Novel heterocyclic inhibitors of matrix metalloproteinases: three 6H‐1,3,4‐thiadiazines

The title compounds, (2S)‐N‐[5‐(4‐chloro­phenyl)‐2,3‐di­hydro‐6H‐1,3,4‐thia­diazin‐2‐yl­idene]‐2‐[(phenyl­sulfonyl)­amino]­pro­pan­amide, C₁₈H₁₇ClN₄O₃S₂, (I), (2R)‐N‐[5‐(4‐fluoro­phenyl)‐6H‐1,3,4‐thia­diazin‐2‐yl]‐2‐[(phenyl­sulfonyl)amino]­propan­amide, C₁₈H₁₇FN₄O₃S₂, (II), and (2S)‐N‐[5‐(5‐chloro‐2‐thienyl)‐6H‐1,3,4‐thia­diazin‐2‐yl]‐2‐[(phenyl­sulfonyl)­amino]­propan­amide, C₁₆H₁₅ClN₄O₃S₃, (III), are potent inhibitors of matrix metalloproteinases. In all three compounds, the thia­diazine ring adopts a screw‐boat conformation. The mol­ecules of compound (I) show a short intramolecular N_Ala—H?N_exo hydrogen bond [N?N 2.661 (3) Å] and are linked into a chain along the c axis by N_endo—H?S_endo and N_endo—H?O_Ala hydrogen bonds [N?S 3.236 (3) and N?O 3.375 (3) Å] between neighbouring mol­ecules. In compound (II), the mol­ecules are connected antiparallel into a chain along the a axis by N_exo—H?O_Ala and N_Ala—H?N_endo hydrogen bonds [N?O 2.907 (6) and N?N 2.911 (6) Å]. The mol­ecules of compound (III) are dimerized antiparallel through N_exo—H?N_endo hydrogen bonds [N?N 2.956 (7) and 2.983 (7) Å]. The different hydrogen‐bonding patterns can be explained by an amido–imino tautomerism (prototropic shift) shown by different bond lengths within the 6H‐1,3,4‐thia­diazine moiety.