ReviewBeilstein journal of organic chemistry2021
Recent advances in organocatalytic asymmetric aza-Michael reactions of amines and amides.
Review in Beilstein journal of organic chemistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ionic Liquids in the Aza-Michael Reaction: From Early Imidazolium Salts to Bio-Based Catalytic Media.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Palladium [ACS omega · 2026Article
- Recent advances in copper-catalyzed direct hydroamination of alkenes with (hetero)aromatic amines.Beilstein journal of organic chemistry · 2026Review
- Catalytic Innovations in the Aza-Michael Reaction: An Experimental Benchmarking Focused on Sustainable Approaches.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Developments and applications of α-bromonitrostyrenes in organic syntheses.RSC advances · 2024Review
- Sigmatropic [1,5] Carbon Shift of Transient C3 Ammonium Enolates.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2022Article
- New advances in asymmetric organocatalysis.Beilstein journal of organic chemistry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nitrogen-containing scaffolds are ubiquitous in nature and constitute an important class of building blocks in organic synthesis. The asymmetric aza-Michael reaction (aza-MR) alone or in tandem with other organic reaction(s) is an important synthetic tool to form new C-N bond(s) leading to developing new libraries of diverse types of bioactive nitrogen compounds. The synthesis and application of a variety of organocatalysts for accomplishing highly useful organic syntheses without causing environmental pollution in compliance with 'Green Chemistry" has been a landmark development in the recent past. Application of many of these organocatalysts has been extended to asymmetric aza-MR during the last two decades. The present article overviews the literature published during the last 10 years concerning the asymmetric aza-MR of amines and amides catalysed by organocatalysts. Both types of the organocatalysts, i.e., those acting through non-covalent interactions and those working through covalent bond formation have been applied for the asymmetric aza-MR. Thus, the review includes the examples wherein cinchona alkaloids, squaramides, chiral amines, phase-transfer catalysts and chiral bifunctional thioureas have been used, which activate the substrates through hydrogen bond formation. Most of these reactions are accompanied by high yields and enantiomeric excesses. On the other hand, N-heterocyclic carbenes and chiral pyrrolidine derivatives acting through covalent bond formation such as the iminium ions with the substrates have also been included. Wherever possible, a comparison has been made between the efficacies of various organocatalysts in asymmetric aza-MR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.