_
Hi,
2d Mols are:
1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10- azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4- ol
(1R,9S,13R)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10- azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4- ol
3D Mols optimized by SMI23D are see (problem-3D-opt-smi23d.sdf):
(1R,9R,13R)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10- azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4- ol
(1R,9R,13S)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10- azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4- ol
So there is a switch in absolute configuration for the second one.
A totoal of 8 stereosiomers can be generated from CC1C2CC3=C(C1(CCN2CCC4=CC=CC=C4)C)C=C(C=C3)O
I get an error when I try to generate stereoisomers the first SMILES with Marvin 5.2.2. and 3D check on.
java.lang.NullPointerException
at chemaxon.marvin.calculations.MultipleMoleculeDisplay.getResultComponent(MultipleMoleculeDisplay.java:254)
at chemaxon.marvin.plugin.CalculatorPluginManager.displayResult(CalculatorPluginManager.java:223)
at chemaxon.marvin.plugin.CalculatorPluginManager.runPlugin(CalculatorPluginManager.java:184)
at chemaxon.marvin.plugin.CalculatorPluginManager.runPlugin(CalculatorPluginManager.java:106)
at chemaxon.marvin.plugin.CalculatorPluginManager.callback(CalculatorPluginManager.java:76)
at chemaxon.marvin.plugin.PluginManager.callback(PluginManager.java:87)
at chemaxon.marvin.common.swing.MolPanel$5.run(MolPanel.java:3874)
SMILES generated with Marvin:
C[C@@H]1[C@@H]2CC3=C(C=C(O)C=C3)[C@]1(C)CCN2CCC1=CC=CC=C1
C[C@H]1[C@@H]2CC3=C(C=C(O)C=C3)[C@]1(C)CCN2CCC1=CC=CC=C1
C[C@@H]1[C@H]2CC3=C(C=C(O)C=C3)[C@]1(C)CCN2CCC1=CC=CC=C1
C[C@H]1[C@H]2CC3=C(C=C(O)C=C3)[C@]1(C)CCN2CCC1=CC=CC=C1
C[C@@H]1[C@@H]2CC3=C(C=C(O)C=C3)[C@@]1(C)CCN2CCC1=CC=CC=C1
C[C@H]1[C@@H]2CC3=C(C=C(O)C=C3)[C@@]1(C)CCN2CCC1=CC=CC=C1
C[C@@H]1[C@H]2CC3=C(C=C(O)C=C3)[C@@]1(C)CCN2CCC1=CC=CC=C1
C[C@H]1[C@H]2CC3=C(C=C(O)C=C3)[C@@]1(C)CCN2CCC1=CC=CC=C1
1 (1R,9S,13S)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
2 (1R,9S,13R)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
3 (1R,9R,13S)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
4 (1R,9R,13R)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
5 (1S,9S,13S)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
6 (1S,9S,13R)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
7 (1S,9R,13S)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
8 (1S,9R,13R)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
Some of them are probably not possible in 3D.
SMI23D converts all of the 8molecules either into
(1R,9R,13R)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
(1R,9R,13S)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
id Preferred IUPAC Name
1 (1R,9R,13R)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
2 (1R,9R,13S)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
3 (1R,9R,13R)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
4 (1R,9R,13S)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
5 (1R,9R,13S)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
6 (1R,9R,13S)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
7 (1R,9R,13S)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
8 (1R,9R,13S)-1,13-dimethyl-10-(2-phenylethyl)-10-azatricyclo[7.3.1.0^{2,7}]trideca-2(7),3,5-trien-4-ol
The whole calulation with SMI23D takes one or two seconds, MArvin takes either minutes or it does not come up woth one, but is says: Calculation failed
No possible solution with an output would be correct, or one has to say yes, please allow a change in
configuration. So actually saying failed is not the correct output when all optimizations were checked,
but I am not sure if there shold be a correct solution or a more practial approach to this solution, instead of
nothing or failed.
Cheers
Tobias