2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.carres.2014.05.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The use of O-trifluoroacetyl protection and profound influence of the nature of glycosyl acceptor in benzyl-free arabinofuranosylation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The influence of the acceptor on the outcome of glycosylation reactions, evident to every practitioner of the art, and the source of Paulsen’s oft-quoted comment on every glycosylation reaction being different, is illustrated many times over in Barresi and Hindsgaul’s catalog of all glycosylation reactions published in the year 1994 . Systematic studies, however, are more limited and begin with the 1991 publication of Spijker and van Boeckel comparing the silver triflate-promoted reaction of a pair of enantiomeric fucosyl bromides with a single enantiomerically pure acceptor (Scheme ), for which the reversal in selectivity was interpreted in terms of Horeau’s concept of double diastereo­differentiation and matched and mismatched pairs. , Further examples of the same phenomenon were reviewed through 2009 by Bohé and Crich, and the effect continues to be invoked even if not always rigorously established. It follows from the concept of double diastereo­differentiation that different glycosyl donors will exhibit differing regioselectivity in their coupling reactions with di- and polyols and, self-evidently, with different acceptor alcohols as commented in the reciprocal donor–acceptor selectivity principle of Fraser-Reid and co-workers. , …”
Section: Influence Of the Acceptormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The influence of the acceptor on the outcome of glycosylation reactions, evident to every practitioner of the art, and the source of Paulsen’s oft-quoted comment on every glycosylation reaction being different, is illustrated many times over in Barresi and Hindsgaul’s catalog of all glycosylation reactions published in the year 1994 . Systematic studies, however, are more limited and begin with the 1991 publication of Spijker and van Boeckel comparing the silver triflate-promoted reaction of a pair of enantiomeric fucosyl bromides with a single enantiomerically pure acceptor (Scheme ), for which the reversal in selectivity was interpreted in terms of Horeau’s concept of double diastereo­differentiation and matched and mismatched pairs. , Further examples of the same phenomenon were reviewed through 2009 by Bohé and Crich, and the effect continues to be invoked even if not always rigorously established. It follows from the concept of double diastereo­differentiation that different glycosyl donors will exhibit differing regioselectivity in their coupling reactions with di- and polyols and, self-evidently, with different acceptor alcohols as commented in the reciprocal donor–acceptor selectivity principle of Fraser-Reid and co-workers. , …”
Section: Influence Of the Acceptormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ito and co-workers studied the influence of tethering the 3- and 5-OH by a 3,5- O -(tetraisopropyldisilylene)acetal and also found the arabinofuranolysations to be β-selective, despite the more flexible system [ 63 ]. Interestingly it was recently found that exchanging the 3,5-DTBS group with trifluoroacetates retained a high β-selectivity, which suggests that the stereoselectivity is also related to the deactivating properties of the protective group [ 64 ].…”
Section: Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Motivated by the importance of the targets and the fundamental challenges outlined above, several research groups have developed elegant strategies for the construction of 1,2- cis - O -furanoses, including intramolecular aglycone delivery, conformationally locked oxocarbenium formation, and selective opening of 2,3-anhydro sugars, among others. These strategies are highly effective in specific cases, but they each rely on specialized protecting and/or directing groups on the glycosyl donor, thereby limiting their generality.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%