Q. Yuan et al. / Tetrahedron Letters 43 (2002) 3935–3937
3937
dioxocyclens 1ꢀ4 exhibit different enantiomeric dis-
criminating ability. In particular, for recognition of
mandelic acid, less steric hindrance at the chiral carbon
of the dioxocyclen leads to weaker chiral recognition.
As for compound 1, although the proton signals of the
substrates shifted over 0.1 ppm, little chiral recognition
occurred.
Verleysen, K.; Vandijck, J.; Schelfaut, M.; Sandra, P. J.
High Resolut. Chromatogr. 1998, 21, 323–331.
2. Hu, S.; Fu, E.; Li, P. H. J. Chromatogr., A. 1999, 844,
439–446.
3. (a) Kim, B. M.; So, S. M. Tetrahedron Lett. 1999, 40,
7687–7690 and references cited therein; (b) Achmatowicz,
M.; Jurczak, J. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2001, 12, 111; (c)
Bhattacharyya, T.; Nilsson, N. J. Tetrahedron Lett. 2001,
42, 2873.
1
The chemical shifts of the amide NH signals in the H
NMR spectra of the dioxocyclens move downfield by
0.1–0.3 ppm. Meanwhile, both phenyl ring proton sig-
nals of the four substrates and compound 2 were
shifted. This implies that a p–p interaction might occur
between the phenyl rings of the substrates and that of
the host. As to 4-methoxymandelic acid, the peaks of
the phenyl ring proton signals which were not overlap-
ping with the host phenyl ring proton signals were
clearly split into quartets in the presence of compound
2 (Fig. 1 c and d), and the proton signals of the MeO
group also split into two peaks (DDl=3.6) because of
the change in electronic density on the phenyl ring.
4. Compound 1: [h]2D0=23.71 (c=0.8, MeOH), 1H NMR (300
MHz, CDCl3): l=7.55 (br, 1H, CONH), 7.38 (br, 1H,
3
CONH), 3.17–3.24 (q, J=6.9 Hz, 1H, NHCHCO), 3.38–
3.68 (m, 4H, 2CONHCHH, NCH2CO), 2.58–3.11 (m, 6H,
2CONHCHH·2NHCH2), 1.83 (br, 2H, 2NH), 1.34–1.36
3
(d, J=6.6 Hz, 3H, CH3), 13C NMR (75 MHz, CDCl3): l
174.97, 172.03, 62.25, 53.94, 45.34, 45.05, 38.31, 37.63,
20.59; MS (FAB): 215 [M+1]+, mp: 181–183°C. Anal.
calcd for C9H18N4O2, C 50.45; H, 8.47; N, 26.15. Found:
C, 50.6; H, 8.1; N, 25.4%. Compound 2: [h]2D0=40.34
(c=1.0, MeOH), 1H NMR (300 MHz, CDCl3): l=7.54
(br, 1H, CONH), 7.49 (br, 1H, CONH), 7.26–7.42 (m, 5H,
Ph), 3.27–3.64 (m, 5H, 2CONHCHH, NHCH2CO,
NHCHCO), 3.03–3.22 (m, 2H, 2CONHCHH), 2.64–3.01
(m, 6H, 2NHCH2, PhCH2), 1.94 (br, 2H, 2NH); 13C NMR
(75 MHz, CDCl3): l 173.69, 172.01, 129.32, 129.26,
127.48, 67.49, 57.31, 45.32, 45.04, 39.90, 38.36, 37.63: MS
(FAB): 291 [M+1]+, mp: 192–194°C. Anal. calcd for
C15H22N4O2: C, 62.05; H, 7.64; N, 19.30. Found: C, 61.6;
H, 7.3; N, 19.3%. Compound 3: [h]2D0=39.11 (c=1.0,
MeOH), 1H NMR (300 MHz, CDCl3): l=7.69 (br, 1H,
CONH), 7.30 (br, 1H, CONH), 3.04–3.77 (m, 6H,
NHCH2CO, 2CONHCH2), 2.67–2.99 (m, 5H, NHCHCO,
2NHCH2), 1.86 (br, 2H, 2NH), 1.61–2.12 (m, 1H,
CH3CHCH3), 0.97–1.05 (m, 6H, 2CH3), 13C NMR (75
MHz, CDCl3): l 173.89, 171.86, 72.53, 54.72, 45.69, 45.33,
38.12, 31.72, 19.70, 18.46, MS (FAB): 243 [M+1]+, mp:
201–203°C. Anal. calcd for C11H22N4O2: C, 54.52; H, 9.15;
N, 23.12. Found: C, 53.8; H, 9.2; N, 23.3%. Compound 4:
[h]2D0=22.32 (c=1.0, MeOH), 1H NMR (300 MHz,
CDCl3): l=7.63 (br, 1H, CONH), 7.26 (br, 1H, CONH),
2.98–3.71 (m, 6H, NCH2CO, 2CONHCH2), 2.60–2.97 (m,
5H, 2NHCH2, NHCHCO), 1.72–1.78 (m, 3H, 2NH,
CH2CHCH3) 1.08–1.60 (m, 2H, CHCH2CH3), 0.89–0.97
(m, 6H, 2CH3), 13C NMR (75 MHz, CDCl3): l 174.11,
172.14, 71.43, 54.72, 45.45, 45.07, 38.37, 37.91, 37.88,
25.28, 15.91, 11.56: MS (FAB): 257 [M+1]+, mp: 213–
215°C. Anal. calcd for C12H24N4O2: C, 56.22; H, 9.44; N,
21.86. Found: C, 56.0; H, 9.1; N, 21.4%.
In conclusion, the chiral dioxocyclen 2 is the best CSA
for the four substrates we chose. The phenyl group
plays an important role in chiral recognition. We have
used an efficient and simple synthetic methodology for
novel chiral dioxocyclen synthesis and we have intro-
duced this kind of chiral dioxocyclen into molecular
recognition research as CSAs. All chiral dioxocyclens
are amphiphiles, and they may be further functional-
ized, providing opportunities for the design and investi-
gation of more effective chiral macrocyclic hosts that
may be used for chiral recognition, enantiomeric sepa-
ration and enzyme models.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Hubei Province Sci-
ence Foundation, and by a grant from The Education
Ministry of China for the visiting scholar to the Key
Laboratory of Bioorganic Chemistry and Molecular
Engineering.
References
5. Xue, P.; Fu, E.; Wang, G.; Wu, C. Synth. Commun. 1999,
29, 1585.
6. Pirkle, W. H.; Pochapsky, T. C. Chem. Rev. 1989, 89,
347–362.
1. (a) Zhang, X. X.; Bradshaw, J. S.; Izatt, R. M. Chem. Rev.
1997, 97, 3313–3361; (b) Webb, T. H.; Wicox, C. S. Chem.
Soc. Rev. 1993, 22, 383–395; (c) Naemura, K.; Tobe, Y.;
Kaneda, T. Coord. Chem. Rev. 1996, 148, 199–219; (d)