Hydrogen‐bonded chains of rings in 1‐(4‐chloroanilinomethyl)‐5‐(4‐chlorophenyl)‐1,3,5‐triazinane‐2‐thione and hydrogen‐bonded sheets in 1‐anilinomethyl‐5‐phenyl‐1,3,5‐triazinane‐2‐thione

In 1‐(4‐chloroanilinomethyl)‐5‐(4‐chlorophenyl)‐1,3,5‐triazinane‐2‐thione, C₁₆H₁₆Cl₂N₄S, there are two independent molecules in the asymmetric unit which form inversion dimers via two weak N—H...S hydrogen bonds. The dimers are then linked into C(9)C(14) chains by a C—H...S hydrogen bond and a C—H...Cl contact. In 1‐(anilinomethyl)‐5‐phenyl‐1,3,5‐triazinane‐2‐thione, C₁₆H₁₈N₄S, molecules are linked into complex sheets via a combination of N—H...S and C—H...π hydrogen bonds.     

rac‐5‐Diphenylacetyl‐2,2,4‐trimethyl‐2,3,4,5‐tetrahydro‐1,5‐benzothiazepine and rac‐5‐formyl‐2,2,4‐trimethyl‐2,3,4,5‐tetrahydro‐1,5‐benzothiazepine

rac‐5‐Diphenylacetyl‐2,2,4‐trimethyl‐2,3,4,5‐tetrahydro‐1,5‐benzothiazepine, C₂₆H₂₇NOS, (I), and rac‐5‐formyl‐2,2,4‐trimethyl‐2,3,4,5‐tetrahydro‐1,5‐benzothiazepine, C₁₃H₁₇NOS, (II), are both characterized by a planar configuration around the heterocyclic N atom. In contrast with the chair conformation of the parent benzothiazepine, which has no substituents at the heterocyclic N atom, the seven‐membered ring adopts a boat conformation in (I) and a conformation intermediate between boat and twist‐boat in (II). The molecules lack a symmetry plane, indicating distortions from the perfect boat or twist‐boat conformations. The supramolecular architectures are significantly different, depending in (I) on C—H...O interactions and intermolecular S...S contacts, and in (II) on a single aromatic π–π stacking interaction.     

4‐Ethynyl‐4‐hydroxycyclohexan‐1‐one and 4‐ethynyl‐4‐hydroxy‐2,3,5,6‐tetramethylcyclohexa‐2,5‐dien‐1‐one

The title compounds, C₈H₁₀O₂, (I), and C₁₂H₁₄O₂, (II), occurred as by‐products in the controlled synthesis of a series of bis­(gem‐alkynols), prepared as part of an extensive study of synthon formation in simple gem‐alkynol derivatives. The two 4‐(gem‐alkynol)‐1‐ones crystallize in space group P2₁/c, (I) with Z′ = 1 and (II) with Z′ = 2. Both structures are dominated by O—H?O=C hydrogen bonds, which form simple chains in the cyclo­hexane derivative, (I), and centrosymmetric dimers, of both symmetry‐independent mol­ecules, in the cyclo­hexa‐2,5‐diene, (II). These strong synthons are further stabilized by C[triple‐bond]C—H?O=C, C_methylene—H?O(H) and C_methyl—H?O(H) interactions. The direct intermolecular interactions between donors and acceptors in the gem‐alkynol group, which characterize the bis­(gem‐alkynol) analogues of (I) and (II), are not present in the ketone derivatives studied here.     

6,6‐Diphenyl‐6,7‐dihydro‐5H‐1,3,4,8‐tetrathia‐6‐stannazulene‐2‐thione and 6,6′‐spirobi[6,7‐dihydro‐5H‐1,3,4,8‐tetrathia‐6‐stannazulene]‐2,2′‐dithione

The title compounds, [Sn(C₆H₅)₂(C₅H₄S₅)] and [Sn(C₅H₄S₅)₂], respectively, are of interest because they can be regarded as intermediate in nature between chelates and heterocyclic compounds containing the C₃S₅ fragment. In contrast with the essentially normal bond lengths and angles within the mol­ecules, the molecular conformations are somewhat unexpected, as are the intermolecular contacts found in the case of the latter compound.     

7‐Iodo‐8‐aza‐7‐deaza‐2′‐deoxy­adenosine and 7‐bromo‐8‐aza‐7‐deaza‐2′‐deoxyadenosine

The isomorphous structures of the title molecules, 4‐amino‐1‐(2‐deoxy‐β‐d ‐erythro‐pento­furan­osyl)‐3‐iodo‐1H‐pyrazolo‐[3,4‐d]pyrimidine, (I), C₁₀H₁₂IN₅O₃, and 4‐amino‐3‐bromo‐1‐(2‐deoxy‐β‐d ‐erythro‐pento­furan­osyl)‐1H‐pyrazolo[3,4‐d]­pyrimidine, (II), C₁₀H₁₂BrN₅O₃, have been determined. The sugar puckering of both compounds is C1′‐endo (^1′E). The N‐­glycosidic bond torsion angle χ¹ is in the high‐anti range [?73.2 (4)° for (I) and ?74.1 (4)° for (II)] and the crystal structure is stabilized by hydrogen bonds.     

Similarities and differences in the structures of 5‐bromo‐6‐hydroxy‐7,8‐dimethylchroman‐2‐one and 6‐hydroxy‐7,8‐dimethyl‐5‐nitrochroman‐2‐one

The title compounds, C₁₁H₁₁BrO₃, (I), and C₁₁H₁₁NO₅, (II), respectively, are derivatives of 6‐hydroxy‐5,7,8‐trimethylchroman‐2‐one substituted at the 5‐position by a Br atom in (I) and by a nitro group in (II). The pyranone rings in both molecules adopt half‐chair conformations, and intramolecular O—H...Br [in (I)] and O—H...O_nitro [in (II)] hydrogen bonds affect the dispositions of the hydroxy groups. Classical intermolecular O—H...O hydrogen bonds are found in both molecules but play quite dissimilar roles in the crystal structures. In (I), O—H...O hydrogen bonds form zigzag C(9) chains of molecules along the a axis. Because of the tetragonal symmetry, similar chains also form along b. In (II), however, similar contacts involving an O atom of the nitro group form inversion dimers and generate R₂²(12) rings. These also result in a close intermolecular O...O contact of 2.686 (4) Å. For (I), four additional C—H...O hydrogen bonds combine with π–π stacking interactions between the benzene rings to build an extensive three‐dimensional network with molecules stacked along the c axis. The packing in (II) is much simpler and centres on the inversion dimers formed through O—H...O contacts. These dimers are stacked through additional C—H...O hydrogen bonds, and further weak C—H...O interactions generate a three‐dimensional network of dimer stacks.     

Halogen,hydrogen and electrostatic interactions in 2‐amino‐5‐chloro‐1,3‐benzoxazol‐3‐ium nitrate and 2‐amino‐5‐chloro‐1,3‐benzoxazol‐3‐ium perchlorate

In the title compounds, C₇H₆ClN₂O⁺·NO₃⁻ and C₇H₆ClN₂O⁺·ClO₄⁻, the ions are connected by N—H...O hydrogen bonds and halogen interactions. Additionally, in the first compound, co‐operative π–π stacking and halogen...π interactions are observed. The energies of the observed interactions range from a value typical for very weak interactions (1.80 kJ mol⁻¹) to one typical for mildly strong interactions (53.01 kJ mol⁻¹). The iminium cations exist in an equilibrium form intermediate between exo‐ and endocyclic. This study provides structural insights relevant to the biochemical activity of 2‐amino‐5‐chloro‐1,3‐benzoxazole compounds.     

5‐Acetyl‐2‐amino‐6‐methyl‐4‐(3‐nitrophenyl)‐4H‐pyran‐3‐carbonitrile and 2‐amino‐5‐ethoxycarbonyl‐6‐methyl‐4‐(3‐nitrophenyl)‐4H‐pyrano‐3‐carbonitrile

The structures of the title compounds, C₁₅H₁₃N₃O₄, (I), and C₁₆H₁₅N₃O₅ [IUPAC name: ethyl 6‐amino‐5‐cyano‐2‐methyl‐4‐(3‐nitro­phenyl)‐4H‐pyrano‐3‐carboxyl­ate], (II), are very similar, with the heterocyclic rings adopting boat conformations. The pseudo‐axial m‐nitro­phenyl substituents are rotated by 84.0 (1) and 98.7 (1)° in (I) and (II), respectively, with respect to the four coplanar atoms of the boat. The dihedral angles between the phenyl rings and nitro groups are 12.1 (2) and 8.4 (2)° in (I) and (II), respectively. The two compounds have similar patterns of intermolecular N—H?O and N—H?N hydrogen bonding, which link mol­ecules into infinite tapes along b .     

1,4‐Dioxo‐1,4‐dihydronaphthalene‐2,3‐dicarbonitrile and 1,1,2,2‐Tetracyanoethene in Heterocyclization

This survey is mainly concerned with selected reactions of 1,4‐dioxo‐1,4‐dihydronaphthalene‐2,3‐dicarbonitrile and 1,1,2,2‐tetracyanoethene, which have use or potential use in heterocyclic synthesis.     

Polymorphism of 3‐(5‐phenyl‐1,3,4‐oxadiazol‐2‐yl)‐ and 3‐[5‐(pyridin‐4‐yl)‐1,3,4‐oxadiazol‐2‐yl]‐2H‐chromen‐2‐ones

This study of 3‐(5‐phenyl‐1,3,4‐oxadiazol‐2‐yl)‐2H‐chromen‐2‐one, C₁₇H₁₀N₂O₃, 1 , and 3‐[5‐(pyridin‐4‐yl)‐1,3,4‐oxadiazol‐2‐yl]‐2H‐chromen‐2‐one, C₁₆H₉N₃O₃, 2 , was performed on the assumption of the potential anticancer activity of the compounds. Three polymorphic structures for 1 and two polymorphic structures for 2 have been studied thoroughly. The strongest intermolecular interaction is stacking of the `head‐to‐head' type in all the studied crystals. The polymorphic structures of 1 differ with respect to the intermolecular interactions between stacked columns. Two of the polymorphs have a columnar or double columnar type of crystal organization, while the third polymorphic structure can be classified as columnar‐layered. The difference between the two structures of 2 is less pronounced. Both crystals can be considered as having very similar arrangements of neighbouring columns. The formation of polymorphic modifications is caused by a subtle balance of very weak intermolecular interactions and packing differences can be identified only using an analysis based on a study of the pairwise interaction energies.     

New domino‐reaction for the synthesis of N4‐(5‐aryl‐1,3‐oxathiol‐2‐yliden)‐2‐phenylquinazolin‐4‐amines and 4‐[4‐aryl‐5‐(2‐phenylquinazolin‐4‐yl)‐1,3‐thiazol‐2‐yl]morpholine

The model morpholine‐1‐carbothioic acid (2‐phenyl‐3H‐quinazolin‐4‐ylidene) amide (1) reacts with phenacyl bromides to afford N⁴‐(5‐aryl‐1,3‐oxathiol‐2‐yliden)‐2‐phenylquinazolin‐4‐amines (4) or N⁴‐(4,5‐diphenyl‐1,3‐oxathiol‐2‐yliden)‐2‐phenyl‐4‐aminoquinazoline ( 5 ) by a thermodynamically controlled reversible reaction favoring the enolate intermediate, while the 4‐[4‐aryl‐5‐(2‐phenylquinazolin‐4‐yl)‐1,3‐thiazol‐2‐yl]morpholine ( 8 ) was produced by a kinetically controlled reaction favoring the C‐anion intermediate. ¹H nmr, ¹³C nmr, ir, mass spectroscopy and x‐ray identified compounds ( 4 ), ( 5 ) and ( 8 ).     

Synthesis and Solid‐state Reaction of 1‐[3′‐(Benzotriazol‐2″‐yl)‐4′ ‐hydroxybenzoyl]‐3‐methyl‐5‐pyrazolones

A new kind of UV stabilizers, 1‐(3′‐(benzotriazol‐2″‐yl)‐4′‐hydroxy‐benzoyl)‐3‐methyl‐5‐pyrazolones (1a‐d), was synthesized with the aim to bind them chemically to certain polymers. The reaction of 1d with substituted benzaldehydes 4 in the molten state at 150°C and in the solid state at room temperature produced the condensation products l‐(3′‐(5″‐chlorobenzotriazol‐2″‐yl)‐4′‐hydroxyl‐5′‐chlorobenzoyl)‐3‐methyl‐4‐arylmethylene‐5‐pyrazolones (2) and 4,4′‐arylmethylene‐bis [1‐(3′‐(5″‐chloro‐benzotriazol‐2″‐yl)‐4′‐hydroxy‐5′‐chloro‐benzoyl)‐3‐methyl‐5‐pyrazolone] s (3), respectively, as the major product. On the other hand, the reaction of 1d with 4 at 50°C in chloroform solution proceeded non‐selectively to give a mixture of 2 and 3.     

Synthesis of 15‐Cyano‐12‐oxopentadecano‐15‐lactone and 15‐Cyano‐ 12‐oxopentadecano‐15‐lactam

15‐Cyano‐12‐oxopentadecano‐15‐lactone was synthesized in 59% total yield starting from 2‐nitrocyclododecanone by Michael addition to acrylaldehyde, followed by reaction with trimethylsilylcyanide, hydrolysis, ring‐expansion, and Nef reaction. A two‐step, one‐pot synthesis of intermediate 2‐hydroxy‐4‐(1‐nitro‐2‐oxycyclododecyl)butanenitrile from 3‐(1‐nitro‐2‐oxocyclododecyl)propanal was developed and the conditions for the Nef reaction were studied. 15‐Cyano‐12‐oxopentadecano‐15‐lactam was synthesized in 40% total yield starting from 2‐nitrocyclododecanone by Michael addition to acrylaldehyde, followed by Strecker reaction, ring‐expansion, and Nef reaction. The conditions for the Strecker and Nef reactions were studied. The structures of the target compounds, intermediates, and by‐product were characterized by IR, ¹H‐ and ¹³C‐NMR, and elemental analysis or MS.     

4‐(2‐Hydroxyphenyl)‐2‐phenyl‐2,3‐dihydro‐1H‐1,5‐benzodiazepine and the 2‐(2,3‐dimethoxyphenyl)‐, 2‐(3,4‐dimethoxyphenyl)‐ and 2‐(2,5‐dimethoxyphenyl)‐substituted derivatives

The 1,5‐benzodiazepine ring system exhibits a puckered boat‐like conformation for all four title compounds [4‐(2‐hydroxyphenyl)‐2‐phenyl‐2,3‐dihydro‐1H‐1,5‐benzodiazepine, C₂₁H₁₈N₂O, (I), 2‐(2,3‐dimethoxyphenyl)‐4‐(2‐hydroxyphenyl)‐2,3‐dihydro‐1H‐1,5‐benzodiazepine, C₂₃H₂₂N₂O₃, (II), 2‐(3,4‐dimethoxyphenyl)‐4‐(2‐hydroxyphenyl)‐2,3‐dihydro‐1H‐1,5‐benzodiazepine, C₂₃H₂₂N₂O₃, (III), and 2‐(2,5‐dimethoxyphenyl)‐4‐(2‐hydroxyphenyl)‐2,3‐dihydro‐1H‐1,5‐benzodiazepine, C₂₃H₂₂N₂O₃, (IV)]. The stereochemical correlation of the two C₆ aromatic groups with respect to the benzodiazepine ring system is pseudo‐equatorial–equatorial for compounds (I) (the phenyl group), (II) (the 2,3‐dimethoxyphenyl group) and (III) (the 3,4‐dimethoxyphenyl group), while for (IV) (the 2,5‐dimethoxyphenyl group) the system is pseudo‐axial–equatorial. An intramolecular hydrogen bond between the hydroxyl OH group and a benzodiazepine N atom is present for all four compounds and defines a six‐membered ring, whose geometry is constant across the series. Although the molecular structures are similar, the supramolecular packing is different; compounds (I) and (IV) form chains, while (II) forms dimeric units and (III) displays a layered structure. The packing seems to depend on at least two factors: (i) the nature of the atoms defining the hydrogen bond and (ii) the number of intermolecular interactions of the types O—H...O, N—H...O, N—H...π(arene) or C—H...π(arene).     

2,2‐Dimethyl‐5‐nitroso‐1,3‐dioxan‐5‐yl benzoate, 2,2‐dimethyl‐5‐nitroso‐1,3‐dioxan‐5‐yl 4‐chlorobenzoate and 5‐nitroso‐1,3‐dioxan‐5‐yl 4‐chlorobenzoate

The crystal structures of 2,2‐dimethyl‐5‐nitroso‐1,3‐dioxan‐5‐yl benzoate, C₁₃H₁₅NO₅, (I), 2,2‐dimethyl‐5‐nitroso‐1,3‐dioxan‐5‐yl 4‐chlorobenzoate, C₁₃H₁₄ClNO₅, (II), and 5‐nitroso‐1,3‐dioxan‐5‐yl 4‐chlorobenzoate, C₁₁H₁₁NO₅, (III), have been determined in order to gain insight into the conformational preference of α‐benzoyloxynitroso. Unfavourable 1,3‐diaxial interactions force (I) and (II) to crystallize in the 2,5 twist‐boat conformation, whereas compound (III), lacking this destabilizing interaction, crystallizes in the chair conformation.     

Syntheses of 1‐(4‐methylsulfonylphenyl)‐5‐aryl‐1,2,3‐triazoles and ‐(4‐aminosulfonylphenyl)‐5‐aryl‐1,2,3‐triazoles

Condensation of 4‐methylsulfonylaniline with aryl aldehyde in ethanol‐tetrahydrofuran afforded the imino compound 3 . 1,3‐Cycloaddtion of diazomethane with compound 3 followed by oxidazation of the triazoline 4 with potassium permanganate gave 1‐(4‐methylsulfonylphenyl)‐5‐aryl‐1,2,3‐triazoles 5 . Similarly, condensation of 4‐(N,N‐dibenzylaminosulfonyl)aniline with aryl aldehyde followed by 1,3‐cycloaddition of diazomethane with the imino compound 11 and the subsequent oxidation of triazoline 12 with potassium permanganate yielded the triazole 13 . Debenzylation of compound 13 with sulfuric acid gave the desired compound 1‐(4‐aminosulfonylphenyl)5‐aryl‐1,2,3‐triazoles 14 .     

Halogen bonding in 1,2‐dibromo‐4,5‐dimethoxybenzene and 1,2‐diiodo‐4,5‐dimethoxybenzene

An interesting case of `halogen‐bonding‐promoted' crystal structure architecture is presented. The two title compounds, C₈H₈Br₂O₂ and C₈H₈I₂O₂, have almost indistinguishable molecular structures but very different spatial organization, and this is mainly due to differences in the halogen‐bonding interactions in which the different species present, i.e. Br and I, take part. The dibromo structure exhibits a π‐bonded columnar array involving all four independent molecules in the asymmetric unit, with intercolumnar interactions governed by C—Br...Br—C links and with no C—Br...O/N interactions present. In the diiodo structure, instead, the C—I...O synthon prevails, defining linear chains, in turn interlinked by C—I...I—C interactions.     

N‐(2‐Bromoethyl)‐4‐piperidino‐1,8‐naphthalimide and N‐(3‐bromopropyl)‐4‐piperidino‐1,8‐naphthalimide

N‐(2‐Bromoethyl)‐4‐piperidino‐1,8‐naphthalimide, C₁₉H₁₉BrN₂O₂, (I), and N‐(3‐bromopropyl)‐4‐piperidino‐1,8‐naphthalimide, C₂₀H₂₁BrN₂O₂, (II), are an homologous pair of 1,8‐naphthalimide derivatives. The naphthalimide units are planar and each piperidine substituent adopts a chair conformation. This study emphasizes the importance of π‐stacking interactions, often augmented by other contacts, in determining the crystal structures of 1,8‐naphthalimide derivatives.