Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-1928-2473
London Dispersion Stabilizes Chloro-Substituted cis-Double Bonds
This work was supported by the priority program ‘Control of London Dispersion in Molecular Chemistry’ (SPP1807) of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
Abstract
We present a combined experimental and computational study on the thermodynamic stability of cis- and trans-alkenes substituted with dispersion energy donor (DED) groups. To investigate the role of noncovalent interactions on equilibrium of cis- and trans-alkenes we utilized hydrochlorination reactions. While the general assumption is that increasing steric bulk favors the trans-alkene, we observe an equilibrium shift towards the more crowded cis-alkene with increasing substituent size. With the aim to quantify noncovalent interactions, we performed a double mutant cycle to experimentally gauge the attractive potential of bulky substituents. Additionally, we utilized local energy decomposition analysis at the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/def2-TZVP level of theory. We found LD interactions and Pauli exchange repulsion to be the most dominant components to influence cis- and trans-alkene equilibria.
#
Key words
double mutant cycle - equilibrium - hydrohalogenation - London dispersion - Pauli repulsionIt is an accepted view in organic chemistry that trans double bonds are more stable than their cis analogues.[1] Based on the hard-sphere model, intramolecular steric hindrance is believed to alter the stability of the cis-isomer more significantly with increasing size of attached alkyl groups than for the ‘unfolded’ trans isomer. The notion of steric hindrance has a firm place in strain analyses, such as allylic,[2] syn-pentane,[3] and 1,3-diaxial[4] strain and is solely based on repulsive interactions due to close alkyl contacts. For instance, the A values are considered to be a direct measure of steric bulk.[4] However, recent studies demonstrated that London dispersion (LD) interactions[5] have to be taken into account as a key counterpart to steric repulsion.[6] That is, bulky alkyl groups can provide considerable stabilization due to LD. LD interactions were successfully utilized to stabilize weak bonds such as in hexaphenylethane derivatives[7] or cause molecules to dimerize by forming very close H···H contacts.[8] As well as carbon double bond, the nitrogen congeners usually favor the unfolded trans conformation.[9] For instance, Wegner et al.[10] demonstrated the importance of LD on the thermal isomerization reaction from trans- to cis-azobenzene by attaching bulky dispersion energy donor (DED) groups[11] in all-meta positions. Herein, we investigate the relative thermodynamic stability of trans- and cis-alkenes by utilizing a hydrohalogenation[12] reaction (Scheme [1]) and take into consideration the role LD plays in stabilizing the diastereomers.


The surface-mediated syn addition of HCl generated in situ from the reaction of oxalyl chloride with water first gives the kinetically favored cis-alkene. Under acidic conditions the double bond isomerizes via a protonation–deprotonation mechanism. Kropp et al.[12] demonstrated that alkyl groups directly attached to the double bond favor the trans-alkene. However, a systematic study on the role of noncovalent intramolecular interactions has not been reported. Herein, we focus on stilbene derivatives using DEDs in all-meta positions. While parent stilbene favors the unfolded trans form[1] [13] (the enthalpy difference is 5.7 kcal mol–1 derived from heats of hydrogenation,[14] 3.8 kcal mol–1 from heats of combustion,[15] and 2.3 kcal mol–1 from temperature-dependent measurement of the iodine-catalyzed isomerization reaction[15]) over the more crowded ‘folded’ cis-stilbene due to conjugation of the planar trans-stilbene and intramolecular steric hindrance in cis-2-R2 .[16] The inclusion of chlorine disrupts planarity (dihedral angle α = ca. 36°) of the trans isomer and therefore lowers the energy gain due to conjugation by around 2.5 kcal mol–1 (see the Supporting Information (SI) for details). Nevertheless, repulsive steric interactions in cis-2-R2 are not affected much by chlorine incorporation.
To measure the effects of DEDs on the thermodynamic stability of stilbene derivatives, we synthesized all-meta-substituted diphenylalkynes[17] 1-R2 with methyl (Me), ethyl (Et), iso-propyl ( i Pr), and tert-butyl ( t Bu) groups attached. We generated the 1-bromo-3,5-disubstituted benzene derivatives via literature procedures[7a] [18] and utilized a Pd-catalyzed decarboxylative coupling reaction[19] with 2-butynedioic acid to give all-meta-substituted diphenylalkynes 1-R2 (Scheme [2]). Unsymmetrical diphenylalkynes were synthesized in a coupling reaction with phenylpropiolic acid.


To test the suitability of the hydrochlorination and to gather information on thermodynamic equilibria of the stilbene derivatives, we chose 1,2-bis(3,5-dimethylphenyl)ethyne (1-Me2 ) as a model system.[20] We adopted the procedure of Kropp et al.[12] utilizing alumina for surface activation. The hydrolysis of oxalyl chloride was used to generate HCl in situ. The reaction was monitored via gas chromatography (GC–MS). After adding oxalyl chloride to a suspension of alkyne and alumina in DCM the starting material was consumed after around 20 min. Alumina adsorbs HCl in DCM solution, thereby enhancing its acidity and reactivity towards alkynes.[12b] The syn addition of HCl with the alkyne gives cis-2-Me2 . With an excess of reagent, the system equilibrates between the two diastereomers resulting in trans-2-Me2 as the main product. While equilibrium was reached after around 2 h, the mixture was allowed to react for 4 h in total. Figure [1] shows the composition of the reaction mixture with cis-alkene (red markings) as the kinetic and trans-alkene (blue markings) as the thermodynamic product. The starting material (grey markings) is consumed quickly. While the equilibrium shifts towards the unfolded trans-2-Me2 , the ratio and therefore energy difference between both conformers can be determined. Accordingly, the hydrochlorination is a means to an end to equilibrate the stilbene isomers.


The thermochemical results (ΔG R–R – ΔG H–H) of the computational and experimental study are depicted in Figure [2]. By representing the relative Gibbs free energies of the substituted and unsubstituted system, the trend already highlights the role DEDs play in the equilibrium (for absolute values, see the SI). While negative energy values correspond to a shift towards the more crowded cis diastereomer, positive values denote a shift to the trans isomer. Accordingly, the experimental data (Figure [2], blue markings) show a shift to the cis isomer with increasing polarizability of the substituents, although the absolute energies shows a preference of the trans isomer for all derivatives (for absolute values, see the SI). While Me substituents do not affect the equilibrium in comparison to the parent system (ΔG Me–Me – ΔG H–H = –0.1 ± 0.2 kcal mol–1), bulkier substituents all favor the folded isomer (negative energy values). This trend correlates well with polarizability α and therefore can be traced back to the substituents acting as DEDs.[5] Hence, the largest effect can be observed with tert-butyl substitution (ΔGt Bu–tBu – ∆G H–H = –0.7 ± 0.2 kcal mol–1). While bulkier DEDs shift the equilibrium to the more crowded cis-stilbene derivative, the chlorine atom appears to have a minor impact on the equilibrium. With its high polarizability chlorine can compete with alkyl substituents and diminishes the energetic preference for the cis derivative.[21]


We also performed a computational study on the thermodynamic stability of stilbene derivatives to assess the cis and trans diastereomer equilibrium. We utilized the Conformer–Rotamer Ensemble Sampling Tool[22] (crest) to identify conformers lowest in energy for the cis- and trans-alkenes. The preoptimized diastereomers were further optimized in the gas phase with Gaussian16.[23] We chose the B3LYP[24] functional including and excluding Grimme’s D3(BJ) correction[25] in conjunction with Ahlrich’s def2-TZVPP[26] basis set. To address solvent effects, single-point energy computations were performed utilizing the PCM model[27] with DCM as solvent. We verified these results using ωB97X-D[28] and higher-level computations such as single-point energies at the DLPNO–CCSD(T)/def2–TZVP[29] level of theory (see the SI for details).
The exclusion of LD interactions by utilizing the B3LYP functional without dispersion correction (red markings) predicts the trans-alkene to be lowest in energy for all compounds studied. Additionally, an incorporation of bulky substituents, such as iso-propyl or tert-butyl groups in all-meta position, results in positive energy values (up to +0.3 kcal mol–1). This would imply the intuitively often preferred repulsive nature of the intramolecular interactions in the cis-alkene. On the contrary, the inclusion of Grimme’s D3(BJ) correction (grey markings) leads to a significant stabilization in favor of the cis diastereomer. While the parent trans-stilbene is computationally favored by ΔG eq = +0.4 kcal mol–1, bulky substituents shift the equilibrium towards the cis-alkene. The largest effect is associated with the most polarizable tert-butyl groups with ΔGt Bu–tBu – ∆G H–H = –2.4 kcal mol–1 (for absolute values, see the SI). The close correlation with the polarizability α (Figure [2]) hints to attractive interactions relating to LD. By comparing computed with experimental data (blue markings), it is apparent that only the inclusion of dispersion corrections can help rationalize the observed trends. While computed energies arising from B3LYP/def2-TZVPP are not affected by the attached substituents, the B3LYP-D3(BJ)/def2-TZVPP level of theory is in line with the relative experimental energies. Both linear regressions (blue and grey markings) show the same sign and shift the equilibrium towards to more sterically hindered alkene. Nevertheless, the computed energetic preference due to the all-meta substitution pattern is around 70% more pronounced than our experimental findings suggest.[30] The highest shift towards the cis-alkene was observed with tert-butyl substitution (ΔGt Bu–tBu – ΔG H–H = –0.7 ± 0.2 kcal mol–1). While the absolute energies of the B3LYP-D3(BJ)/def2-TZVPP computations favor the cis isomer, the experimental study shows the trans isomer to be lowest in energy regardless of the substituents attached. Therefore, we conclude that an attenuation of intramolecular noncovalent interactions in DCM influences the equilibria of stilbene-type molecules significantly.[30] [31] This effect is not captured with solvent inclusion in the computations resulting in unsatisfactory computation of the absolute energy differences.
To investigate the origin of stabilization of the cis-alkene with bulky substituents attached, we conducted a qualitative analysis of noncovalent interactions. We generated intramolecular noncovalent interactions (NCI) plots[32] to highlight attractive and repulsive regions between the disubstituted phenyl moieties. The results for the cis diastereomers of 2-H2 (top) and 2- t Bu2 (bottom) are depicted in Figure [3]. While the trans-alkenes show no NCI interactions between the phenyl moieties (this is also confirmed by LED computations, see the SI), the cis isomers feature one large isosurface between adjacent phenyl moieties. With strong repulsive interactions color-coded in red and strong attractive interactions in blue, both alkenes show red isosurfaces in close proximity to the double bond, but blue ones in the exterior of both phenyl moieties. This is in line with the finding for hexaphenylethane.[7] The incorporation of bulky substituents results in an additional green isosurface corresponding to LD interactions. Accordingly, cis-2- t Bu2 is stabilized by close σ–σ contacts of around 2.3 Å in distance; these originate from the methyl groups of the tert-butyl substituents.


Apart from qualitative investigations, we quantitatively assessed the role DEDs play in the equilibrium. We performed a double-mutant cycle[33] (DMC) to dissect the interaction energy ΔΔG R–R which corresponds to the energy gained or lost due to two substituents interacting with each other. ΔΔG R–R is dissected from unsubstituted and singly substituted systems according to the following equation:
ΔΔG R–R = ΔG R–R – ΔG R–H – ΔG H–R + ΔG H–H
The results of the DMC give an experimental estimate of the attractive (negative energy values) or repulsive (positive energy values) interactions exclusively between DEDs, thereby, excluding interactions between substituent and the opposing phenyl moiety (Figure [4]). Due to a large error estimate (summation of four ΔG errors) the results of the analysis have to be treated with caution (see the SI for error estimation). Nevertheless, the analysis qualitatively confirms the DED capacities of alkyl groups. The total interaction energies ΔΔG R–R between the substituents are all attractive (negative) and, consequently, stabilizing for the cis-alkene. Both, Me–Me and Et–Et contacts (ΔΔG R–R = ca. –0.1 kcal mol–1) only faintly favor the cis-alkene. This is not surprising since LD interactions are highly distance-dependent (r –6). With a distance of around d Me–Me = ca. 4.2 Å and d Et–Et = ca, 3.1 Å, the substituents do not fall into the van der Waals minimum (d ideal = ca. 2.5 Å) range.[31b] Additionally, the latter suffers an entropic penalty due to the increased flexibility of the Et substituent. A similar effect was observed in the conformational analysis of all-meta-substituted diphenylthiourea.[34] Azobenzene derivatives[35] as well as hierarchically assembled dinuclear titanium(IV) helicates[36] confirm the effect for longer alkyl chains. The highest stabilizing interaction in favor of the cis-alkene again is observed for the close t Bu– t Bu (dt Bu–tBu = ca. 2.3 Å) contacts by ΔΔGt Bu–tBu = –0.6 kcal mol–1. The observed trends stem from a combination of attractive LD interactions between bulky DEDs and the solvophobic effect in polar solvents. Both effects increase with the size of alkyl substituent attached.


We performed a computational and experimental study on the role LD interactions play in the thermodynamic equilibrium of cis- and trans-alkenes, utilizing surface-mediated hydrochlorinations to study the effects of bulky substituents. In contrast to the notion that steric bulk favors the unfolded trans-alkene due to steric hindrance in the cis-olefin, we found a counterintuitive shift towards the more crowded cis-alkene with increasing substituent size. We highlight LD interactions as the main source of stabilization. To confirm these findings, we evaluated a double-mutant cycle to quantify the stabilizing interactions between polarizable alkyl groups attached in all-meta positions. The most prominent effect was observed with tert-butyl substitution. By analogy, an LED analysis provides additional evidence that LD interactions only affect the folded cis-alkene via intramolecular σ–σ contacts.
#
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgment
We thank Steffen Wagner for performing GC-MS measurements and Jan M. Schümann, Bastian Bernhardt, Henrik F. König, and Finn M. Wilming for fruitful discussions.
Supporting Information
- Supporting information for this article is available online at https://doi-org.accesdistant.sorbonne-universite.fr/10.1055/s-0037-1611940.
- Supporting Information
- CIF File
-
References and Notes
- 1 Kwasniewski SP, Claes L, François J.-P, Deleuze MS. J. Chem. Phys. 2003; 118: 7823
- 2a Malhotra SK, Johnson F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1965; 87: 5493
- 2b Johnson F, Malhotra SK. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1965; 87: 5492
- 2c Johnson F. Chem. Rev. 1968; 68: 375
- 3a Gotō H, Ōsawa E, Yamato M. Tetrahedron 1993; 49: 387
- 3b Scott RA, Scheraga HA. J. Chem. Phys. 1966; 44: 3054
- 3c Hoffmann RW, Stahl M, Schopfer U, Frenking G. Chem. Eur. J. 1998; 4: 559
- 4a Winstein S, Holness NJ. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1955; 77: 5562
- 4b Jensen FR, Bushweller CH, Beck BH. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1969; 91: 344
- 6a Wagner JP, Schreiner PR. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015; 54: 12274
- 6b Solel E, Ruth M, Schreiner PR. J. Org. Chem. 2021; 86: 7701
- 6c Solel E, Ruth M, Schreiner PR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021; 143: 20837
- 7a Rösel S, Balestrieri C, Schreiner PR. Chem. Sci. 2017; 8: 405
- 7b Rösel S, Becker J, Allen WD, Schreiner PR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018; 140: 14421
- 7c Rummel L, Schümann JM, Schreiner PR. Chem. Eur. J. 2021; 27: 13699
- 7d Rösel S, Schreiner PR. Isr. J. Chem. 2022; 62: e202200002
- 8a Rösel S, Quanz H, Logemann C, Becker J, Mossou E, Cañadillas-Delgado L, Caldeweyher E, Grimme S, Schreiner PR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017; 139: 7428
- 8b Maué D, Strebert PH, Bernhard D, Rösel S, Schreiner PR, Gerhards M. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2021; 60: 11305
- 9a Wong DP, Fink WH, Allen LC. J. Chem. Phys. 1970; 52: 6291
- 9b Schmittel M, Ruechardt C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1987; 109: 2750
- 10 Schweighauser L, Strauss MA, Bellotto S, Wegner HA. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015; 54: 13436
- 11 Grimme S, Huenerbein R, Ehrlich S. ChemPhysChem 2011; 12: 1258
- 12a Kropp PJ, Daus KA, Crawford SD, Tubergen MW, Kepler KD, Craig SL, Wilson VP. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990; 112: 7433
- 12b Kropp PJ, Daus KA, Tubergen MW, Kepler KD, Wilson VP, Craig SL, Baillargeon MM, Breton GW. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993; 115: 3071
- 12c Pienta NJ, Crawford SD, Kropp PJ. J. Chem. Educ. 1993; 70: 682
- 12d Kropp PJ, Crawford SD. J. Org. Chem. 1994; 59: 3102
- 12e Kropp PJ, Breton GW, Craig SL, Crawford SD, Durland WF, Jones JE, Raleigh JS. J. Org. Chem. 1995; 60: 4146
- 13 Saltiel J, Ganapathy S, Werking C. J. Phys. Chem. 1987; 91: 2755
- 14 Williams RB. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1942; 64: 1395
- 15 Fischer G, Muszkat KA, Fischer E. J. Chem. Soc. B 1968; 1156
- 16 Adrian FJ. J. Chem. Phys. 1958; 28: 608
- 17 General Procedure for the Coupling Reactions Pd(PPh3)2Cl2 (0.1 equiv.), 1,4-bis(diphenylphosphino)butane (0.1 equiv.), aryl halides (2 equiv.), and 2-butynedioic acid (1 equiv.) were combined with DBU (2 equiv.) in a small round-bottomed flask. DMSO (15.0 mL) was added, and the flask was sealed with a septum. The resulting mixture was placed in an oil bath at 110 °C for 4 h. The reaction was poured into 25 mL of saturated aqueous ammonium chloride and extracted with Et2O (4 × 20 mL). The combined ether extracts were washed with brine (90 mL), dried over MgSO4, and filtered. The solvent was removed under reduced pressure, and the resulting crude product was purified by flash chromatography (n-hexane) on silica gel Bis(3,5-di-tert-butylphenyl)acetylene (1- t Bu2) 1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3): δ = 1.22 (s, 36 H, 1), 7.51 (t, 2 H, 2), 7.77 (d, 4 H, 3) ppm. 13C NMR {1H} (101 MHz, CDCl3): δ = 31.4, 34.9, 90.4, 122.8, 123.7, 126.7, 151.3 ppm.
- 18a Eschmann C, Song L, Schreiner PR. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2021; 60: 4823
- 18b Shi F, Shen JK, Chen D, Fog K, Thirstrup K, Hentzer M, Karlsson J.-J, Menon V, Jones KA, Smith KE, Smith G. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2011; 2: 303
- 19 Park K, Bae G, Moon J, Choe J, Song KH, Lee S. J. Org. Chem. 2010; 75: 6244
- 20 General Procedure for the Hydrochlorination Reaction A round-bottomed flask was charged with substituted diphenylacetylene (1 equiv.) and 10 g alumina. 20 mL DCM were added, and the mixture was stirred vigorously. To start the reaction oxalyl chloride (8 equiv.) was added via a syringe and the mixture sealed with a septum. The reaction procedure and product ratio was monitored via GC–MS.
- 21 Liu T, Schneider H.-J. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2002; 41: 1368
- 22 Pracht P, Bohle F, Grimme S. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2020; 22: 7169
- 23 Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, Scalmani G, Barone V, Petersson GA, Nakatsuji H, Li X, Caricato M, Marenich AV, Bloino J, Janesko BG, Gomperts R, Mennucci B, Hratchian HP, Ortiz JV, Izmaylov AF, Sonnenberg JL, Williams-Young D, Ding F, Lipparini F, Egidi F, Goings J, Peng B, Petrone A, Henderson T, Ranasinghe D, Zakrzewski VG, Gao J, Rega N, Zheng G, Liang W, Hada M, Ehara M, Toyota K, Fukuda R, Hasegawa J, Ishida M, Nakajima T, Honda Y, Kitao O, Nakai H, Vreven T, Throssell K, Montgomery JA. Jr, Peralta JE, Ogliaro F, Bearpark MJ, Heyd JJ, Brothers EN, Kudin KN, Staroverov VN, Keith TA, Kobayashi R, Normand J, Raghavachari K, Rendell AP, Burant JC, Iyengar SS, Tomasi J, Cossi M, Millam JM, Klene M, Adamo C, Cammi R, Ochterski JW, Martin RL, Morokuma K, Farkas O, Foresman JB, Fox DJ. Gaussian 16 Rev. C.01 . Gaussian; Wallingford: 2016
- 25a Grimme S, Antony J, Ehrlich S, Krieg H. J. Chem. Phys. 2010; 132: 154104
- 25b Grimme S, Ehrlich S, Goerigk L. J. Comput. Chem. 2011; 32: 1456
- 26 Schäfer A, Huber C, Ahlrichs R. J. Chem. Phys. 1994; 100: 5829
- 27a Miertuš S, Scrocco E, Tomasi J. Chem. Phys. 1981; 55: 117
- 27b Tomasi J, Mennucci B, Cammi R. Chem. Rev. 2005; 105: 2999
- 28 Chai J.-D, Head-Gordon M. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2008; 10: 6615
- 29a Riplinger C, Neese F. J. Chem. Phys. 2013; 138: 034106
- 29b Liakos DG, Sparta M, Kesharwani MK, Martin JM. L, Neese F. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015; 11: 1525
- 30 Pollice R, Bot M, Kobylianskii IJ, Shenderovich I, Chen P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017; 139: 13126
- 31a Pollice R, Fleckenstein F, Shenderovich I, Chen P. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019; 58: 14281
- 31b Schümann JM, Wagner JP, Eckhardt AK, Quanz H, Schreiner PR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021; 143: 41
- 32a Johnson ER, Keinan S, Mori-Sánchez P, Contreras-García J, Cohen AJ, Yang W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010; 132: 6498
- 32b Contreras-García J, Johnson ER, Keinan S, Chaudret R, Piquemal J.-P, Beratan DN, Yang W. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2011; 7: 625
- 33a Carter PJ, Winter G, Wilkinson AJ, Fersht AR. Cell 1984; 38: 835
- 33b Adams H, Carver FJ, Hunter CA, Morales JC, Seward EM. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1996; 35: 1542
- 33c Yang L, Adam C, Nichol GS, Cockroft SL. Nat. Chem. 2013; 5: 1006
- 34 Rummel L, Domanski MH. J, Hausmann H, Becker J, Schreiner PR. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2022; 134: e202204393
- 35 Strauss MA, Wegner HA. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019; 58: 18552
- 36 Van Craen D, Rath WH, Huth M, Kemp L, Räuber C, Wollschläger JM, Schalley CA, Valkonen A, Rissanen K, Albrecht M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017; 139: 16959
Corresponding Author
Publication History
Received: 07 July 2022
Accepted after revision: 19 August 2022
Accepted Manuscript online:
19 August 2022
Article published online:
30 September 2022
© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References and Notes
- 1 Kwasniewski SP, Claes L, François J.-P, Deleuze MS. J. Chem. Phys. 2003; 118: 7823
- 2a Malhotra SK, Johnson F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1965; 87: 5493
- 2b Johnson F, Malhotra SK. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1965; 87: 5492
- 2c Johnson F. Chem. Rev. 1968; 68: 375
- 3a Gotō H, Ōsawa E, Yamato M. Tetrahedron 1993; 49: 387
- 3b Scott RA, Scheraga HA. J. Chem. Phys. 1966; 44: 3054
- 3c Hoffmann RW, Stahl M, Schopfer U, Frenking G. Chem. Eur. J. 1998; 4: 559
- 4a Winstein S, Holness NJ. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1955; 77: 5562
- 4b Jensen FR, Bushweller CH, Beck BH. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1969; 91: 344
- 6a Wagner JP, Schreiner PR. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015; 54: 12274
- 6b Solel E, Ruth M, Schreiner PR. J. Org. Chem. 2021; 86: 7701
- 6c Solel E, Ruth M, Schreiner PR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021; 143: 20837
- 7a Rösel S, Balestrieri C, Schreiner PR. Chem. Sci. 2017; 8: 405
- 7b Rösel S, Becker J, Allen WD, Schreiner PR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018; 140: 14421
- 7c Rummel L, Schümann JM, Schreiner PR. Chem. Eur. J. 2021; 27: 13699
- 7d Rösel S, Schreiner PR. Isr. J. Chem. 2022; 62: e202200002
- 8a Rösel S, Quanz H, Logemann C, Becker J, Mossou E, Cañadillas-Delgado L, Caldeweyher E, Grimme S, Schreiner PR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017; 139: 7428
- 8b Maué D, Strebert PH, Bernhard D, Rösel S, Schreiner PR, Gerhards M. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2021; 60: 11305
- 9a Wong DP, Fink WH, Allen LC. J. Chem. Phys. 1970; 52: 6291
- 9b Schmittel M, Ruechardt C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1987; 109: 2750
- 10 Schweighauser L, Strauss MA, Bellotto S, Wegner HA. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015; 54: 13436
- 11 Grimme S, Huenerbein R, Ehrlich S. ChemPhysChem 2011; 12: 1258
- 12a Kropp PJ, Daus KA, Crawford SD, Tubergen MW, Kepler KD, Craig SL, Wilson VP. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990; 112: 7433
- 12b Kropp PJ, Daus KA, Tubergen MW, Kepler KD, Wilson VP, Craig SL, Baillargeon MM, Breton GW. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993; 115: 3071
- 12c Pienta NJ, Crawford SD, Kropp PJ. J. Chem. Educ. 1993; 70: 682
- 12d Kropp PJ, Crawford SD. J. Org. Chem. 1994; 59: 3102
- 12e Kropp PJ, Breton GW, Craig SL, Crawford SD, Durland WF, Jones JE, Raleigh JS. J. Org. Chem. 1995; 60: 4146
- 13 Saltiel J, Ganapathy S, Werking C. J. Phys. Chem. 1987; 91: 2755
- 14 Williams RB. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1942; 64: 1395
- 15 Fischer G, Muszkat KA, Fischer E. J. Chem. Soc. B 1968; 1156
- 16 Adrian FJ. J. Chem. Phys. 1958; 28: 608
- 17 General Procedure for the Coupling Reactions Pd(PPh3)2Cl2 (0.1 equiv.), 1,4-bis(diphenylphosphino)butane (0.1 equiv.), aryl halides (2 equiv.), and 2-butynedioic acid (1 equiv.) were combined with DBU (2 equiv.) in a small round-bottomed flask. DMSO (15.0 mL) was added, and the flask was sealed with a septum. The resulting mixture was placed in an oil bath at 110 °C for 4 h. The reaction was poured into 25 mL of saturated aqueous ammonium chloride and extracted with Et2O (4 × 20 mL). The combined ether extracts were washed with brine (90 mL), dried over MgSO4, and filtered. The solvent was removed under reduced pressure, and the resulting crude product was purified by flash chromatography (n-hexane) on silica gel Bis(3,5-di-tert-butylphenyl)acetylene (1- t Bu2) 1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3): δ = 1.22 (s, 36 H, 1), 7.51 (t, 2 H, 2), 7.77 (d, 4 H, 3) ppm. 13C NMR {1H} (101 MHz, CDCl3): δ = 31.4, 34.9, 90.4, 122.8, 123.7, 126.7, 151.3 ppm.
- 18a Eschmann C, Song L, Schreiner PR. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2021; 60: 4823
- 18b Shi F, Shen JK, Chen D, Fog K, Thirstrup K, Hentzer M, Karlsson J.-J, Menon V, Jones KA, Smith KE, Smith G. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2011; 2: 303
- 19 Park K, Bae G, Moon J, Choe J, Song KH, Lee S. J. Org. Chem. 2010; 75: 6244
- 20 General Procedure for the Hydrochlorination Reaction A round-bottomed flask was charged with substituted diphenylacetylene (1 equiv.) and 10 g alumina. 20 mL DCM were added, and the mixture was stirred vigorously. To start the reaction oxalyl chloride (8 equiv.) was added via a syringe and the mixture sealed with a septum. The reaction procedure and product ratio was monitored via GC–MS.
- 21 Liu T, Schneider H.-J. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2002; 41: 1368
- 22 Pracht P, Bohle F, Grimme S. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2020; 22: 7169
- 23 Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, Scalmani G, Barone V, Petersson GA, Nakatsuji H, Li X, Caricato M, Marenich AV, Bloino J, Janesko BG, Gomperts R, Mennucci B, Hratchian HP, Ortiz JV, Izmaylov AF, Sonnenberg JL, Williams-Young D, Ding F, Lipparini F, Egidi F, Goings J, Peng B, Petrone A, Henderson T, Ranasinghe D, Zakrzewski VG, Gao J, Rega N, Zheng G, Liang W, Hada M, Ehara M, Toyota K, Fukuda R, Hasegawa J, Ishida M, Nakajima T, Honda Y, Kitao O, Nakai H, Vreven T, Throssell K, Montgomery JA. Jr, Peralta JE, Ogliaro F, Bearpark MJ, Heyd JJ, Brothers EN, Kudin KN, Staroverov VN, Keith TA, Kobayashi R, Normand J, Raghavachari K, Rendell AP, Burant JC, Iyengar SS, Tomasi J, Cossi M, Millam JM, Klene M, Adamo C, Cammi R, Ochterski JW, Martin RL, Morokuma K, Farkas O, Foresman JB, Fox DJ. Gaussian 16 Rev. C.01 . Gaussian; Wallingford: 2016
- 25a Grimme S, Antony J, Ehrlich S, Krieg H. J. Chem. Phys. 2010; 132: 154104
- 25b Grimme S, Ehrlich S, Goerigk L. J. Comput. Chem. 2011; 32: 1456
- 26 Schäfer A, Huber C, Ahlrichs R. J. Chem. Phys. 1994; 100: 5829
- 27a Miertuš S, Scrocco E, Tomasi J. Chem. Phys. 1981; 55: 117
- 27b Tomasi J, Mennucci B, Cammi R. Chem. Rev. 2005; 105: 2999
- 28 Chai J.-D, Head-Gordon M. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2008; 10: 6615
- 29a Riplinger C, Neese F. J. Chem. Phys. 2013; 138: 034106
- 29b Liakos DG, Sparta M, Kesharwani MK, Martin JM. L, Neese F. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015; 11: 1525
- 30 Pollice R, Bot M, Kobylianskii IJ, Shenderovich I, Chen P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017; 139: 13126
- 31a Pollice R, Fleckenstein F, Shenderovich I, Chen P. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019; 58: 14281
- 31b Schümann JM, Wagner JP, Eckhardt AK, Quanz H, Schreiner PR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021; 143: 41
- 32a Johnson ER, Keinan S, Mori-Sánchez P, Contreras-García J, Cohen AJ, Yang W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010; 132: 6498
- 32b Contreras-García J, Johnson ER, Keinan S, Chaudret R, Piquemal J.-P, Beratan DN, Yang W. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2011; 7: 625
- 33a Carter PJ, Winter G, Wilkinson AJ, Fersht AR. Cell 1984; 38: 835
- 33b Adams H, Carver FJ, Hunter CA, Morales JC, Seward EM. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1996; 35: 1542
- 33c Yang L, Adam C, Nichol GS, Cockroft SL. Nat. Chem. 2013; 5: 1006
- 34 Rummel L, Domanski MH. J, Hausmann H, Becker J, Schreiner PR. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2022; 134: e202204393
- 35 Strauss MA, Wegner HA. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019; 58: 18552
- 36 Van Craen D, Rath WH, Huth M, Kemp L, Räuber C, Wollschläger JM, Schalley CA, Valkonen A, Rissanen K, Albrecht M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017; 139: 16959











