In order to work out the envisaged protocol, a key reaction was conducted with phenylethenethiol 1(a–n) in DMF containing 2 mol % of eosin Y under an air atmosphere (without air bubbling) by irradiation with blue light (blue LEDs, λmax = 467 nm) at rt. The reaction delivered the desired benzo[b]thiophenes 2(a–n) with moderate to excellent yield. (Table 1).
Table 1 Optimization of reaction conditionsa
Entry
|
Photocatalyst
|
Catalyst loading (mol%)
|
Solvent
|
Base
|
Time (h)
|
Yieldb (%)
|
1
|
Eosin Y
|
2
|
DMF
|
iPr2Net
|
5
|
92
|
2
|
Rose Bengal
|
2
|
DMF
|
iPr2Net
|
5
|
86
|
3
|
Fluorescein
|
2
|
DMF
|
iPr2Net
|
5
|
76
|
4
|
Benzophenone
|
2
|
DMF
|
iPr2Net
|
5
|
71
|
5
|
Eosin Y
|
2
|
MeOH
|
DBU
|
5
|
61
|
6
|
Eosin Y
|
2
|
EtOH
|
DABCO
|
5
|
63
|
7
|
Eosin Y
|
2
|
DMSO
|
Et3N
|
5
|
56
|
8
|
Eosin Y
|
1
|
DMF
|
iPr2Net
|
5
|
62
|
9
|
Eosin Y
|
3
|
DMF
|
iPr2Net
|
5
|
92
|
10
|
Eosin Y
|
2
|
DMF
|
iPr2Net
|
5
|
42c
|
11
|
Eosin Y
|
2
|
DMF
|
iPr2Net
|
8
|
Traced
|
12
|
-
|
-
|
DMF
|
iPr2Net
|
8
|
n.d.e
|
aReaction conditions: phenylethenethiol (1.0 mmol), eosin Y (2.0 mol%), iPr2NEt (2.0 equiv.), DMF (3.0 mL), blue LEDs 3 W, irradiation under an air atmosphere at rt.
bIsolated yield of the product (2a).
cThe reaction was carried out using 20 W CFL (compact fluorescent lamp).
dReaction was performed in the dark.
eReaction was carried out without catalyst.
Following this experiment, a series of control experiments were performed, which indicates that an organic base is essential to give the desired product with high yield (92%) (Table 1, entry 1) and iPr2NEt was found to be the best base (Table 1, entry 1 versus 5, 6, 7). Next, the reaction conditions were optimized with respect to catalyst and eosin Y was found the best suitable catalyst. (Table 1, entry 1 versus 2, 3, 4). There was no product formation or it was formed in traces in the absence of any one of the reagents/ catalyst (Table 1, entries 11, 12). The reaction did not proceed satisfactorily when a household 20 W fluorescent lamp was used instead of blue LEDs (Table 1, entries 10 versus 1 These results establish that visible light, base, and photocatalyst all are essential for the reaction and supports this photocatalytic model of the reaction.
Next, the reaction conditions were optimized with respect to solvents and the catalyst used in the reaction. In all the tested solvents (DMF, DMSO, MeOH and EtOH) the yield of 2(a–n) was > 55% (Table 1), which indicates that the reaction is not very sensitive to reaction media. DMF was the best solvent in terms of the reaction time and yield (Table 1, entry 1), hence it was used throughout the synthesis. When the amount of the catalyst was decreased from 2 mol % to 1 mol %, the yield of 2(a–n) considerably reduced (Table 1, entry 8), but the use of 3 mol % of the catalyst did not affect the yield (Table 1, entry 9).
We next shifted our attention to exploring the adaptability of alternative substrates or anticipated reaction conditions, as we proceeded to search for the ideal reaction conditions for our model reaction (Table 2). The implementation of the present approach to a variety of phenylethenethiol including different substituents was investigated.
This clearly shows that the reaction is very mild and applicable to aryl and substituted aryl, tolerates considerable functional group variations like, NHCOMe, CO2Me, COMe, CHO, MeO, Me, Cl, Br and NO2 in the substrate 1(a–n), which results the desired product 2(a–n) in moderate to excellent yields (48–98%). However, phenylethenethiol with an electron-donating group on the aromatic ring appear to react faster and afford marginally higher yields in comparison to those bearing an electron withdrawing group.
On the basis of the above observations and the literature precedents, a plausible mechanism involving photoredox catalysis for the oxidative cyclization of phenylethenethiol is depicted in Scheme 2.
On absorption of visible light, the organophotoredox catalyst eosin Y (EY) is excited to its singlet state 1EY* which through inter system crossing (ISC) comes to its more stable triplet state 3EY* and undergoes a single electron transfer (SET). 3EY* may undergo both reductive and oxidative quenching. [75–79] A SET from A to 3EY* generates thioacyl radical B, which undergoes intramolecular cyclization to form C followed by attack of O2• − to give the product 2, successively. The formation of superoxide radical anion O2• − during the reaction was confirmed by the detection of the resulting H2O2 using KI / starch indicator [80].
Experimental section
General information
Melting points were determined by open glass capillary method and are uncorrected. All chemicals used were reagent grade and were used as received. 1H NMR and 13C NMR spectra were recorded on a Bruker AVANCE DPX (400 MHz and 100 MHz) FT spectrometer in CDCl3 using TMS as an internal reference (chemical shift in δ, ppm).
General Procedure for the Synthesis of benzo[ b ]thiophenes 2(a–n)
A solution of a substituted phenylethenethiol 1(a–n) (1.0 mmol), eosin Y (2.0 mol %) and iPr2NEt (2.0 equiv.) were added and the mixture was irradiated with blue LEDs (3 W, λmax = 467 nm) with stirring under an air atmosphere at rt for 5–8 h. After completion of the reaction (monitored by TLC), water (5 mL) was added and the mixture was extracted with EtOAc (3 × 5 mL). The combined organic phase was dried over MgSO4, filtered and evaporated under reduced pressure. The resulting product was purified by silica gel column chromatography using a gradient mixture of hexane/ ethyl acetate as eluent to afford an analytically pure 2(a–n). All the products are known compounds and were characterized by the comparison of their spectral data with those reported in the literature.
Molecular Docking
Molecular docking is an accepted technique to identify bioactive compounds for drug development by calculating the binding affinity of the protein and ligand [81]. By using a computational technique called protein-ligand docking, it is possible to predict how and to what extent small compounds will bind to protein receptors. This molecular modelling technique [82–85] predicts the preferred orientation of one molecule to another when they are joined together to form a stable complex [86]. The pharmaceutical industry is well known for providing drugs development a high priority. By using online drug target prediction, also known as Swiss ADME-Target prediction, this compound, also referred to as a ligand, interacts with the specific protein that has been selected. Software Chimera 1.14 and Auto Dock Vina are used to dock 2-Phenylbenzo[b]thiophene molecule with 4FGL protein which belongs to oxidoreductase domain [87]. Table 3 provides a summary of the results, and Fig. 2 shows the best binding energy of -5.9 kcal/mol. A low binding energy value indicates that the compound is bioactive in nature and it indicates if the given ligand is suitable for the given proteins. The protein 4FGL contains 3 residues and the value of its Inhibition constant (KI) is 47.2.
Table 3
Molecular docking and hydrogen bonding with centromere-related protein inhibitors protein targets.
Target Molecule
|
2-Phenylbenzo[b]thiophene
|
Protein (PDB ID)
|
4FGL
|
No. of Residues
|
3
|
Bond Distance (A0)
|
3.18
|
Inhibition constant (micromolar)
|
47.2
|
Binding energy (Kcal mol− 1)
|
-5.9
|
Reference RMSD (Å)
|
10.87
|
Drug- likeness
The structural properties of the ligands in pharmaceutical study play a significant role to provide accurate and effective results for guidelines, also known as drug-likeness. In this technique, numbers of rules are used such as Veber rule, BBB rule, QED, Ghose filter, Lipinski's rule, MDDR-like rule and CMC-50 rules [88]. To identify whether a chemical molecule has the chemical and physical properties that would make it likely to be an orally active medicine in humans, Lipinski's rule [89] is a widely used filtering criteria. Efficiency is achieved when the 2-Phenylbenzo[b]thiophene and its derivatives are subjected to the drug-likeness criteria. Numerous activities are shown by these compounds. The vital ADME parameters, including the blood-brain barrier penetration (BBB) log kp, hydrogen bond acceptors (HBA), hydrogen bond donors (HBD), topological polar surface area (TPSA), bioavailability score and molar refractivity (MR) are calculated for the standard compound and its derivatives and are shown in Table 4. It is recommended that both HBA and HBD readings should be below 10. The molecules in this particular case all have values that are less than 3. The highest value for TPSA should be 140 A2. For the target molecule and its derivatives, this ranges from 28.24 to 74.06. Table 4 shows that the bioavailability score of 2-Phenylbenzo[b]thiophene and its derivative is equal to 0.55 and that the skin's permeability (log Kp) is between − 3.97 and − 4.45. Additionally, all the target molecules have the relevant value of GI absorption. In addition, the molar refractivity should be around 40–130 [90]. The MR values of 2-Phenylbenzo[b]thiophene, 2-(4-nitrophenyl)benzo[b]thiophene and 5-methyl-2-(p-toly)benzo[b]thiophene are 67.26,76.08 and 77.19. According to the comparison described above, the title molecule, 2-Phenylbenzo[b]thiophene, and its derivatives are valuable building blocks that are commonly used in the development of a variety of substances with biological activity and medicines.
Table:4 ADME properties of 2-Phenylbenzo[b]thiophene and its derivative.
ADME properties
|
2-Phenylbenzo-[b]thiophene
|
2-(4-nitrophenyl)benzo-[b]thiophene
|
5-methyl-2-(p-toly)benzo-
[b]thiophen
|
HBA
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
HBD
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
TPSA A2
|
28.24
|
74.06
|
28.24
|
MR
|
67.26
|
76.08
|
77.19
|
GI absorption
|
High
|
High
|
High
|
BBB permeant
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
CPY1A2 inhibitor
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Log kp (cm s− 1)
|
-0.05
|
-4.45
|
-3.97
|
Lipinski violations
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
Bioavailability score
|
0.55
|
0.55
|
0.55
|
HBA- hydrogen bond acceptor, HBD- hydrogen bond donor, TPSA-topological polar surface area, MR- molar refractivity, GI- gastrointestinal, BBB- blood-brain barrier penetration and log kp- skin permeability.