Scheme 1
0.0032) corresponds to the HOMO–LUMO transition within
Reversible regio- and stereoselective photocyclization of
derivatives 1 affords not only colored but also, unlike
furylfulgides and dithienylethenes,2 fluorescent products,
which is important for non-destructive readout. Another
particularly promising potential application is to utilize the
ability of the photoproducts to form complexes with heavy
metal ions.
the quinolinone moiety and involves the CH2 group (Fig. 2).
The second peak observed at 327 nm should involve the benzoyl
carbonyl group and corresponds to predominantly HOMO21
–
LUMO+1 transition (calc. 323 nm, f = 0.0002). Note also that
the triplet 1,6-biradical is 3.2 kcal mol21 more stable than the
1,4-biradical. In fact to the best of our knowledge formation of
the 1,6-biradicals, in contrast to the 1,4-biradicals, is unprece-
dented, although the possibility of direct 1,7-hydrogen abstrac-
tion giving rise to the 1,5-biradicals has been discussed.6 We
also cannot exclude the possibility that the excited state
intramolecular proton transfer mechanism,7 which should give
rise to the same products, is involved. Mechanistic aspects of
the reaction are currently under study.
Notes and references
‡ 1 was synthesized using a modified procedure;8 colorless crystals, m.p.
161–162 °C, the structure was confirmed by X-ray technique. 2: red oil, 1H
NMR: d (500 MHz, CD2Cl2): 17.19 (1H, s, OH), 8.10 (1H, dd, J1 = 7.7, J2
= 1.5, C10-H), 7.78 (1H, dd, J1 = 7.7, J2 = 1.8, C1-H), 7.45 (2H, m, o-Ph-
H), 7.44 (1H, td, J1 = 7.4, J2 = 1.5, C8-H), 7.36 (1H, td, J1 = 7.5, J2 = 1.3,
C9-H), 7.32 (1H, d, J = 7.5, C7-H), 7.27 (1H, ddd, J1 = 8.6, J2 = 7.1, J3
= 1.7, C3-H), 7.18 (2H, m, m-Ph-H), 7.12 (1H, m, p-Ph-H), 6.69 (1H, ddd,
J1 = 7.8, J2 = 7.1, J3 = 0.9, C2-H), 6.47 (1H, d, J = 8.6), 4.48 (1H, s, C6-
H), 2.76 (3H, s, NMe), 1.51 (3H, s, CMe). 3: yellowish crystals, m.p.
191–192 °C. 1H NMR: d (500 MHz, 213 K, CD2Cl2): 7.96 (1H, d, J = 7.8,
C10-H), 7.76 (1H, dd, J1 = 7.8, J2 = 1.5, C1-H), 7.58 (1H, td, J1 = 7.5, J2
= 1.0, C8-H), 7.39 (2H, m, o-Ph-H), 7.36 (1H, t, J = 6.9, C3-H), 7.37 (1H,
td, J1 = 7.7, J2 = 1.7, C9-H), 7.27 (1H, d, J = 7.7), 7.24 (3H, m, m,p-Ph-
H), 6.73 (1H, t, J = 7.3, C2-H), 6.69 (1H, d, J = 8.7, C4), 4.82 (1H, s, C11a-
H), 3.60 (1H, s, C6-H), 2.76 (3H, s, NMe), 1.11 (3H, s, CMe). NMR spectra
of 2 and 3 are temperature dependent and were assigned using the COSY
and HMBC techniques. These results will be discussed elsewhere. Crystal
data for C25H21NO2 (3): M = 367.43, monoclinic, space group P21/n, a =
7.3820(10), b = 28.831(4), c = 9.2480(10) Å, b = 97.670(10)°, V =
1950.6(4) Å3, Z = 4, m = 0.079 mm21, T = 25 °C. 2253 independent
reflections were used in the refinement. Refinement of 338 parameters gave
wR2 = 0.26 (all data) and R1 = 0.0423 for 952 data with I > 2sI. CCDC
graphic data in CIF or other electronic format.
Assuming direct hydrogen transfer to the quinolinone
carbonyl as shown in Fig. 2 can explain not only the absence of
isomer 5, but also the predominant formation of the S,R-isomer
2 over the S,S-isomer 4. Indeed, the triplet biradical, which can
form from this conformation and is the precursor of 2, is
indicated by the calculations to be more stable than the biradical
precursor of 4 by 3.9 kcal mol21 (whose formation requires
additional rotation over the CH–CPh bond). Moreover, the
calculations showed that within the series of 5aS,6R isomers,
derivative 3 is the most stable. Thus, isomers 2 and 5 are 6 and
7 kcal mol21 less stable than 1 and 8–9 kcal mol21 less stable
than 3, which accounts for the thermal conversion of 2 into 3.
The 5aS,6R,11aR isomer of 3 is the least stable (11 kcal mol21
less than 1).
The above experimental and computational results imply that
the outcome of the photoreaction of 1 and its reversibility
should strongly depend on the nature of substituents R and R1,
in particular their bulkiness, since the differences in stability of
isomers 2–6 that stem mostly from steric strain, do not exceed
10 kcal mol21. Indeed, whereas derivative 1 (R = Et, R1 = Me)
behaves similarly to 1 (R = R1 = Me), different chemistry was
observed in cases when R1 = Ph. These results will be
published elsewhere.
§ The equilibrium geometries were found by molecular dynamics simula-
tions (Hyperchem, ver. 5.0) at the PM3 level and further optimized at the
HF/6-31G(d) level. The spectra were calculated using the TD B3LYP/
6-31G(d)//HF/6-31G(d) model chemistry (M. J. Frisch, et al., Gaussian 98,
Revision A.7, Gaussian, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1998).
1 Photoreactive Materials for Ultrahigh Density Optical Memory, ed. M.
Irie, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1994.
2 J. Whittal, in Photochromism, ed. H. Durr and H. Bouas-Laurent,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990, ch. 9, p. 467.
3 M. Irie, Chem. Rev., 2000, 100, 1685.
4 J. C. Scaiano, Acc. Chem. Res., 1982, 15, 252; P. J. Wagner, M. Sobczak
and B.-S. Park, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1998, 120, 2488.
5 G. R. Desiraju, Acc. Chem. Res., 1996, 29, 441.
6 P. G. Sammes, Tetrahedron, 1976, 32, 405.
7 S. M. Ormson and R. G. Brown, Prog. React. Kinet., 1994, 19, 211; K.
Kobayashi, M. Iguchi, T. Imakubo, K. Iwata and H. Kamaguchi, Chem.
Commun., 1998, 763.
8 K. R. Huffman, M. Loy and E. F. Ullman, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1965, 87,
5417.
Fig. 2 Equilibrium geometry and LUMO of 1.
CHEM. COMMUN., 2003, 2080–2081
2081