Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Group Meeting

Overview: Computational Featured in this Talk (not exaustive!) Classical 1. History of computational chemistry

2. Introduction to chemical calulations (for organic chemists) – , a review Quantum – Hartree-Fock theory Chemical – basis functions/basis sets Theory – post-Hartree-Fock methods – density-functional theory – computational methods, an overview

3. physical properties – – spectral properties: IR, NMR, CD How to employ (1897–1958) (1898–1974) (UCSD, UCSB) (1925-2004) 4. Analyzing organic reactions computational methods – general concepts: theory Contemporary Computational – dyotropic reactions – cationic rearrangements in terpene

5. Quantum tunneling effects – light- tunneling – heavy-atom tunneling – tunneling in Unusual mechanisms in 6. Deviations from TST: potential surface bifurcations organic – valley-ridge inflections (VRIs) chemistry – bifurcations where you'd least expect them – selectivity in bifurcated PESs Don Truhlar Paul v. R. Schleyer Ken Houk (UCLA) Henry F. Schaefer III (Minnesota) 7. Deviations from TST: dynamic effects in organic reactions 922 (UGA) 1019 1209 (UGA) – computational dynamics 1428 – non-statistical dynamics in organic reactions – dynamic effects in terpene biosynthesis

Significant References:

Computational Organic Chemistry (2007), Steven M. Bachrach

Essentials of Computational Chemistry (2002), Christopher J. Cramer Chris Cramer Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry (1998), Paul von Ragué Schleyer Daniel Singleton Peter Schreiner Dean Tantillo (Minnesota) (Texas A&M) (Giessen) (UC Davis) 366 308 167

1 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

1. History of Computational Chemistry

Computational Chemistry is the use of to predict, understand, or explain chemical . Number of citations per year to "DFT" (unfilled) and "" (filled)

Nobel Prizes in Computational Chemistry: -Walter Kohn (1998): "for his development of density-functional theory" from Computational Organic Chemistry -John Pople (1998): "for his development of computational methods in " -, , and (2013): "for the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems"

5 of the top 10 most cited papers of all time in JACS are computational:

1. Development and use of quantum mechanical molecular models. 76. AM1: a new general purpose quantum mechanical molecular model (7854) Moore's Law: The number of transistors 2. A Second Generation for the Simulation of Proteins, Nucleic Acids, and on integrated circuits doubles Organic (3338) approximately every two years. 3. Development and Testing of the OPLS All-Atom Force Field on Conformational The ever-increasing computing power of Energetics and Properties of Organic Liquids (3011) modern drives the extension 6. Nucleus-Independent Chemical Shifts: A Simple and Efficient Aromaticity Probe of computational chemistry to more (2207) complicated systems with more sophisticated levels of theory 8. A new force field for molecular mechanical simulation of nucleic acids and proteins (1490)

A Brief History: 1925 – Warner Heisenberg, , and Pascal Jordan develop mechanics – Erwin Schrödinger invents wave mechanics and non-relativistic Schrödinger equation – and Fritz London publish first calculations on chemical bonding 1927 – Douglas Hartree publishes self–consistent field method 1930 – Vladimir Fock formulates Hartree–Fock theory Much of modern computational 1947 – ENIAC is the first general–purpose computer to be built chemisry is performed on linux 1950 – Clemens Roothaan publishes LCAO theory clusters where multiple processors can 1951 – UNIVAC is the first commercial general–purpose computer be utilized and many calculations can be run in parallel 1955 – First ab initio calculation on 'large' , N2 – Transistors replace vacuum tubes in computers 1964 – and Walter Kohn introduce density–functional theory 1970 – John Pople introduces Gaussian (software) 1971 – First commercially available microprocessor (Intel 4004)

2 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

2. Introduction to chemical calculations With the one wavefunction assumption the total Quantum Mechanics, a Review electronic energy can be described as the sum of electronic Ei. Which arise from the Hartree equation: Quantum chemical calculations entail solution of the time-independent Schrödinger equation eff (K + Ve-n + Vi )φi = Eiφi HΨ(R1...Rn,r1...rn) = EΨ(R1...Rn,r1...rn) – K is the kinetic energy for – H is the Hamiltonian operator (which describes potential and kinetic energy of the – V is the potential energy operator from electron nucleus attraction molecule) – V eff is the effective field of all other electrons – Ψ(x) is the wavefunction for nuclei and electrons (a function of nuclear positions R and i electron positions r) – E is the energy associated with the wavefunction

The density of a wavefunction is given by its square (technically complex Self-consistent field: solving for a set of functions φi is still problematic because the conjugate), 2 eff Ψ effective field Vi is dependent on the wavefunctions. To solve this problem an iterative Hartree-Fock Theory procedure is used where: 1. a set of functions, (φ1...φn) is guessed eff There are very few scenarios for which an analytic solution fo the Schrödinger equation exists. 2. to produce a potential Vi In order to arrive at a solution for any systems of interest several assumptions must be made: 3. which produces a new set of functions φi eff 4. which produces a new potential Vi Born Oppenheimer Approximation: the nuclear and electronic portions of the ... wavefunction can be treated separately. Because electrons are much lighter than nuclei, they move much more rapidly and respond essentially instantaneously to changes in This procedure is repeated until the functions φi no longer change (converge) and produce nuclear position a self-consistent field (SCF). SCF convergence is a necessity for energy calculations.

Ψ(R1...Rn,r1...rn) = Φ(R1...Rn)ψ(r1...rn)

– Φ is a wavefunction for nuclei and a function of nuclear positions R – ψ is a wavefunction for electrons and a function of electron positions r Linear combination of atomic orbitals (LCAO): electronic wavefunctions φi are molecular orbitals that span the entire molecule. As a further simplifying approximation, molecular We can now specify the electronic energy of a molecule as a function of fixed nuclear (atomic) positions. This forms a (PES) which is a 3N-6 (N = # of orbitals are constructed as the sum of atomic orbitals χu ) dimentional surface describing the energy as a function of nuclear positions

One Electron Wavefunction: the electronic wavefunction ψ, which is dependant on all electons can be represented as the product of individual one electron wave functions

Because HF theory uses an effective electron-electron repulsion term, HF ψ(r1...rn) = φ1(r1)φ2(r2)...φn(rn) energy, EHF will always be greater than the exact energy E. The instantaneous electron-electron repulsion is referred to as electron coorelation: In order for this formulation to solve the Schrödinger equation the effect of electron- electron repulsion must be dealt with. To do this Hartree substituted the exact e-e Ecorr = E – EHF eff repulsion with an effective repulsion Vi . The exact e-e repulsion is replaced with an effective field produced by the average positions of remaining electrons. This is a This is the best-case error of HF theory major assumption.

3 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

Basis Functions & Basis Sets A single basis function is typically made up of multiple gaussian functions (GTOs) The Hartree-Fock limit, EHF, is reached only for an infinite set of atomic orbitals. in order to correct for deviations from STOs Because an inifinite set of orbitals is computationally impractical, some finite set of functions must be used to represent the atomic orbitals. This is referred to as Pople notation: for commonly employed split-valence basis sets the number of gaussian the . functions (primatives) is described by the name

The most logical starting point is to use an exact solution to the Schrödinger equation Valence For Carbon: for a hydrogen atom, a Slater-type orbital (STO). STOs are extremely problematic for double zeta computation, however, and so the use of Gaussian-type orbitals (GTO) was proposed.

6-31G Core single zeta inner outer

For carbon the 6-31G basis set contains 9 basis functions (1 core, 8 valence). Each core basis function is made up of 6 GTOs, each inner valence function is made up of 3 GTOs and each outer valence function is made up of 1 GTO (22 GTOs total)

Polarization functions: Because GTOs still lack some flexibility to describe electron distribution a set of polarization functions are typically added. These are typically d orbitals for heavy atoms and p orbitals for Hydrogen.

The functions are not identical and so to better mimic a STO multiple GTOs are used to Carbon: mimic each STO. 6-31G(d): six d-type (Cartesian) basis functions added to each heavy atom 6-31G(d,p): six d-type basis functions for heavy atoms, three p-type basis functions for H A minimum basis (single-zeta) contains one basis function for each occupied or partically occupied orbital in the atom.

2 2 2 Carbon: 1s 2s 2p , two s-type and three p-type (px, py, and pz) basis functions

Minimum basis sets are almost always (read always) inadequate. To obtain better Diffuse functions: For anionic molecules and molecules with adjacent coverage double zeta (two basis functions per orbital) or triple zeta (three basis functions electrons the orbitals need to be allowed to expand into a larger volume. To per orbital) basis sets can be used. accomodate this diffuse orbitals (one for each valence orbital) are added

Carbon: Carbon: – double-zeta: four s-type and six p-type basis functions 6-31+G(d): 6-31(G) plus four diffuse functions 1 s-type, 3 p-type. – triple-zeta: six s-type and nine p-type basis functions 6-31++G(d): adds diffuse functions to H (1 s-type)

Because valence electrons are typically more chemically important than core electrons, Commonly employed split valence basis sets in organic chemistry: split-valence basis sets are more typically employed: eg. single-zeta in the core and double-zeta for valence orbitals. 6-31G(d): minimally employed basis set (good for larger molecules)

6-31+G(d,p): standard basis set (if size permits) Carbon: double-zeta split-valence 2 core (single zeta): 1s , one s-type function 6-311+G(2df,2p): high level basis set valence (double zeta): 2s22p2, two s-type and six p-type functions

4 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

post-Hartree-Fock Methods The first three functionals are known and easily described, but the Exchange- Because electron coorelation is neglected in HF theory, post-HF methods correlation functional cannot be derived attempt to treat electron coorelation through several methods.

commonly employed: Exchange: interaction of electrons with matched spins (Pauli exclusion principle) Correlation: instantaneous, non-classical interaction of electrons MP2: Mølller-Plesset CCSD(T): method Thus, while the H-K theorem proves that a functional must exist, it's exact composition is non-trivial and post-HF methods are more suceptible to basis set incompleteness, presently unknown. so more sophisticated basis sets are commonly used

cc-pVDZ: coorelation consistent (optimized using post-HF) double-zeta basis set In place of an exact solution, approximations are made to the E term which give rise to cc-pVTZ: triple-zeta xc different levels of theory. If a particular functional proves to be inappropriate for a given aug-cc-pVDZ: aug adds diffuse functions (same as +) system, there is no guidance as to a better functional. Method Scaling Behavior HF N4 Richard Feynman referred to the exchange-correlation energy as "stupidity energy" MP2 N5 MP3, CISD, CCSD N5 MP4, CCSD(T) N7 The alphabet soup of density functionals MP5, CISDT N8 MP6 N9 DFT methods are characterized by their exchange and correlation functionals: MP7 N10 LDA: local density approximation (very crude) Density Functional Theory B3LYP: Becke's exchange functional + 3 parameter Lee-Yang-Parr While the electronic wavefunction, ψ, is dependant on the x, y, and z coordiates of coorelation functional each atom (3n variables), the total is dependant only on the position in space (3 variables). M06: One of Truhlar's Minnesota functionals

Hohenberg-Kohn theorem proved that there exists a unique functional, E, such that: mPW1PW91: modified Perdew-Wang 1991 exchange and Perdew- Wang 1991 coorelation functionals

E[ρ(r)] = Eelec DFT methods use the same basis functions as HF methods and apply a similar The exact electronic energy can be be solved without some of the major convergence (SCF) optimization protocol assumptions made above! ρ(r) is the probability of finding any electron in a system at point r – some DFT methods use HF exchange But, theres a catch...the energy functional E is given by the following: – computational scaling depends on the method but is typically N4 or better e-n exchange-correlation attraction functional – most are benchmarked or parameterized to experimental data, are not strictly ab initio

E[ρ(r)] = Te[ρ(r)] + Vne[ρ(r)] + Vee[ρ(r)] + Exc[ρ(r)] HF and post-HF methods provide an exact solution to an approximate theory, while DFT provides an exact theory with an approximate solution. kinetic classical e-e energy repulsion

5 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

Computational Methods, an Overview Intrinsic Reaction Coordinate: the steepest descent pathway from a transition state to the stationary points it connects. represented in mass weighted coordinates: – ab inito Hartree-Fock theory is (almost) never the most appropriate choice for studying organic molecules or reactions Modeling a : – post-Hartree-Fock Methods are limited by computational restrictions but can give much more accurate energies of small systems – Pick an appropriate model and level of theory (functional) – Pick a basis set based on level of theory and molecular size – DFT methods provide a balance of computational performance and accuracy – Perform gerometry optimization on desired structures (reactant, product, transition state) Geometry optimization: the process of obtaining a – Perform frequency calculation to determine identity of stationary point stationary point for a given set of atoms – Determine relative energy of local mimia to identify global minima (conformers, diastereomers, etc) for equilibrium structures these correspond to local minima, and for transition structures these coorespond to saddle points Typically Optional: – Examine reaction surface with IRC calculation – Perform PES scan

Notation: HF/6-31G(d) M06-2X/6-31+G(d,p)//B3LYP/6-31G(d)

3. Computing Physical Properties

Aromaticity: Nucleus Independant Chemical Shift

Historically, aromaticity has been a poorly defined concept associated with the following: – enhanced stability – magnetic properties related to a ring current – tend to be planar and symmetrical – unique chemical reactivity

In 1996 Schleyer introduced nuclear independant chemical shift as a means to estimate relative aromaticity.

NICS: the absolute magnetic shielding computed at the center of the ring NICS coorelates well with experimental aromatic stabilization energies

From Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry H S O H H N Al B – Optimization is conducted using standard calculus methods for locating relative minima and maxima (first and second derivatives)

The identity of a stationary point can be characterized by calculating the matrix of second -15.1 -13.6 -12.3 6.5 17.5 -14.3 derivatives known as a Hessian 2+ The Hessian determines vibrational frequencies:

– local minima are characterized by all real (positive) vibrational frequencies 22.5 – saddle points (transition states) are characterized by a single imaginary (negative) -9.9 -2.5 -2.2 -1.1 vibrational frequency -9.7 -50.1 – of a transition state can be seen by examining the motion in the imaginary frequency GIAO/6-31+G(d)//MP2/6-31G(d) Schleyer, JACS, 1996, 118 , 6137

6 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

Computated Spectral Data Assigning Chemical Intermediates: Echinopine B H – IR stretching frequencies are computed when a frequency calculation is run PtCl2, PhMe H H H (as should be for all stationary points) H 85 °C H H OMe H – Computational NMR is an area that has recieved a lot of attention particularly with regard to natural product structural assignments H H MeO Tantillo, Chem. Rev., 2012, 112, 1839 56% OMe Detailed procedures are available at www.cheshirenmr.info (Tantillo) 15% Suggestions from Tantillo: PCC – geometry optimization and frequency calculations at B3LYP/6-31+G(d,p) in gas phase CH2Cl2 Confirmed with – NMR chemical shift calculations at mPW1PW91/6-311+G(2d,p) with a solvation model Vanderwal, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., computed C13 NMR – adjust chemical shifts with experimentally derived scaling factors 2012, 51, 7572 RMSD (room mean squared deviation) 1H test set: 0.11 ppm H 13C test set: 1.80 ppm H H H 1H probe set: 0.14 ppm 13C probe set: 2.45 ppm H CO2Me Me Me OMe Me 40% HO 26% CO2Me Me Me O O O Me Me Me H 4. Analyzing Organic Reactions H OMe O H O O A brief review of

OH – The rate of a chemical reaction can OH be studied by examining saddle points O O between reactants and products: O computationally hexacyclinol preducted structure "transition states" original proposal confirmed by – Transition states are in a quasi- Rychnovsky, Org. Lett., 2006, 8, 2895 equilibrium with reactants Porco, Angew Chem. Int. Ed., 2006, 45, 5790 intermediates must be long-lived H O Me H O enough to be in equilibrium H Me Me Me H – The rate is related to the probability H Me H H () of a molecule Me O attaining the necessary energy H O ‡ O – energy, ΔG , and O Boltzman distribution determine rate. computationally Wikipedia aquatolide, predicted structure original proposal confirmed by We will question these propositions later in the talk! Tantillo, Shaw, JACS, 2012, 134, 18550 reisolation/X-ray

7 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

Dyotropic Rearrangements of β-lactones So what about that TMSOTf reaction?

HO2C O O O TMSOTf* Zn(OTf)2 O It works! Me 73% 94% O O Me Me O TMSOTf HO C O O (acid free) O 2 Me Romo, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2008, 130, 10478 91% Me Mechanistic possibilities O O

ZPE-corrected energies (kcal/mol) in CH2Cl2, B3LYP/6-31+G(d,p)

Concerted, asynchronous rearrangement Zn(OTf) (OTf)2 Zn(OTf)2 2 Zn O+ O+ O O E = 6.0 O O ΔE = -11.8 O Δ O O + TsOH, CH2Cl2 O Me Me Me ΔE‡ = 7.9 ΔE‡ = 9.6 ~ 5% Me Me O O stepwise: ionization O concerted: shift + closure O O TsOH, CH3CN HO2C 68% no single concerted transition state structure located TsOH, CH3CN 61% or TfOH, CH2Cl2 supports a stepwise mechanism 45% O Me Me O HO C Me 2 Zn(OTf)2 all three pathways are energetically viable at B3LYP/6-31+G(d,p) level 55% O Better?! Me O O CO2H Me O O H O O TMSOTf O Me Me O O Me (acid free) Me H Zn(OTf)2 Me O 73% Me Me O O 0% w/ Zn(OTf) O O 2 O O O (–)-curcumalactone 3% CO2H Romo, Tantillo, J. Org. Chem., 2011, 76, 7167 90% O J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2012, 134, 13348

8 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

IRC calculation Cationic Rearrangements in Terpene Biosynthesis H Me B3LYP/6-31+G(d,p), kcal/mol Me Me H H H H Me + Me Me + Me Me ΔE = -16.83 Me Me H H ‡ Me H ΔE = 29.95 Me pentalene-type illudane-type

Tantillo, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006, 128, 6172 Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2005, 44, 2719 Tantillo, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2010, 132, 5375 nature avoids secondary carbocation minima through concerted multistep rearrangements also located an unusual "proton Review: Tantillo, Nat. Prod. Rep., 2011, 28, 1035 sandwich" structure on the PES Me Me Me mPW1PW91/6-31+G(d,p)//B3LYP/6-31+G(d,p); kcal/mol +

Me Me ΔE = +0.1 Me Me ΔE = +2.1 Me + Me Me ΔE = -7.66 Me H Me + Me Me Me H + H Me Me ‡ Me Me ‡ E‡ = 5.0 ΔE = 10.04 Me H ΔE = 5.8 Δ + kaurane-type concerted cyclization/1,2 alkyl shift Me Me Me

Me B3LYP/6-31+G(d,p); kcal/mol Duterium feeding studies confirms intramolecular hydrogen transfer Me + with final shown ΔE = -3.36 Me H H Me Me Me Me Me E‡ = 9.83 Me Me Δ + Me H Chemistry & Biology, 2000, 7, 969 atisane-type Org. Lett., 2007, 9, 1069 Me + concerted 1,2 alkyl shift/1,3 hydride shift/1,2 alkyl shift H H Me

9 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

5. Quantum Tunneling Effects Origin of Hydrogen Tunneling KIE

Tunneling is a quantum phenomena where a reaction occurs through barrier penetration rather than over-barrier processes

Amplitude of a wave passing Tunneling KIE effects are also through a barrier caused by differences in the zero- Wikipedia point energy (ZPE) between H and D, but coorespond to a wider barrier at the lower D ZPE

Tunneling is dictated by the width of the barrier rather then the height Schreiner, Org. Biomol. Chem., 2012, 10 3781

Tunneling Control of a Chemical Reaction AE-CCSD(T)/cc-pCVTZ O O H D (extremely high level of post-HF) H O H H experimental ΔH = 10.2 ± 0.4 Me O computed ΔH = 10.3 t1/2 > 16 hours experimental ΔEST = -28 FVP, deposition in – CO2 computed ΔEST = -30.6 Ar matrix at 11 K

H not observed t1/2 (expt) = H at 11 k H H 66 ± 5 min H O H OH formed upon O H H t1/2 (calc) = H irradiation 71 min H H The contribution from tunneling is highly temperature dependant, with classical reactivity dominating at typically encountered temperatures Calculated spectrum of carbene Schreiner, Org. Biomol. Chem., 2012, 10 3781 AE-CCSD(T)/cc-pCVQZ

Tunneling in Formic Acid

IR irradiation isomerization of trans to O Φ = 0.3 O cis is ~13 times the Experimental difference J. Am. Chem. Soc., thermal reaction spectrum before and after H irradiation at λ = 435 nm 1997, 119 , 11715 H O H O J. Chem. Phys, O-deuteration increases t @ 8 K = ~5 s 2009, 130, 154509 cis 1/2 H half-life to ~ 13.5 days ΔG‡ = 8 kcal/mol trans ~4 kcal/mol k /k > 105 more stable H D

10 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

Tunneling Control (cont.) Heavy Atom Tunneling: Carbon – Me N N N 334 nm Me N+ > 550 nm Me F F 8 K, N2 – N2 F matrix isolated Experimental Rate (8 K): 8 K exclusion of light Experimental Ea (Arrhenius MPW1K/6-31+G(d,p) ): (DFT functional 8 K: 0.0003 kJ/mol Me optimized for kinetics) 30 K: 0.45 kJ/mol 40 K: 1.2 kJ/mol kinetic-control F product 150 K: 23.6 kJ/mol

tunneling-control Carbon tunneling occurs from a single quantum state! product Calculated Arrhenius Plot

Computed intrinsic reaction coordinate and energies at AE-CCSD(T)/cc-pCVQZ Schreiner, Allen, Science, 2011, 332, 1300

Tunneling Control in Cyclopropyl Carbenes Observed Rate (8 K): H 4.0 × 10-6 s-1 OH 366 nm H dark, 11K Calculated Rate Limit: O O 9.1 × 10-6 s-1 kinetic control tunneling control H Sheridan, Truhlar, Borden, Science, 2003, 299, 867 t1/2 = 17.8 h H G‡ = 21.9 Ar, 11 K G‡ = 30.4 Δ Δ Heavy-Atom Tunneling Outiside a Matrix

CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ//M06-2X/6-311++G(d,p) * tunneling control directs reaction to a * Bu3SnH constituionally different product Me through a higher barrier Br Et3B, O2 Schreiner, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2011, 133, 13614 * Me Borden, Singleton, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2010, 132, 12548

11 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

6. Bifurcated Potential Energy Surfaces Different computational methods provide different mechanistic pictures of the reaction Introduction O – +O ΔE = -5.9 Me Me RHF/6-31G(d) ‡ Me ‡ ΔE = 25.4 Me ΔE = 14.1 Energies in kcal/mol O – +O ΔE = 14.8 Me Me CASSCF/6-31G(d) ‡ Me ‡ ΔE = 27.5 Me ΔE = 29.8 Me Me Me OOH O Me Me Me O Me VRI in the isomerization of methoxy radical ΔE = -1.1 Me Me

UB3LYP/6-31G(d) ‡ Me ‡ A valley-ridge inflection point (VRI) occurs when two sequential transition states lie on a PES ΔE = 4.7 Me ΔE = 0.2 without any intermediate. PESs containing a VRI are said to bifurcate. – These necessarily exist where symmetry is broken after a symmetrical transition state O + H PES Bifurcation In cases where a PES is bifurcated, the product distribution cannot be predicted using standard TST, O instead dynamic considerations (relating to moving atoms rather than stationary ones) must be used Me H RB3LYP/6-31G(d) H Singleton, Foote, Houk, Houk, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2008, 47, 7592 Me H ΔE‡ = -14.0 J. Am. Chem. Soc., H 2003, 125, 1319 Singlet Oxygen Ene Reaction (a correction to my previous group meeting) H Computed and Experimental KIE Perplexing Experimental Details Intermolecular KIE Intramolecular KIE H C CH D C CD 3 3 3 3 D3C CH3 H3C CD3

H C CH D C CD 3 3 3 3 H3C 1 CD3 H3C 2 CD3 1 1.38–1.41 1.40 1.11 O2 – O H3C CH3 +O CH H C CD pdt H3C 3 3 3 D3C 3 CD3 1.38 D3C CD3 1.04–1.09 Classical proposal: intermediate formation Predicted/Experimental KIE supports PES bifurcation

12 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

CCSD(T)/6-31G(d) energies on Bispericyclic Cope B3LYP/6-31G(d) surface In related work Singleton used dynamics calculations (see below) to estimate the intramolecular KIE Houk, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2007, 129, 4529 H3C CD3

H3C CD3 Relative structures experimental: 1.40 of the two transition calculated: 1.38 ±0.17 states controls the PES surface

The observed KIE is also explained well by a bifurcated surface: In mass weighted coordinates the PES symmetry is broken. The stretching frequencies are related 7. Dynamic Effects in Organic Synthesis by a factor of √(2/1) = 1.41 calculations attempt to apply quantum mechanical calculations to systems in motion. These calculations do not rely on statistical mechanics but Singleton, Foote, Houk, J. Am. Chem. Soc., rather study a large number of simulated individual reactions to observe trends in 2003, 125, 1319 behavior. Singleton, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2003, 125, 1177

Bispericyclic Transition States in Diels-Alder Reactions R H Me O R heat lewis acid O R R = PO(OMe) Me H O 2 Me

– Energy and forces are determined by quantum chemical calculations. – Forces are fed into classical equations of motion for nuclei – This process is repeated iteratively at discrete time intervals for a set length of time

Carpenter, Chem. Rev., 2013, 113 , 7265 Tantillo, Pure Appl. Chem., 2013, 85, 1949

13 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

An Unusual Isotope Effect in Ketene [2+2] Non-TST Behavior Without a Bifurcation O Cl Cl H O O H D Woodward * Cl Cl -Hoffmann D

Me Me * * Forbidden Cl Cl Me Me Me Me H D D cyclopentyne H 3 3' > 99:1 retention experimentally KIE = 3' : 3 = 0.993 ± 0.001 ΔE = –25 CASPT2//CASSCF/cc-pVDZ (more complex ) Isotope ratio is opposite of what would kcal/mol be expected from an asynchronous TS D 3 H H D H rot. 2,3 rot. 1,2 D 2 1 H H ‡ ‡ H D ΔG = < 0.5 D ΔG = 1.5 D Asynchronous TS Symmetrical TS at B3LYP/6-31+G(d,p) at MPW1K/6-31+G(d,p) TST KIE: 1.019 No KIE from TST rot. 1,2 cyclization ΔG‡ = 1.5 ΔG‡ = 10 RRKM (variation of TST) D predicted stereoretention: 56:44 H H D D D H H Molecular Dynamics calculations show that the stereoselectivity is in fact time dependant

– The initially formed product (< 300 fs) is produced by the higher energy TS, complete The origin of the KIE seems to involve stereoselectivity recrossing the transition state: – Energy from the initial C1-C2 bond – Most trajectories recross the TS! formation is relaxed into a strongly – Heavy atoms have a substantial effect coupled C1-C3 bend on TS recrossing – Structures with the initial attachment of – This bending motion cooresponds 3 recross less, producing a slight excess to bond formation for the spiro- carbene Singleton, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2012, 134, 1914 – At longer times the reaction reverts to a stereorandom process (classical TST)

J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2009, 131, 13896

14 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

PES Bifurcations in Terpene Biosynthesis Multiple Sequential PES Bifurcations Me Me Me Me Me Me Me + Me Me Me Me Me H H Me H Me H + H H Me H Me H Bottleneck TS H H Bifurcation!

Me Me Me Me

Me + Me Me Me

Me H Me H H H unnatural

Me Me TST cannot make any predictions about product distribution Me + MD suggest ~1.6 : 1 ratio Me of natural:unnatural Me H – 9 bifurcations were located in total Enzyme produces a single regioismer! H abietadiene skeleton – Of the many possibilities, MD calculations indicate that only 2 are formed in any appreciable quantities: Me + Enzyme cannot steer to the desired product through normal Me transition-state stabilizaion rationales typically employed Me + Me Me Me Me Me Tantillo, Nature Chem., 2009, 1, 384 Me Me Tantillo, Hase, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2011, 133, 8335 H Tantillo, Hase, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 2012, 8, 1212 H militiiradiene skeleton unnatural

Tantillo, Nat. Chem., 2014, 6, 104

15 Baran Lab Steven McKerrall Modern Computational Organic Chemistry Group Meeting

Paul v. R. Schleyer: "Physical organic chemists have adopted computational Topics Not Covered chemistry; perhaps, I hope to think, due to my example demonstrating what can be done. If you can show people that you can compute chemical properties, like chemical shifts to an accuracy that is useful, computed structures that are better Computational Design of than experiment, then they get the word sooner or later that maybe you’d better do Houk, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2013, 52, 5700 some calculations." Tunneling Effects in Enzyme Reactions Acc. Chem . Res., 1998, 31, 397 Ken Houk: "There is an intimate inter-relationship of experiment and theory in my work. If there’s an interesting phenomenon, we want to explain it!" Computational Docking Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 1996, 6, 402 Chris Cramer: "Computational chemistry excites me because it lets you look at ‘reality’ all along a pathway, yet can’t be probed experimentally. I can look at aTS Protien Modeling (QM/MM) structure and I know that my experimental colleagues are going to have a hell of a J. Mol. Biol., 1976, 103, 227 time getting any information on it, except indirectly. Having a microscope the whole Computation in way—I like that vision." Science, 2004, 303, 1813 Taken from Computational Organic Chemistry And many more...

Additional Computational Details Not Covered Here

Optimization

Heavy atoms + Transition Metals

Basis set superposition error (intermolecular)

Unrestricted methods (radicals and diradicals)

Spin contamination (unrestricted)

Solvent continuum models

Vibrational Scaling Factors

Benchmarking/Calibration

Systemic Errors in DFT Methods (B3LYP + Rings)

16