Cited by 212Asymmetric Synthesis and CatalysisComputational Drug Discovery MethodsMolecular spectroscopy and chirality

Quantitative Structure–Selectivity Relationships in Enantioselective Catalysis: Past, Present, and Future

Open access
Zahrt, Andrew F., Athavale, Soumitra V., Denmark, Scott E.·2020·Chemical Reviews

Abstract

The dawn of the 21st century has brought with it a surge of research related to computer-guided approaches to catalyst design. In the past two decades, chemoinformatics, the application of informatics to solve problems in chemistry, has increasingly influenced prediction of activity and mechanistic investigations of organic reactions. The advent of advanced statistical and machine learning methods, as well as dramatic increases in computational speed and memory, has contributed to this emerging field of study. This review summarizes strategies to employ quantitative structure-selectivity relationships (QSSR) in asymmetric catalytic reactions. The coverage is structured by initially introducing the basic features of these methods. Subsequent topics are discussed according to increasing complexity of molecular representations. As the most applied subfield of QSSR in enantioselective catalysis, the application of local parametrization approaches and linear free energy relationships (LFERs) along with multivariate modeling techniques is described first. This section is followed by a description of global parametrization methods, the first of which is continuous chirality measures (CCM) because it is a single parameter derived from the global structure of a molecule. Chirality codes, global, multivariate descriptors, are then introduced followed by molecular interaction fields (MIFs), a global descriptor class that typically has the highest dimensionality. To highlight the current reach of QSSR in enantioselective transformations, a comprehensive collection of examples is presented. When combined with traditional experimental approaches, chemoinformatics holds great promise to predict new catalyst structures, rationalize mechanistic behavior, and profoundly change the way chemists discover and optimize reactions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00425

Cites

244 of 244 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Because fitness evaluation dictates the overall time for optimization, multiple linear regression or quantitative structure-property relationship models, force field or semiempirical models, or machine learning regression models are preferable to full density functional theory evaluation.

    “Because fitness evaluation dictates the overall time for optimization, MLR (i.e., quantitative structure-property relationship, or QSPR) models (59,60), force field or semiempirical models (36), or ML regression models (e.g., with ANNs) (120) are preferable in comparison to full DFT evaluation.”

    From Machine Learning for the Discovery, Design, and Engineering of Materials. (2022) · cites this paper as [60]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Successful descriptors were generally demonstrated in linear regression or MLR models.

    “In this case, successful descriptors were generally demonstrated in linear regression or MLR models (59,60).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. [26]Roy K Advances in QSAR Modeling. Applications in Pharmaceutical, Chemical, Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences. Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2019.
  2. [35]Maitra S; Yan J Principle Component Analysis and Partial Least Squares: Two Dimension Reduction Techniques for Regression. Appl. Multivar. Stat. Model 2008, 79, 79– 90.
  3. [54]Charton M Steric effects. 13. Substituents at Sulfur. J. Org. Chem 1978, 43, 3995– 4001.
  4. [55]Bess EN; Sigman MS; In Asymmetric Synthesis; Christmann M, Bräse S, Ed.; Wiley-VCH Verlag & Co. KGaA, Boschstr 12, 69469 Weinheim, Germany, 2012; pp 363– 370.
  5. [59]Santiago CB; Guo J-Y; Sigman MS Predictive and Mechanistic Multivariate Linear Regression Models for Reaction Development. Chem. Sci 2018, 9, 2398– 2412. 29719711 PMC5903422
  6. [132]El-Bahraoui J; Wiest O; Feichtinger D; Plattner DA Rate Enhancement and Enantioselectivity of the Jacobsen-Katsuki Epoxidation: The Significance of the Sixth Corrdination Site. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2001, 40, 2073– 2076. 29712213
  7. [146]Long J; Ding K Engineering Catalysts for Enantioselective Addition of Diethylzinc to Aldehydes with Racemic Amino Alcohols: Nonlinear Effects in Asymmetric Deacivation of Racemic Catalysts. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2001, 40, 544– 547. 29712026
  8. [149]Zhang Q-Y; Zhang D-D; Li J-Y; Zhou Y-M; Xu J Prediction of Enantiomeric Excess in a Catalytic Process: A Chemoinformatics Approach Using Chirality Codes. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem 2012, 67, 773– 786.
  9. [157]Lennard-Jones JE On the Determination of Molecular Fields. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 1924, 106, 463– 477.
  10. [221]Todeschini R; Consonni V Molecular Descriptors, Wiley-VCH, 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zahrt, A. F., Athavale, S. V., & Denmark, S. E.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Denmark, Scott E.
Venue
Chemical Reviews
Published
2019-12-30
Volume
120
Issue
3
Pages
1620-1689
ISSN
  • 0009-2665 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6890
OpenAlex
W2997878828
Cited by
212
References
244
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 20
FWCI
1.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Chemical Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Division of Chemistry (NSF CHE1900617)
  • University of Illinois
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Asymmetric Synthesis and Catalysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Molecular spectroscopy and chirality
Keywords
asymmetric catalysis, cheminformatics, catalyst design, linear free energy relationships, molecular interaction fields, multivariate models, machine learning, reaction mechanism prediction
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Catalysis, Chemistry, Organic, Models, Chemical, Stereoisomerism, Multivariate Analysis, Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Informatics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review