Author Topic: Retrosynthetic analysis of lysergic acid?  (Read 1483 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bottleneck

  • Guest
Retrosynthetic analysis of lysergic acid?
« on: August 27, 2002, 08:36:00 AM »
Why don't some of you university-bees run one of those fancy retrosynthetic programs on lysergic acid? There aren't exactly a lot of atoms to differentiate it from tryptophan, so how many steps could it take?

I mean, there must be like 1 zillion possible syntheses to lysergic acid, but what is the best, shortest, most "clandestinely appropriate" synthesis? Surely, a computer, properly instructed, could determine the answer pretty quickly?

Osmium

  • Guest
It has already been done and posted.
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2002, 10:01:00 AM »
It has already been done and posted.

http://syngen2.chem.brandeis.edu/syngen.html


http://syngen2.chem.brandeis.edu/sample-output/lysergic_A106.html



I'm not fat just horizontally disproportionate.

bottleneck

  • Guest
Wow
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2002, 10:33:00 AM »
This is exactly what I was looking for! But how about the details of the steps? Has this synthesis been attempted in practise?

These routes don't look beyond the reach of some of thee people writing on this site. Why isn't everybody trying to make it?

Aurelius

  • Guest
knowledge
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2002, 03:29:00 PM »
because some chems aren't readily available- that and you need to have some knowledge of how a reaction will proceed before attempting it.  in other words, you need an analogous reaction written up in a journal (or other verifiable reference) for each and every step.  this wouldn't be nearly as important if the chemicals for such novel syntheses were readily available by the liter/kilogram at low prices.  however, they're not and therefore nobody wants to dick around with something that's not even likely to work.

bottleneck

  • Guest
> because some chems aren't readily available- ...
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2002, 01:57:00 AM »
> because some chems aren't readily available-

Okay, but isn't that just supposed to be a cue which inspires chemists to make their own?

> that and you need to have some knowledge of how a reaction will proceed before attempting it. in other words, you need an analogous reaction written up in a journal (or other verifiable reference) for each and every step.

But doesn't the program itself contain these references for each reaction it proposes?

> this wouldn't be nearly as important if the chemicals for such novel syntheses were readily available by the liter/kilogram at low prices.

The intermediate reagents shown on the syngen-page seem to be rather small - surely they could be synthesized inexpensively?

> however, they're not and therefore nobody wants to dick around with something that's not even likely to work.  

I just thought most of these programs were written so they almost always choose reactions which are well-described, and minimized actions which could threaten to influence the predictability of the reaction.

This is what we (I) need:

http://www.sciencebase.com/dec98_iss.html



A neural network to spot where there could be a conflict in a proposed reaction.

Aurelius

  • Guest
ideally
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2002, 09:07:00 AM »
on most of your statements you hope the program will solve the problem.  yes, a lot of the reactions are documented... some reagents are cheap or easy- maybe even practical to make.  the problem is that the program isn't a "reality" program.  it goes based on what has worked, not on experience of what will work.  if you've got the time to mess with that stuff- go ahead, aurelius will give you complete support in your endevour- however, likelyhood of success is not high.

bottleneck

  • Guest
>on most of your statements you hope the ...
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2002, 10:23:00 AM »
>on most of your statements you hope the program will solve the problem.  yes, a lot of the reactions are documented... some reagents are cheap or easy- maybe even practical to make.  the problem is that the program isn't a "reality" program.  it goes based on what has worked, not on experience of what will work.

What I thought was that a program could maybe help me get a better "overview" in designing a new synthesis better than I could alone, even if I had a decent understanding of chemistry.

I mean, there are thousands of potential reactions, millions of specific reactions reported in the literature, and an endless number of ways to get from any compound to any other compound.

A method of testing out a huge number of possibilities in a short time does not seem too inappropriate to me in such a circumstance, and a program can answer any question which can be put into a logical form, logical in the mathematical sense.

If someone who was really good at both programming and chemistry got their act together and wrote a public domain program of this nature, beautiful possibilities spring to my mind.

Isn't that how a lot of research is done in "reality", anyway? Just testing elaborations on what has already been tested before? I mean, chemistry doesn't seem to be a very exact science yet.


> if you've got the time to mess with that stuff- go ahead, aurelius will give you complete support in your endevour- however, likelyhood of success is not high.    
  
Thanks for your support. And I'd love for someone to prove you wrong.

Aurelius

  • Guest
agreed
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2002, 10:01:00 PM »
"i'd love for someone to prove you wrong"

Me Too.