Corresponding Author Contact:
Dennis Liotta, PhD
Department of Chemistry, Emory University, 1515 Dickey Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, United States
Manuscript number of paper to be corrected: jm400177t
Reference citation of paper to be corrected: J. Med. Chem. 2013, 56, 5351-5381.
Rose M. Santangelo Freel, Kevin K. Ogden, Katie L. Strong, Alpa Khatri, Kathryn M. Chepiga, Henrik S. Jensen, Stephen F. Traynelis, and Dennis C. Liotta*
The description of the model shown in Figure 3 predicts the wrong stereochemistry of the amine resulting from the stereoselective reduction of the imine. The text, Scheme 7, and experimental sections describe the diastereomers of compound 182 as being (S, S) and (R, R). However the model actually predicts the two diastereomers of 182 to be (R, S) and (S, R). Since the diastereomers of compound 182 are intermediates to the final enantiomers, the predicted stereochemistry of each final enantiomer is also misassigned based on the model. The model of the stereoselective reduction predicts the active enantiomer to have (R) stereochemistry, instead of what has been published as (S), which is misrepresented in Figure 5C. However, since an absolute assignment has still not been made, but we are making progress towards a crystal structure, we would suggest that the active enantiomer be referred to (+)-CIQ and the inactive enantiomer be referred to as (-)-CIQ instead of the (R) and (S) assignment.
JM400177t
10.1021/jm400177t
Published on Web 4/29/13