathesis Catalysts inside (Al)MIL-101-NH2. ACS Catal. 2016, 6, 6343–6349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chołuj, A.; Krzesiński, P.; Ruszczyńska, A.; Bulska, E.; Kajetanowicz, A.; Grela, K. Noncovalent Immobilization of Cationic Ruthenium Complex in a Metal–Organic Framework by Ion Exchange Leading to a Heterogeneous Olefin Metathesis Catalyst for Use in Green Solvents. Organometallics 2019, 38, 3397–3405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chołuj, A.; Karczykowski, R.; Chmielewski, M.J. Simple and Robust Immobilization of a Ruthenium Olefin Metathesis Catalyst Inside MOFs by Acid–Base Reaction. Organometallics 2019, 38, 3392–3396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Skowerski, K.; Pastva, J.; Czarnocki, S.J.; Janoscova, J. Exceptionally Stable and Efficient Solid Supported Hoveyda-Type Catalyst. Org. Process. Res. Dev. 2015, 19, 872–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Skowerski, K.; Szczepaniak, G.; Wierzbicka, C.; Gułajski, Ł.; Bieniek, M.; Grela, K. Highly active catalysts for olefin metathesis in water. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2012, 2, 2424–2427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Patrzałek, M.; Piątkowski, J.; Kajetanowicz, A.; Grela, K. Anion Metathesis in Facile Preparation of Olefin Metathesis Catalysts Bearing a Quaternary Ammonium Chloride Tag. Synlett 2019, 30, 1981–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Milewski, M.; Kajetanowicz, A.; Grela, K. Improved preparation of an olefin metathesis catalyst bearing quaternary ammonium tag (FixCat) and its use in ethenolysis and macrocyclization reactions after immobilization on metal-organic framework (MOF). Arkivoc 2021, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Handbook of Reagents for Organic Synthesis: Activating Agents and Protecting Groups; Pearson, A.L.; Roush, W.J. (Eds.) John Wiley and Sons Ltd.: London, UK, 1999; pp. 42–44. [Google Scholar]
  49. Monge-Marcet, A.; Pleixats, R.; Cattoën, X.; Wong Chi Man, M. Catalytic applications of recyclable silica immobilized NHC–ruthenium complexes. Tetrahedron 2013, 69, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sauer, D.F.; Bocola, M.; Broglia, C.; Arlt, M.; Zhu, L.-L.; Brocker, M.; Schwaneberg, U.; Okuda, J. Hybrid Ruthenium ROMP Catalysts Based on an Engineered Variant of β-Barrel Protein FhuA ΔCVFtev: Effect of Spacer Length. Chem. Asian J. 2015, 10, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Koehler, K. Immobilizable N-Heterocyclic Carbene Metal Complexes with Alkoxysilyl Groups. WO2007017047A1, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mayr, M.; Wang, D.; Kröll, R.; Schuler, N.; Prühs, S.; Fürstner, A.; Buchmeiser, M.R. Monolithic Disk-Supported Metathesis Catalysts for Use in Combinatorial Chemistry. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2005, 347, 484–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ritter, T.; Hejl, A.; Wenzel, A.G.; Funk, T.W.; Grubbs, R.H. A Standard System of Characterization for Olefin Metathesis Catalysts. Organometallics 2006, 25, 5740–5745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Monsigny, L.; Piątkowski, J.; Trzybiński, D.; Wozniak, K.; Nienałtowski, T.; Kajetanowicz, A.; Grela, K. Activated Hoveyda-Grubbs Olefin Metathesis Catalysts Derived from a Large Scale Produced Pharmaceutical Intermediate—Sildenafil Aldehyde. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mayr, M.; Buchmeiser, M.R.; Wurst, K. Synthesis of a Silica-Based Heterogeneous Second Generation Grubbs Catalyst. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2002, 344, 712–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Molecules 26 05220 g001 550
Figure 1. Selected ruthenium olefin metathesis catalysts: (a) Grubbs, Hoveyda-Grubbs, and indenylidene type general-use complexes. (b) Examples of complexes covalently bound to the support. (c) Examples of commercially available complexes bearing polar quaternary ammonium tags for non-covalent attachment to the support. Cy = cyclohexyl, SBA-15 = Santa Barbara Amorphous-15, a highly stable mesoporous silica sieve, MCM = class of micro- and mesoporous zeolites.
Figure 1. Selected ruthenium olefin metathesis catalysts: (a) Grubbs, Hoveyda-Grubbs, and indenylidene type general-use complexes. (b) Examples of complexes covalently bound to the support. (c) Examples of commercially available complexes bearing polar quaternary ammonium tags for non-covalent attachment to the support. Cy = cyclohexyl, SBA-15 = Santa Barbara Amorphous-15, a highly stable mesoporous silica sieve, MCM = class of micro- and mesoporous zeolites.
Molecules 26 05220 g001
Molecules 26 05220 g002 550
Figure 2. Planned new tagged NHC ligands bearing basic Brønsted sites.
Figure 2. Planned new tagged NHC ligands bearing basic Brønsted sites.
Molecules 26 05220 g002
Molecules 26 05220 sch001 550
Scheme 1. Preparation of NHC ligand precursors 4 and 5. TEOF = triethyl orthoformate, mesidine = 2,4,6-trimethylaniline.
Scheme 1. Preparation of NHC ligand precursors 4 and 5. TEOF = triethyl orthoformate, mesidine = 2,4,6-trimethylaniline.
Molecules 26 05220 sch001
Molecules 26 05220 sch002 550
Scheme 2. Preparation of ruthenium complex 7 possessing free OH group.
Scheme 2. Preparation of ruthenium complex 7 possessing free OH group.
Molecules 26 05220 sch002
Molecules 26 05220 sch003 550
Scheme 3. Failed direct esterification of 7.
Scheme 3. Failed direct esterification of 7.
Molecules 26 05220 sch003
Molecules 26 05220 sch004 550
Scheme 4. Preparation of NHC ligand precursors 8 and 9 and Hoveyda-Grubbs type complexes 10 and 11.
Scheme 4. Preparation of NHC ligand precursors 8 and 9 and Hoveyda-Grubbs type complexes 10 and 11.
Molecules 26 05220 sch004
Molecules 26 05220 sch005 550
Scheme 5. Formation of dimers and trimers of complex 11 and their MS ESI spectra.
Scheme 5. Formation of dimers and trimers of complex 11 and their MS ESI spectra.
Molecules 26 05220 sch005
Molecules 26 05220 g003 550
Figure 3. Conversion to product P1 using catalysts 10, 11, and Hov II. Conversions according to 1H-NMR, curves are visual aid only.
Figure 3. Conversion to product P1 using catalysts 10, 11, and Hov II. Conversions according to 1H-NMR, curves are visual aid only.
Molecules 26 05220 g003
Molecules 26 05220 sch006 550
Scheme 6. Metathesis reactions of APIs S2, S3, and S4 catalyzed by 10 (isolated yields of pure substances).
Scheme 6. Metathesis reactions of APIs S2, S3, and S4 catalyzed by 10 (isolated yields of pure substances).
Molecules 26 05220 sch006
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Czarnocki, S.; Monsigny, L.; Sienkiewicz, M.; Kajetanowicz, A.; Grela, K. Ruthenium Olefin Metathesis Catalysts Featuring N-Heterocyclic Carbene Ligands Tagged with Isonicotinic and 4-(Dimethylamino)benzoic Acid Rests: Evaluation of a Modular Synthetic Strategy. Molecules 2021, 26, 5220. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26175220

AMA Style

Czarnocki S, Monsigny L, Sienkiewicz M, Kajetanowicz A, Grela K. Ruthenium Olefin Metathesis Catalysts Featuring N-Heterocyclic Carbene Ligands Tagged with Isonicotinic and 4-(Dimethylamino)benzoic Acid Rests: Evaluation of a Modular Synthetic Strategy. Molecules. 2021; 26(17):5220. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26175220

Chicago/Turabian Style

Czarnocki, Stefan, Louis Monsigny, Michał Sienkiewicz, Anna Kajetanowicz, and Karol Grela. 2021. "Ruthenium Olefin Metathesis Catalysts Featuring N-Heterocyclic Carbene Ligands Tagged with Isonicotinic and 4-(Dimethylamino)benzoic Acid Rests: Evaluation of a Modular Synthetic Strategy" Molecules 26, no. 17: 5220. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26175220

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop