Experimental Selection of SEM-Cl: From O/N-SEM Protection and Directed Functionalization of N-Heterocycles to the Introduction of Protected C1 Fragments

Overview

 

2-(Trimethylsilyl)ethoxymethyl chloride, abbreviated as SEM-Cl, was initially introduced into organic synthesis as a hydroxyl-protecting reagent. Subsequent studies showed that the utility of SEM-Cl is not limited to the construction of O-SEM protecting groups. It can also be used for nitrogen protection in certain nitrogen-containing heterocycles, thereby supporting subsequent directed metalation or regioselective functionalization. In addition, reagents bearing an SEM fragment can also be incorporated into one-carbon homologation strategies. From the standpoint of experimental selection, the value of SEM-Cl is mainly reflected in three aspects: whether it facilitates downstream selectivity control, whether it preserves an appropriate deprotection window at the end of the sequence, and whether this installation step is compatible with the overall synthetic route.

 

1. Three Common Roles of SEM-Cl in Synthetic Routes

 

The common uses of SEM-Cl in synthetic routes are mainly concentrated in three categories:

 

1. To construct O-SEM protecting groups, thereby preserving a deprotection pathway distinct from conventional acidolysis or hydrogenolysis for multistep transformations.

2. To construct N-SEM protecting groups in nitrogen-containing heterocycles such as pyrroles, indoles, and imidazoles, while creating conditions for subsequent directed metalation or regioselective functionalization.

3. To enter the design of one-carbon homologation reagents bearing an SEM fragment, for one-carbon extension of carbonyl compounds such as aldehydes and ketones.

 

1.1 | Roles of SEM-Cl in Different Experimental Tasks and Selection Criteria

 

Experimental Task	Role of SEM-Cl in This Task	Applicable Situations	Key Questions Before Use
Hydroxyl protection	Construction of an O-SEM protecting group	The substrate must subsequently undergo strongly basic, nucleophilic, or metalation-related steps, and the route should retain a deprotection option at the end that is different from conventional acidolysis or hydrogenolysis	Whether fluoride conditions are acceptable at the end of the route; if mild cleavage is desired, whether Lewis acid conditions are acceptable
Directed functionalization of nitrogen-containing heterocycles	Construction of an N-SEM protecting group while enabling subsequent site-selective control	In systems such as pyrroles, indoles, and imidazoles, N-protection is followed by metalation, coupling, or regioselective substitution	Whether this protection step is used only to mask the N-H, or whether it must also contribute to subsequent site selectivity and reaction progression
Design of one-carbon homologation using an SEM-containing fragment	Construction of a one-carbon extension reagent bearing an SEM fragment	The route requires introduction of a one-carbon unit in protected form for one-carbon homologation of carbonyl compounds	Whether the SEM fragment will later be treated as a removable unit or retained for further structural transformation

 

2. Selection of SEM in Hydroxyl Protection Scenarios

 

When SEM-Cl is used for hydroxyl protection, the main considerations are the deprotection pathway and its compatibility with the downstream route.

 

2.1 | Selection Criteria for O-SEM Protection

 

Evaluation Dimension	Details
Applicable scenario	A hydroxyl group must first be protected to enable multistep transformations, then released at a later stage by a pathway distinct from conventional acidolysis or hydrogenolysis
Classical deprotection mode	Fluoride-mediated cleavage, with tetrabutylammonium fluoride (TBAF) as a representative condition
Optional mild deprotection mode	Magnesium bromide (MgBr2) conditions, applicable to SEM ethers and also reported for certain SEM ester systems
Selection limitations	If the final-stage deprotection must rely on fluoride, and the system also contains other silicon-based fragments that are even more fluoride-sensitive, the suitability of SEM decreases. If the substrate allows alternative deprotection pathways such as MgBr2, its feasibility may still be evaluated
Key selection focus	Whether the final-stage deprotection pathway is compatible with the overall route

 

3. Selection of N-SEM Protection in Nitrogen-Containing Heterocycles

 

In nitrogen-containing heterocyclic systems such as pyrroles, indoles, and imidazoles, SEM-type nitrogen protecting groups often serve purposes beyond simply masking the heterocyclic N-H. They are frequently linked to subsequent directed metalation and site-selective transformations. For such substrates, the choice of protecting group generally needs to be assessed together with the downstream strong-base conditions, metalation steps, and coupling reactions.

 

A comparative study published in 2016 on a pyrrolopyridazinone scaffold showed that standard Boc protection underwent significant decomposition during the subsequent palladium-catalyzed cross-coupling stage for installation of two aryl groups, whereas SEM was more suitable as the nitrogen-protecting strategy for that route. This indicates that, in certain nitrogen-containing heterocycle routes, protecting-group stability should be evaluated in the context of downstream reaction conditions. However, this conclusion applies to the specific scaffold reported and should not be directly generalized to all heterocyclic systems.

 

3.1 | Key Points for Evaluating N-SEM Protection in Nitrogen-Containing Heterocycles

 

Evaluation Dimension	Core Content
Role of N-SEM in this class of substrates	It serves not only to mask the heterocyclic N-H, but also to connect with subsequent directed metalation or site-selective transformations
Applicable substrate types	Representative literature-supported systems mainly include nitrogen-containing heterocycles such as pyrroles, indoles, and imidazoles
When N-SEM should be considered as a priority	When, after N-protection, the route still requires strong-base conditions, metalation, coupling, or regioselective substitution
Key point when comparing with conventional nitrogen-protecting groups	In addition to installation and removal of the protecting group, its stability under downstream reaction conditions must also be evaluated
Limitations of applicability	Reported advantages usually arise from specific heterocyclic scaffolds and defined downstream steps, and should not be directly extrapolated to all nitrogen-containing heterocycle routes

 

4. One-Carbon Homologation Enabled by SEM-Type Phosphonium Salts/Ylides

 

As early as 1983, literature reports showed that phosphonium salts bearing an SEM fragment can be deprotonated to generate ylides suitable for one-carbon homologation of carbonyl compounds such as aldehydes and ketones. This demonstrates that SEM-related chemistry is not limited to protecting-group applications and can, in some routes, also serve as part of a strategy for introducing protected C1 fragments. For such transformations, three considerations are especially important:

 

1. Whether the route requires introduction of a one-carbon unit in protected form.

2. Whether the introduced SEM fragment will continue to participate in downstream structural transformations or instead be treated as a removable unit at a later stage.

3. Whether the downstream deprotection conditions are compatible with other functional groups and protecting-group systems present in the route.

 

5. Check the Deprotection Conditions Before Choosing SEM

 

Whether SEM is suitable for inclusion in a route depends primarily on whether a viable deprotection condition is available at the final stage.

 

5.1 | Key Points for Assessing SEM Deprotection Conditions

 

Deprotection Mode	Applicable Substrates	Applicable Situations	Key Questions Before Use
Fluoride conditions	Mainly SEM ethers, and also some N-SEM systems	The later stage of the route can tolerate fluoride-containing conditions such as tetrabutylammonium fluoride	Whether the system contains other fluoride-sensitive silicon-containing fragments
Magnesium bromide conditions	SEM ethers and some SEM ester systems	When milder cleavage conditions are required	Whether the substrate is compatible with Lewis acid or magnesium halide conditions
Strongly acidic deprotection conditions	Certain N-SEM systems or specific substrates	A supplementary screening pathway rather than a routine first-choice option	Whether acidic treatment will affect other functional groups or protecting groups

 

6. Reagent Properties and Operational Requirements

 

In addition to reaction scope, the selection of SEM-Cl should also take into account storage, ventilation, and safety management requirements.

 

6.1 | Experimental Handling Notes for SEM-Cl

 

Item	Details
Physical state	Liquid reagent
Storage requirements	It is recommended to store according to the SDS under low-temperature conditions; 2–8 °C is one common recommendation. Protection from moisture, avoidance of heat sources, and good ventilation should also be ensured
Main hazards	Flammable liquid and vapor; may cause severe skin burns and eye damage
Operating conditions	Must be handled under well-ventilated conditions, away from open flames and heat sources
Points to consider during selection	Whether the storage requirements, ventilation conditions, and safety-management costs are compatible with the available experimental setup

 

7. Product Navigation Table for SEM-Cl in Orthogonal Protection, Directed Functionalization of Nitrogen-Containing Heterocycles, and One-Carbon Homologation of Carbonyl Compounds (Tables 1–3)

 

Research or Experimental Objective	Which Table to Consult First	Why Start with This Table	Which Table to Cross-Reference	Reason for Cross-Referencing
To first determine whether the core reagent framework of this SEM-Cl route is suitable for the substrate and target transformation at hand	Table 1	Table 1 brings together SEM-Cl, SEM skeleton precursors, phosphonium salt precursors, and commonly used bases for installation, making it suitable for establishing the basic judgment of whether this is a route centered on an SEM fragment	Table 3	After confirming whether installation can proceed smoothly, it is still necessary to check whether there is an appropriate deprotection option at the end of the route, so as to avoid a situation where the front end works but the SEM group is difficult to remove later
The substrate in hand is an alcohol, phenol, or carboxylic acid, and the goal is to judge whether SEM is worth choosing instead of common protecting groups such as TBS, THP, or MEM	Table 3	Table 3 concentrates SEM deprotection pathways and several orthogonal protecting-group comparisons, making it the best place to first compare how different protecting groups are retained or removed under acidic, fluoride, and Lewis acidic conditions	Table 1	After deciding to use SEM, it is necessary to return to Table 1 to examine the core reagents and supporting bases required for installation, and to judge whether the protection conditions match the substrate currently under study
To carry out N-SEM protection of heterocycles and further perform directed metalation and downstream functionalization of pyrroles, indoles, or imidazoles	Table 2	Table 2 places heterocyclic substrates, strong lithiation bases, and coordination-promoting additives together, making it suitable for first judging whether SEM in this type of system functions merely as a protecting group or also serves in downstream site control	Table 3	Heterocycle-based routes ultimately still return to the question of deprotection, especially when comparing the differences between N-SEM and control systems such as N-Boc in final-stage removal
To compare N-Boc and N-SEM routes and judge which is more suitable for subsequent strong-base, lithiation, or coupling conditions	Table 3	Table 3 contains Boc control reagents and SEM deprotection pathways, making it suitable for first establishing the differences between the two protecting groups in compatibility with downstream conditions	Table 2	What truly determines the choice is whether, after protection, the substrate can smoothly enter heterocycle lithiation, regioselective functionalization, or subsequent coupling steps
To expand the understanding of SEM from a “protecting group” to a “C1 synthon,” and evaluate whether it can be used for one-carbon extension or introduction of a protected hydroxymethyl fragment	Table 1	In Table 1, SEM-type phosphonium salts, triphenylphosphine, and 2-(trimethylsilyl)ethanol collectively lay out the main line of C1 fragment construction, making it suitable for first clarifying how SEM moves from a protecting group into one-carbon fragment construction	Table 3	If the SEM fragment is to be carried into subsequent steps, it is also necessary to consider whether it will ultimately be retained, transformed, or removed, and Table 3 is suitable for adding that part of the judgment
To first perform a set of small-scale screening experiments comparing the feasibility of different SEM deprotection pathways such as TBAF, MgBr2, and acidic conditions	Table 3	Table 3 corresponds directly to the core issue of terminal SEM removal, making it suitable for first designing a screening plan around which pathway is cleaner and more compatible with coexisting functional groups	Tables 1 and 2	If the screening targets come respectively from O-SEM, N-SEM, or SEM-type one-carbon fragment routes, the front-end installation method and substrate type must also be considered together, because SEM fragments from different origins may respond differently to deprotection
To explore SEM ester protection in amino acids, carboxylic acids, or more complex multifunctional systems, with attention to subsequent mild deprotection	Table 3	Table 3 includes entries such as benzoic acid, glycine, and MgBr2, making it suitable for first carrying out model-based evaluation around SEM ester formation and mild deprotection	Table 1	If the SEM ester route is confirmed to be feasible, one can then return to Table 1 to examine the upstream source of the SEM fragment and the installation system, making it easier to extend the model conditions to real substrates
To start from the most basic model reaction and build an SEM condition framework covering “installation-retention-removal”	Table 1	Table 1 is suitable as the starting point because it first defines the core reagents and bases required for SEM installation and establishes the most basic protection conditions	Table 3	After the basic model has been set up, the deprotection window and orthogonal protecting-group comparisons still need to be added before it can be judged whether this SEM condition set is worth further scale-up
It is already known that the later stage of the target molecule will undergo strong-base, lithiation, or other highly reactive conditions, and the goal is to judge in advance whether SEM is more reliable than conventional O/N protecting groups	Table 2	Table 2 reflects the use scenarios of SEM in highly reactive heterocyclic and organolithium systems, making it suitable for first seeing whether it can carry the route under strong-base conditions	Table 3	After judging whether SEM can smoothly survive the later-stage conditions, it is still necessary to consider whether it can ultimately be removed smoothly; these two questions must be considered together
To quickly rank the work by asking “which experiment should be done first”	Table 1	Table 1 is suitable as the starting point because it determines whether the SEM route should be entered, whether C1 fragment construction is involved, and which core reagents are needed for front-end installation	Tables 2 and 3	If the route involves heterocycle elaboration, consult Table 2 next; if orthogonal protection and terminal deprotection are of greater concern, consult Table 3 next

 

Table 1 | Core SEM Installation System, C1 Fragment Precursors, and Supporting Bases

 

Classification	CAS No.	Aladdin Catalog No.	Name	Specification or Purity	Product Features and Applications
Core SEM installation reagent	76513-69-4	T106619	2-(Trimethylsilyl)ethoxymethyl chloride	≥95%	The core reagent for constructing O-SEM, N-SEM, and SEM ester protecting groups. It is suitable for reserving, in multistep routes, a deprotection option for alcohols, phenols, nitrogen-containing substrates, or carboxylic acid derivatives that differs from conventional acidolysis or hydrogenolysis.
SEM skeleton precursor	2916-68-9	T111253	2-(Trimethylsilyl)ethanol	≥98%	The direct alcohol source constituting the SEM skeleton. It is suitable for understanding the origin of the SEM fragment and can also serve as an upstream raw material for preparing related SEM-type protecting reagents, phosphonium salts, or derived intermediates.
SEM-type C1 synthon precursor	82495-75-8	T162769	2-(Trimethylsilyl)ethoxymethyltriphenylphosphonium Chloride	≥98%	Upon deprotonation, it can generate an SEM-type ylide for one-carbon extension in aldehyde and ketone systems, introduction of protected hydroxymethyl equivalents, and Wittig-type transformations. It is the key connection by which SEM moves from a protecting group to a C1 synthon.
Upstream phosphine source for SEM-type phosphonium salts	603-35-0	T104475	Triphenylphosphine	≥99%(GC)	An important upstream phosphine source for preparing SEM-type phosphonium salts and related Wittig systems. It is suitable for being understood together with the phosphonium salt entry in routes involving C1 fragment construction.
Supporting organic base for SEM installation	7087-68-5	D109322	N,N-Diisopropylethylamine	Distilled grade, ≥99.5%	Suitable for use as an acid scavenger in the installation of SEM-Cl onto alcohols, phenols, or certain nitrogen-containing substrates, helping control acidification of the system after HCl formation while also benefiting from the cleaner conditions associated with its relatively low nucleophilicity.
Strong base for SEM installation	7646-69-7	S110860	Sodium hydride	60% dispersion in mineral oil	Suitable for first converting alcohols, phenols, or certain weakly acidic N-substrates into stronger nucleophiles before carrying out the installation reaction with SEM-Cl. It is commonly used in SEM ether or N-SEM protection conditions where higher bond-forming efficiency is needed.

 

Table 2 | Heterocyclic N-SEM Protection, Directed Metalation, and Representative Substrates

 

Classification	CAS No.	Aladdin Catalog No.	Name	Specification or Purity	Product Features and Applications
Representative substrate for N-SEM protection	288-32-4	I432539	Imidazole	Anhydrous, ACS, ≥99%	A classic representative substrate for N-SEM protection. It is suitable for evaluating how SEM masks the imidazole nitrogen and how this affects subsequent regioselective transformations and compatibility with deprotection.
Representative substrate for N-SEM protection and directed functionalization	109-97-7	P104877	Pyrrole	Standard for GC, ≥99.7%(GC)	Suitable for illustrating downstream development such as C-position directed metalation, halogenation, or coupling after N-SEM protection. It is one of the most typical model substrates showing the differentiated value of SEM in heterocyclic chemistry.
Representative substrate for N-SEM protection and directed functionalization	120-72-9	I104726	Indole	≥99%	Suitable for comparing unprotected indole and N-SEM indole in terms of subsequent C-position functionalization, strong-base conditions, and final-stage deprotection, and is an important model for evaluating whether SEM is worth introducing.
Strong base for directed metalation	109-72-8	B107553	n-Butyllithium solution	2.7M in hexane(25% solution)	Suitable for use together with N-SEM heterocyclic substrates in directed deprotonation or lithiation, enabling SEM to function not only as a protecting group but also as a directing element serving subsequent regioselective functionalization.
Strong base for directed metalation	4111-54-0	L432709	Lithium diisopropylamide solution（LDA）	2M in THF/n-hexanes	Suitable for more controlled deprotonation condition screening and can be used together with N-SEM systems such as pyrroles and indoles to compare the effects of different lithiation bases on regioselectivity and side reactions.
Coordination-promoting additive for organolithium systems	110-18-9	T105498	N,N,N′,N′-Tetramethylethylenediamine	Distilled grade, ≥99.5%(GC)	Suitable for use as a coordinating additive in organolithium systems to modulate the reactivity and site selectivity of metalation in N-SEM heterocycles, and is often evaluated together with n-BuLi or LDA conditions.

 

Table 3 | SEM Deprotection Pathways, Carboxylic Acid Models, and Orthogonal Protecting-Group Comparisons

 

Classification	CAS No.	Aladdin Catalog No.	Name	Specification or Purity	Product Features and Applications
Reference acid source for acidic deprotection	76-05-1	T433655	Trifluoroacetic acid（TFA）	Anhydrous, ≥99%	Suitable for use as a reference acid under acidic deprotection conditions to compare the retention or removal trends of SEM versus protecting groups such as Boc, THP, and MEM within an acidic window.
Salt-promoted deprotection reagent	14283-07-9	L432081	Lithium tetrafluoroborate	Anhydrous, ≥98%, acid ＜200 ppm	Can be used for screening Lewis acid or salt-promoted SEM deprotection conditions and is suitable for exploring alternative removal pathways when classical fluoride or strong-acid conditions are not used directly.
Lewis acid deprotection/activation reagent	109-63-7	B431395	Boron trifluoride diethyl etherate	Suitable for synthesis	Suitable for examining the SEM deprotection or activation window under Lewis acid conditions and can help compare the response differences of SEM under different types of acidity.
Carboxylic acid model substrate for SEM esters	65-85-0	B433248	Benzoic acid	Suitable for synthesis	Suitable as a simple model substrate in carboxylic acid protection studies for establishing the basic conditions for the installation, retention, and removal of SEM esters.
Amino acid framework model substrate	56-40-6	G432934	Glycine	UltraBio™, molecular biology grade, ultrapure, ≥99%(NT)	Can serve as a simple model substrate for systems in which amino and carboxyl groups coexist, allowing preliminary evaluation of the compatibility of SEM-related protection and deprotection conditions. If a literature-closer SEM ester model is desired, N-protected amino acid derivatives may be adopted further.
Fluoride-type deprotection reagent	13400-13-0	C755570	Cesium fluoride	UltraBio™, ≥99%(F)	Can be used as an anhydrous fluoride source for screening removal conditions for SEM ethers or related silicon-containing systems, and is suitable for comparison with TBAF solution in terms of deprotection strength and system compatibility.
Mild Lewis acid deprotection reagent	7789-48-2	M290956	Magnesium bromide	PrimorTrace™, super dry, ≥99.99% metals basis	An important representative reagent for the mild deprotection of SEM ethers and SEM esters. It is suitable for examining selective removal in multifunctional systems and in amino acid- or peptide-related substrates.
Classical fluoride deprotection reagent	429-41-4	T106821	Tetrabutylammonium fluoride solution (TBAF solution)	1.0 M in THF	One of the most common classical deprotection conditions in SEM chemistry, suitable for rapid removal of O-SEM, N-SEM, or related silicon-containing protected fragments.
Alternative SEM deprotection reagent	558-13-4	T106847	Carbon Tetrabromide	≥99%	Can be used for exploratory studies on selective removal conditions for certain SEM ethers and serves as an alternative screening option outside the classical fluoride and Lewis acid pathways.
Orthogonal N-protection control reagent	24424-99-5	D106159	Di-tert-butyl dicarbonate	≥99%	Suitable for comparing SEM with alternative N-protection strategies in terms of acid sensitivity, tolerance to strong bases, and subsequent directed functionalization of heterocycles, and is especially useful for evaluating the choice between N-Boc and N-SEM routes.
Acid-labile acetal-type O-protection control reagent	110-87-2	D106433	3,4-Dihydro-2H-pyran	≥98%	Used to form THP-type protecting groups and suitable for comparing SEM with THP in terms of acidic deprotection, temporary masking of hydroxyl groups, and compatibility with downstream conditions.
Fluoride-sensitive silyl O-protection control reagent	18162-48-6	B103644	Tert-butyldimethylchlorosilane (TBDMSCl)	≥97%	Used to construct TBS-type silyl protecting groups and suitable for comparing SEM with TBS in terms of fluoride-mediated removal, steric effects, and orthogonal arrangement in multiprotecting-group systems.
Ether-type O-protection control reagent	3970-21-6	M113466	2-Methoxyethoxymethyl chloride	≥95%	Used to construct MEM-type protecting groups and suitable for comparing SEM with MEM in terms of acidic conditions, ease of installation, and downstream deprotection windows.

 

Note: The above are representative Aladdin products. For more product specifications, please search the Aladdin website using the product name, CAS number, or catalog number.

 

References

 

[1] Lipshutz BH, Pegram JJ. β-(Trimethylsilyl)ethoxymethyl chloride: A new reagent for the protection of the hydroxyl group. Tetrahedron Letters. 1980;21(35):3343-3346. doi:10.1016/S0040-4039(00)78684-9.

 

[2] Muchowski JM, Solas DR. Protecting groups for the pyrrole and indole nitrogen atom. The [2-(trimethylsilyl)ethoxy]methyl moiety. Lithiation of 1-[[2-(trimethylsilyl)ethoxy]methyl]pyrrole. The Journal of Organic Chemistry. 1984;49(1):203-205. doi:10.1021/jo00175a053.

 

[3] Lipshutz BH, Vaccaro W, Huff B. Protection of imidazoles as their β-trimethylsilylethoxymethyl (SEM) derivatives. Tetrahedron Letters. 1986;27(35):4095-4098. doi:10.1016/S0040-4039(00)84919-9.

 

[4] Whitten JP, Matthews DP, McCarthy JR. [2-(Trimethylsilyl)ethoxy]methyl (SEM) as a novel and effective imidazole and fused aromatic imidazole protecting group. The Journal of Organic Chemistry. 1986;51(10):1891-1894. doi:10.1021/jo00360a044.

 

[5] Schönauer K, Zibral E. Reactions with organophosphorus compounds, 50: Trimethylsilylethoxymethylene triphenylphosphorane, a novel reagent for the homologation of carbonyl compounds. Tetrahedron Letters. 1983;24(6):573-576. doi:10.1016/S0040-4039(00)81467-7.

 

[6] Logusch EW. Use of a β-trimethylsilylethoxymethyl ester as a protecting group. A facile preparation of 1-hydroxycyclopropanecarboxylic acid phosphate. Tetrahedron Letters. 1984;25(38):4195-4198. doi:10.1016/S0040-4039(01)81393-9.

 

[7] Chen WC, Vera MD, Joullié MM. Mild, selective cleavage of amino acid and peptide β-(trimethylsilyl)ethoxymethyl (SEM) esters by magnesium bromide. Tetrahedron Letters. 1997;38(23):4025-4028. doi:10.1016/S0040-4039(97)00863-0.

 

[8] Vakalopoulos A, Hoffmann HMR. Novel deprotection of SEM ethers: A very mild and selective method using magnesium bromide. Organic Letters. 2000;2(10):1447-1450. doi:10.1021/ol0057784.

 

[9] Nair RN, Bannister TD. Tale of Two Protecting Groups—Boc vs SEM—for Directed Lithiation and C-C Bond Formation on a Pyrrolopyridazinone Core. Organic Process Research & Development. 2016;20(7):1370-1376. doi:10.1021/acs.oprd.6b00128.

 

[10] Earley J, Adams CM. 2-(Trimethylsilyl)ethoxymethyl Chloride. In: e-EROS Encyclopedia of Reagents for Organic Synthesis. 2008. doi:10.1002/047084289X.rt302.pub2.

 

For more related articles, see below:

 

Understanding Cbz (Benzyloxycarbonyl): Selection Logic and Practical Value of a Classical Amino Protecting Group

 

Reconsidering N-Acyl Amino Protecting Groups: Deprotection Differences, Strategic Roles, and Experimental Selection of Ac, Bz, and Tfa

 

β-Acyloxy Alkenyl Amides (AAAs): A New Approach to Amide Bond and Peptide Bond Construction Worth Attention

 

Selection Logic for Hydroxyl Protecting Groups: Deprotection Conditions, Task Differentiation, and Orthogonal Combination Design

 

Decision Logic for Peptide Synthesis Routes: Applicability and Criteria for Choosing among SPPS, LPPS, and Recombinant Expression

 

Silicon Reagent-Assisted Peptide Synthesis: Research Progress and Methodological Value of Peptide Bond Formation from Unprotected Substrates

 

From Piperidine to Pyridine: The “Most Common N-Heterocycle” Shift in FDA Small-Molecule New Drugs (2013–2023) and a Selection Guide (Tables 1–4)

 

The Role of 7-Membered Nitrogen Heterocycles in Drug Discovery: Microstate Management, Conformational Bias, and Developability Trade-offs (with Research Selection Navigator and Product Tables 1–3)