Article

Synthesis and Antibacterial Activity of

Difluoromethyl Cinnamoyl Amides
Mario David Martínez 1,2, Diego Ariel Riva 3,4,5, Cybele Garcia 3,4,
Fernando Javier Durán 1,2,* and Gerardo Burton 1,2,*
1 CONICET-Universidad de Buenos Aires, UMYMFOR, Buenos Aires, Argentina; [email protected]
2 Departamento de Química Orgánica, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos
Aires, Buenos Aires C1053 CABA, Argentina
3 CONICET-Universidad de Buenos Aires, IQUIBICEN, Buenos Aires C1428EGA, Argentina;

[email protected] (D.A.R.); [email protected] (C.G.)

4 Departamento de Química Biológica, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos

Aires, Buenos Aires C1053 CABA, Argentina

5 Current address: SENASA, Dirección General de Laboratorios y Control Técnico, Dirección del Laboratorio

Animal, Coordinación de Virología, Departamento de Cultivo Celular, Ministerio de Agroindustria,

Buenos Aires C1063ACW, Argentina
* Correspondence: [email protected] (F.J.D.); [email protected] (G.B.);
Tel.: +541145763385 (G.B.)

Academic Editors: Fernanda Borges, Jorge Garrido and Tiago Barros Silva

Received: 29 December 2019; Accepted: date; Published: 12 February 2020

Abstract: Series of novel amides of isoferulic acid, where the phenolic hydroxyl was replaced by a
difluoromethyl group, were synthesized and their in vitro antibacterial activities assayed against
fourteen bacterial strains (six Gram-positive and eight Gram-negative). A one-pot methodology was
developed to obtain the 3’-(difluoromethyl)-4’-methoxycinnamoyl amides using Deoxofluor® as a
fluorinating agent. The N-isopropyl, N-isopentyl, and N-(2-phenylethyl) amides 11b, 11d and 11g
were the most active and selective against Mycobacterium smegmatis (MIC = 8 µg/mL) with 11b and
11g displaying negligible or no cytotoxicity against HepG2 and A549 cells. Thirteen analogs of N-
isopropylamide 11b were also synthesized and their antibacterial activity assayed. Results show
that the difluoromethyl moiety enhanced antibacterial activity and selectivity towards M. smegmatis,
changing the microorganism inhibition profile of the parent compound. The selectivity exhibited by
some of the compounds towards M. smegmatis makes them potential leads in the search for new
narrow spectrum antibiotics against M. tuberculosis.

Keywords: difluoromethyl group; cinnamic acid amides; antibacterial

1. Introduction
In the last 20 years, antimicrobial resistance has been recognized as a serious public health
problem. The increased resistance of pathogenic microorganisms is related to the misuse/abuse of
antibiotics and to their natural adaptation and evolution to marketed antimicrobial compounds (e.g.,
via biofilm formation, gene transfer from resistant counterparts, efflux pumps, cellular permeability,
enzymes that confer resistance, and natural evolutionary mutations) [1–3]. This dangerous rise of
pathogenic bacteria that are resistant to existing antibiotics constitutes a global human health threat
and requires a continuous search for new chemical entities [4,5]. Broad spectrum antibiotics, effective
with a wide range of pathogens, are important for first line treatment of bacterial infections as well
as for prevention in risk situations (e.g., surgical procedures, organ transplant, etc.). Their use
however damages the gut microbiota and favors the development of resistance mechanisms that may

Molecules 2020, 25, 789; doi:10.3390/molecules25040789 www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules

Molecules 2020, 25, 789 2 of 20

be readily transferred across species. Hence, once the pathogen has been identified, narrow spectrum
therapy is recommended to minimize these adverse effects [6]. This requires the search for narrow
spectrum antibiotics as well as uncovering the factors that influence selectivity towards specific
bacteria.
Hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives (HCAs) have been shown to possess in vitro antibacterial
features as well as health benefits [7–9]. HCAs possess a hydroxylated and/or methoxylated 3-
phenylpropenoyl core (C6–C3) and are one of the most plentiful and ubiquitously distributed groups
of plant secondary metabolites, commonly found in a variety of dietary products such as vegetables,
fruits, chocolate, and beverages. The most common HCAs found in fruits and vegetables are p-
coumaric (1), caffeic (2), ferulic (3), and chlorogenic (4) acids (Figure 1). Only a minor proportion of
HCAs are present in their free form, and most are found as quinic or tartaric acid derivatives (e.g.,
chlorogenic acid 4 or hygromycin A 5). Daily intake of HCAs ranges from 25 to 1000 mg depending
on the type of diet. Some of the most abundant sources of these compounds are coffee beans and
yerba mate brews [9,10]. Surprisingly, the HCAs molecular target in terms of their antibacterial activity
is still unknown, but in some cases experimental evidence has proven the interaction of these types
of compounds with the pathogen cell membrane [11–14].

Figure 1. Natural and synthetic HCAs showing antibacterial activity.

The bioavailability of HCAs and their metabolites is crucial for their pharmacological properties;
however, HCAs exhibit poor ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) properties
showing a rapid phase II metabolic transformation (e.g., methylation, glucuronidation, and sulfation)
followed by urine and feces excretion. This leads to poor translation of in vitro features to in vivo
therapeutic applications of HCAs [15]. Several attempts have been made to enhance the
bioavailability and antibacterial selectivity of HCAs by means of lipophilization strategies such as
amidation or esterification of the acyl moiety and functionalization of the phenolic hydroxyl with
long alkyl or prenyl chains [13,16–18]. The latter approach has the disadvantage of poor atom
economy and may also lead to self-aggregation and internalization to the lipidic core. Synthetic
amides derived from HCAs have shown the most interesting antibacterial properties with several of
the hydroxycinnamoyl amides and structurally related analogs being active against Mycobacterium
tuberculosis including resistant strains (e.g., compounds 6 and 7, Figure 1) [19,20]. Some structural
aspects relevant to the antibacterial potency and selectivity are the oxygen atom at C-4’ (free hydroxyl
or alkoxy substituent) and the nitrogen atom at C-1 (amides, hydrazides, and nitrogen heterocycles)
[7,8,21]. In this context, alternate approaches for increasing lipophilicity may provide access to new
lead compounds with improved activities.
The difluoromethyl group has been shown to exhibit some distinctive properties that make it an
interesting alternative to the widely used trifluoromethyl group when seeking to increase
lipophilicity. In particular, due to its hydrogen bond donor properties, the CF2H group has been
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 3 of 20

proposed as a lipophilic bioisostere of hydroxyl groups [22,23]. Recently, Zafrani and coworkers
showed that, when bonded to an aryl scaffold, the difluoromethyl group effectively behaves as a
lipophilic bioisoster of the phenolic OH, increasing lipophilicity while retaining significant hydrogen
bonding acidity [24]. Hydrogen bonding acceptor properties of the difluoromethyl group have also
been reported [25]. Previously, we also found an interesting bioisosteric relationship in the
antioxidant behavior between difluoromethyl substituted arenes and phenols. Thus, replacement of
a phenolic hydroxyl by a difluoromethyl moiety on hydroxycinnamic acid methyl ester scaffolds
conferred radical scavenging ability only in lipophilic environments, even in the absence of free
phenol groups, probably due to a hydrogen atom transfer mechanism [26]. We envisaged that the
combination of this lipophilicity-booster fluorinated moiety together with the amidation strategy
applied to HCAs could lead to analogs with enhanced ADME properties, with the added possibility
of perturbing the bacterial redox homeostasis beyond the effects over the bacterial cell wall. Here, we
report the synthesis of a series of difluoromethyl substituted methoxycinnamoyl amides and their
biological evaluation against a panel of fourteen relevant microorganisms (Gram-positive and Gram-
negative bacteria).

2. Results and Discussion

Our initial approach was to introduce a difluoromethyl moiety at the C-3’ position of a 4’-
methoxycinnamoyl amide core and to evaluate the effect of the resulting analogs of isoferulic acid (8)
on antibacterial activity (Figure 2). The difluoromethyl moiety was expected to enhance the
lipophilicity while retaining, at least in part, the hydrogen bonding donor/acceptor capacity of the
phenolic hydroxyl as well as its radical scavenging properties. The 4’-methoxy group was expected
to provide the required oxygen atom with metabolic stability and to prevent formation of an o-
quinomethane [27], while the acyl amide would confer antibacterial potency and selectivity, as well
as allow fine tuning of drug-like properties by modifying the substituents on the nitrogen atom. This
approach does not introduce major steric changes in the aromatic ring vicinity compared with caffeic
acid and related HCAs.

Figure 2. Proposed modifications (in red) to the coumaric acid (1) scaffold and analogy with isoferulic
acid (8).

2.1. -CF2H at C-3’ on the 4’-methoxycinnamyl Amide Scaffold

The synthetic strategy (Scheme 1) aimed to access, in a straightforward fashion, a variety of
amides with the general structure 11. Commercially available 2-methoxybenzaldehyde was iodinated
with iodine and silver nitrate in methanol and the resulting 5-iodo-2-methoxybenzaldehyde was then
coupled with methyl acrylate under Heck reaction conditions using palladium acetate and tri(o-
tolyl)phosphine as a ligand [28,29] to give the cinnamic acid derivative 9 in 73% isolated yield after
alkaline hydrolysis. The structure of compound 9 was confirmed by 1H- and 13C-NMR spectra that
showed resonances at δH/δC 12.35/167.6 for the carboxylic acid and at δH/δC 10.33/188.9 for the
aldehyde moiety. The side chain double bond gave signals at δH/δC 7.59/142.6 and 6.47/118.3, with a
1H-1H coupling constant of 16 Hz that confirmed the E configuration.
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 4 of 20

Scheme 1. Synthesis of amides 11a–11m. Reagents and conditions: (i) (1) AgNO3, I2, MeOH, (2)
Pd(AcO)2, (o-Tol)3P, methyl acrylate, Et3N, MeCN, and (3) K2CO3, MeOH-H2O; (ii) Deoxofluor®,
PhCH3-CH2Cl2; and (iii) R1R2NH or R1R2NH·HX (see Table 1 for details).

Table 1. Synthesis of 3’-difluoromethyl-4’-methoxycinnamoyl amides 11a–11m.

Compound Method 1 Amine R Yield 2

11a A CH3NH2·HCl -NHCH3 60%
11b A i-Pr-NH2 -NHi-Pr 64%
11c A i-Bu-NH2 -NHi-Bu 66%
11d A i-Pentyl-NH2 -NHi-Pentyl 58%
11e A c-C6H11-NH2 -NHc-C6H11 76%
11f A Ph-NH2 -NHPh 57%
11g A Ph(CH2)2-NH2 -NH(CH2)2Ph 60%
11h A CH3-NH(OCH3)·HCl -N(OCH3)CH3 66%
11i B - -N(CH2CH2OCH3)2 84%

11j A 56%

11k C 47%

O
CF2H
11l D N N 59%
H2N-(CH2)3-NH2 H H
OCH3

11m D 46%

1For Methods A, C and D, the cinnamoyl fluoride (10) solution was filtered through a silica gel pad
prior to adding the reagents; in Method C, the dichloromethane was then evaporated and replaced
with THF. (A) amine (1 eq), Et3N-CH2Cl2; (B) Et3N-CH2Cl2; (C) amine (1 eq), LDA-THF; and (D)
diamine (0.5 eq), Et3N, CH2Cl2. 2 Isolated yields from 9.

The key step in this synthetic approach was the double deoxofluorination of the cinnamic acid
derivative 9 to give 3’-difluoromethyl-4’-methoxycinnamoyl fluoride (10) and its subsequent
conversion to amides 11a–11m in a one pot procedure (Table 1). At this stage, Deoxofluor® was chosen
as the fluorinating reagent, as initial attempts to use XtalFluor-E® were unsuccessful due to long
reaction times and undesired byproducts [30]. However, one drawback of using Deoxofluor® is the
formation of N,N-bis(2-methoxyethyl)amine as a byproduct that can react with the acyl fluoride
(Table 1, Method B), thus limiting the scope of the method to amines that are more nucleophilic than
N,N-bis(2-methoxyethyl)amine [31–34]. We found that this undesired condensation could be avoided
by filtering the reaction mixture through a short silica gel pad. The resulting solution containing the
acyl fluoride 10 was concentrated and treated directly with the desired amine and triethylamine as a
base (Table 1, Methods A and D). The intermediate acyl fluoride could also be isolated upon
evaporation of the solvent and was characterized by 1H and 13C-NMR. This methodology allowed for
the synthesis of primary and secondary amides and was also applicable to aromatic amines (e.g.,
aniline). Amines could be used either as free bases or as their salts (e.g., hydrochlorides and acetates),
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 5 of 20

and even the highly unreactive amine 2,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)aniline gave the corresponding amide
when the reaction was carried out in the presence of LDA as a base (Table 1, Method C). In the latter
case, after filtration of the acyl fluoride solution, the solvent was completely removed under reduced
pressure and replaced by THF. In contrast with previous reports [31,33], this procedure allows for
the coupling of a wide variety of amines (either free or as their salts) with acyl fluorides, employing
Deoxofluor® as the fluorinating agent. The procedure was easily scalable allowing the synthesis of
several amides in parallel. Following this procedure, 13 amides of 3’-difluoromethyl-4’-
methoxycinnamic acid (11a–11m) were synthesized in 46–84% isolated yields (Table 1). Structures
were confirmed by 1H and 13C-NMR (1D and 2D) and mass spectrometry. Particularly diagnostic
were the shifts of the -CF2H group at ca. δH 6.9 (triplet, JHF = 55.5 Hz) and δC 111.3 (triplet, JCF = 236
Hz).
The series of amides 11a–11m was screened for antibacterial activity against a panel of 14
microorganisms: six Gram-positive and eight Gram-negative bacteria. The most susceptible
microorganism was the Gram-positive bacillus Mycobacterium smegmatis (Table 2) with compounds
11b, 11d and 11g being the most promising candidates in terms of potency (MICs = 8 µg/mL) and
selectivity. It has been shown that M. smegmatis can be used as a non-pathogenic model for M.
tuberculosis in antibacterial screening, as activity against M. smegmatis usually results in activity
against M. tuberculosis [35]. Marginal bacterial growth inhibition was detected for other compounds
in the series against various microorganisms such as Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus pneumoniae,
Clostridum sporogenes, Pseudomona aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter guillouiae (MICs = 64 µg/mL). To carry
out preliminary SAR studies, compound 11b was chosen as the better candidate due to its potency,
selectivity towards M. smegmatis, and atom economy.

Table 2. Antibacterial activity of compounds 11a–11m, 13a–13c, 15, 18a–18b, and 19–23.1.

Microorganism Reference antibiotic 2 Active Compounds 3

(ATCC/Strain) (MIC μg/mL) (MIC μg/mL)
Clostridium sporogenes (19404) A (≤ 2.0) 11e (64), 11f (64), 11j (64), 15 (32)
Gram-positive

Enterococcus faecalis (29212) A (1.0–4.0) n.a.

Mycobacterium smegmatis (607) B (≤ 4.0) 11b (8), 11c (32), 11d (8), 11f (64),
11g (8), 13a (32), 13b (32), 18a (64)
Staphylococcus aureus (29737) A (0.5–2.0) n.a.
Streptococcus pyogenes (8133) 4 C (≤ 0.125) 11f (64), 18a (64)
Streptococcus pneumoniae (10015) 4 D (≤ 0.5) 11l (64)
Acinetobacter guillouiae (11171) 4 E (0.06–8.0) 11e (64), 11f (64), 11i (64)
Enterobacter cloacae (35587) 4 B (≤ 2.0) n.a.
Gram-negative

Escherichia coli (8739) B (≤ 2.0) n.a.

Klebsiella pneumoniae (10273) 4 B (≤ 2.0) n.a.
Shigella boydii (12027) 4 F (≤ 4.0) 13c (32)
Shigella flexneri (11836) 4 F (≤ 4.0) 13c (32)
Proteus mirabilis (10005) 4 B (≤ 2.0) 18a (64)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (9027) B (1.0–4.0) 11f (64), 11j (64), 20 (64)
1 Activities were determined by the MH broth microdilution method supplemented with Mg+2 and
Ca+2 cations; 2 (A) Vancomycin, (B) Imipenem, (C) Penicillin, (D) Ampicillin sodium salt, (E)
Minocycline, (F) Phosphomycin; 3 n.a., MICs > 64 µg/mL for all compounds except 11k, which was
tested up to 32 µg/mL due to solubility limitations; 4 compound 18b was not evaluated against these
microorganisms.

2.2. Structure Activity Relationship Studies (SAR) on Compound 11b

To evaluate the influence of the 3’-CF2H moiety on antibacterial activity, we synthesized
compounds 13a–13c by condensation of the corresponding acids 12a, 12b, or 8 and isopropylamine
using (benzotriazol-1-yloxy)tris(dimethylamino)phosphonium hexafluorophosphate (BOP) as the
activating agent (Scheme 2) [36]. While the bioisosteric replacement of a hydroxyl group by CF2H
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 6 of 20

takes advantage of the hydrogen bonding donor (and possibly acceptor) ability of the CF2H to mimic
the hydroxyl, replacement of a methyl group by CF2H makes use of the fluorine as a bioisostere of
hydrogen due to its relatively small size. The CF2H has been shown to increase lipophilicity relative
to the hydroxyl group (thus the lipophilic hydroxyl analogy) but to reduce lipophilicity when
compared to the methyl analog [24].

Scheme 2. Synthesis of amides 13a–c. Reagents and conditions: BOP, Et3N, CH2Cl2, i-PrNH2, 0–30 °C.

Both the non-functionalized counterpart 13a and the 3’-methyl analog 13b were only moderately
active against M. smegmatis, with a four-fold activity decrease compared to the difluoromethylated
analog 11b (see Table 2). On the other hand, the isoferulic acid amide 13c with a phenolic hydroxyl
at position 3’ showed a different activity profile, namely that it was inactive against M. smegmatis but
moderately active against the Gram-negative bacteria Shigella boydii and Shigella flexneri. These results
suggest that the balance between lipophilicity (see Table S1) and hydrogen bond donor/acceptor
capacities of the CF2H moiety is a significant contributor to the observed activity and selectivity
towards M. smegmatis of the N-isopropylamide derivative. Furthermore, to analyze the aromatic ring
substitution pattern, the regioisomer 15 was obtained from the methyl cinnamate 14 (Scheme 3) [26].
Compound 15 presented a different antibacterial activity profile (MIC = 32 µg/mL against Clostridium
sporogenes, see Table 2) compared to compound 11b, proving the importance of the substitution
pattern in the selective activity against Mycobacterium smegmatis.

Scheme 3. Synthesis of amide 15. Reagents and conditions: (1) K2CO3, MeOH-H2O; (2) Deoxofluor®,
PhCH3-CH2Cl2; and (3) i-PrNH2, Et3N.

To evaluate the role of the methoxy group at the 4’ position of the aromatic ring, acetate 18a and
the free phenol 18b were synthesized (Scheme 4). Compounds 18a and 18b showed a significant loss
of potency (Table 2) and, in the case of 18a, an increased cytotoxicity (see below).

Scheme 4. Synthesis of amides 18a and 18b. Reagents and conditions: (i) (1) Ac2O, K2CO3, acetone and
(2) Pd(AcO)2, (o-Tol)3P, acrylic acid, Et3N, MeCN; (ii) (1) Deoxofluor®, PhCH3-CH2Cl2 and (2) i-PrNH2,
Et3N-CH2Cl2; and (iii) H2SO4, MeOH.

We then focused our attention on the importance of the alkenoyl chain at position C1’ (i.e.,
hybridization, planarity, and length). Chain modified analogs 19–25 (Figure 3) were obtained with
minor modifications to the synthetic strategy used for compound 11b. Briefly, the cyclopropyl analog
19 was obtained by a sequence involving a Corey–Chaykovsky reaction over the Weinreb amide 11h,
followed by a Gassman’s “anhydrous hydroxide” saponification and a BOP condensation with
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 7 of 20

isopropylamine [37,38]. Compound 20 was synthesized by catalytic hydrogenation of 11b.

Compound 21 was obtained by replacing acrylic acid with methacrylic acid in the Heck reaction and
ester 22 was obtained by treating the acyl fluoride 10 with isopropanol instead of isopropylamine.
The vinylogue 23 was obtained by a Rieche formylation of commercial p-methoxybenzoic acid
followed by the deoxofluorination/condensation protocol used for the synthesis of 11b [39,40].
Naphthalene derivatives 24 and 25 were obtained in a similar way as 23. Compounds 19–25 showed
loss of activity and selectivity, proving the importance of the structural features of the side chain and
validating the hydroxycinnamic acid scaffold as a privileged structure.

Figure 3. Analogs of 11b with modified side chains.

Finally, all compounds active against M. smegmatis were evaluated for cytotoxicity in human
lung carcinoma A549 cells and hepatoma HepG2 cells. Compound 13c was also included due to its
activity against the Gram-negative bacteria S. boydii and S. flexneri (Table 3). Only compound 18a
exhibited significant cytotoxicity against both cell lines, while compound 11d was moderately
cytotoxic for HepG2 cells. Two of the most active compounds, 11b and 11g, had selectivity indexes
of 24.9 or higher.

Table 3. Cytotoxicity data of selected compounds on A549 and HepG2 cells.

A549 HepG2
Compound
CC50 1 (μg/mL) SI 2 CC50 (μg/mL) SI 2
11b >200 >25 199.2 ± 1.1 24.9
11c >200 >6.25 >200 >6.25
11d >200 >25 77.0 ± 13.8 9.63
11f >200 >3.13 >200 >3.13
11g >200 >25 >200 >25
13a >200 >6.25 >200 >6.25
13b >200 >6.25 >200 >6.25
13c >200 >6.25 3 >200 >6.25 3
18a 64.4 ± 21.0 1 92.3 ± 2.3 1.44
1 CC50 is 50% cytotoxicity concentration; 2 SI (selectivity index) = CC50/MICM. smegmatis; 3 SI (selectivity
index) = CC50/MICS. boydii or S. flexneri.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. General
Melting points were taken on a Fisher–Johns apparatus and are uncorrected. 1H- and 13C-NMR
spectra were measured at 500.13 and 125.76 MHz, respectively, on a Bruker Avance II 500 NMR
spectrometer unless noted otherwise; J values are given in Hz. All assignments were confirmed by a
combination of 2D spectra (COSY, HSQC, and HMBC). Elemental analysis (C, H, and N) was
performed on an Exeter Analytical Inc. CE-440 apparatus, North Chelmsford, MA, USA. The electron
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 8 of 20

impact mass spectra (EIMS) were measured on a Shimadzu QP-5000 or a Thermo DSQ-II mass
spectrometer at 70 eV by direct inlet. Exact mass spectra (HRMS) were measured on a Bruker
micrOTOF-Q II mass spectrometer using positive electrospray ionization. Analytical thin layer
chromatography (tlc) was performed on pre-coated silica gel plates (Merck F254, 0.2 mm thickness);
compounds were visualized under 254 nm UV light. Flash column chromatography was performed
on silica gel Merck 9385 (0.0040–0.0063 mm). All solvents were distilled and stored over 4 Å molecular
sieves before use. Solvents were evaporated at ca. 45 °C under vacuum in a rotary evaporator. The
homogeneity of all compounds was confirmed by tlc. Products obtained as solids or syrups were
dried under high vacuum. 5-Iodo-2-methoxybenzaldehyde was obtained by iodination of 2-
methoxybenzaldehyde with iodine/silver nitrate in methanol [28]. Methyl-3-[4-formyl-3-
methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenoate (14) was obtained as described previously [26]. 6-Methoxy-3,4-
dihydronaphthalene-2-carboxylic acid was obtained from commercial 6-methoxytetralone [41].

3.2. Chemical Synthesis

3.2.1. 3-(3-Formyl-4-methoxyphenyl)-(E)-propenoic acid (9)

5-Iodo-2-methoxy-benzaldehyde (1.0 g, 3.82 mmol) was dissolved in 25 mL of acetonitrile and
oxygen was removed by bubbling nitrogen through the solution. Triethylamine (3.71 mL, 26.7 mmol)
and methyl acrylate (0.686, mL, 7.63 mmol) were added dropwise with stirring to the solution,
followed by four portions of tri-o-tolylphosphine (0.0214 g, 0.095 mmol) and palladium (II) acetate
(0.008 g, 0.047 mmol) at 1 h intervals. The mixture was then heated at 65–70 °C for 4 h, volatiles were
removed by distillation, and the residue was dissolved in dichloromethane. The resulting solution
was percolated through silica gel, eluting with a mixture of hexane–ethyl acetate (6:4). The percolate
was evaporated to dryness, re-dissolved in 20 mL of methanol, and 20% aqueous potassium
carbonate solution (10 mL) added. The mixture was stirred for 6 h at 20 °C and concentrated under
reduced pressure to a third of its volume. The solution was acidified with conc. HCl (to pH 1) and
the precipitate was filtered and recrystallized from isopropanol, to give 3-formyl-4-methoxycinnamic
acid 9 as a crystalline white solid (0.472 g). A second harvest obtained by concentration of the mother
liquor gave an additional 0.105 g (73%); m.p. 223–225 °C; 1H-NMR (DMSO-d6) δ: 12.35 (s, 1H, COOH),
10.33 (s, 1H, ArCHO), 8.03 (dd, J = 2.4, 8.8 Hz, 1H, 6’-H), 7.93 (d, J = 2.4 Hz, 1H, 2’-H), 7.59 (d, J = 16.0
Hz, 1H, 3-H), 7.28 (d, J = 8.8 Hz, 1H, 5’-H), 6.47 (d, J = 16.0 Hz, 1H, 2-H), 3.96 (s, 3H, CH3O); 13C-NMR
(DMSO-d6) δ: 188.9 (ArCHO), 167.5 (1-C), 162.6 (4’-C), 142.6 (3-C), 135.6 (6’-C), 128.2 (2’-C), 126.9 (1’-
C), 124.2 (3’-C), 118.3 (2-C), 113.4 (5’-C), 56.4 (CH3O). EIMS m/z (%): 206 (18, M+), 81 (33), 69 (100), 57
(25), 55 (33), 43 (39), 41 (58).

3.2.2. 3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenoyl fluoride (10)

A solution of Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene (0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol) was added dropwise to a
suspension of 0.030 g of 3-formyl-4-methoxycinnamic acid (9, 0.030 g, 0.145 mmol) in 0.4 mL of dry
dichloromethane under an argon atmosphere. The reaction mixture was stirred for 45 min at room
temperature, diluted with 2 mL of dry dichloromethane and subsequently percolated through 2.5 g
of silica gel under an argon atmosphere. The silica gel bed was rinsed with 8 mL of dry
dichloromethane and the resulting solution was concentrated to dryness. The resulting solid was
purified by flash column chromatography eluting with mixtures of ethyl acetate–hexane of increasing
polarity to give 10 as a white solid (0.028 g, 84%). 1H-NMR (CDCl3, 200.13 MHz) δ: 7.80 (d, J = 16.0
Hz, 1H, 3-H), 7.79 (bs, 1H, 2’-H), 7.64 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 7.00 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.93 (t, J = 55.3 Hz, 1H, CF2H),
6.29 (dd, J = 7.1, 16.0 Hz, 1H, 2-H), 3.94 (s, 3H, CH3O); 13C-NMR (CDCl3, 50.32 MHz) δ: 157.2 (d, J =
338 Hz, 1-C), 159.9 (t, J = 6 Hz, 4’-C), 150.1 (d, J = 6 Hz, 3-C), 133.0 (s, 6’-C), 126.7 (t, J = 6.0 Hz, 2’-C),
125.9 (s, 1’-C), 123.7 (t, J = 22 Hz, 3’-C), 111.5 (s, 5’-C), 110.8 (t, J = 236 Hz, CF2H), 110.7 (d, J = 68 Hz, 2-
C), 56.0 (s, CH3O).

3.2.3. Representative Procedure. Preparation of N-(1-Methylethyl)-3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-

methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenamide (11b)
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 9 of 20

A solution of Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene (0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol) was added dropwise to a
suspension of 0.030 g of 3-formyl-4-methoxycinnamic acid (9, 0.030 g, 0.145 mmol) in 0.4 mL of dry
dichloromethane under an argon atmosphere. The reaction mixture was stirred for 45 min at room
temperature, diluted with 2 mL of dry dichloromethane, and subsequently percolated through 2.5 g
of silica gel under an argon atmosphere. The silica gel bed was rinsed with 8 mL of dry
dichloromethane and the resulting solution was concentrated under a nitrogen flow to a final volume
of 1 mL. Isopropylamine (0.037 mL, 0.435 mmol) and triethylamine (0.061 mL, 0.435 mmol) were
added and the mixture was subsequently stirred for 1 h at room temperature. The solution was
diluted with 10 mL of dichloromethane, washed twice with 1M HCl and once with water, dried with
anhydrous sodium sulfate, and the solvent evaporated. The resulting solid was purified by flash
column chromatography eluting with mixtures of ethyl acetate–hexane of increasing polarity to give
11b as a crystalline white solid (0.025 g, 64%). m.p. 113–114 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.75–7.71 (m, 1H,
2’-H), 7.57 (d, J = 15.5 Hz, 1H, 3-H), 7.53–7.49 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 6.92 (t, J = 55.5 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.94–6.88
(m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.31 (d, J = 15.6 Hz, 1H, 2-H), 5.60–5.54 (m, NH), 4.29 – 4.16 (m, 1H, 1’’-H), 3.89 (s, 3H,
CH3O), 1.22 (d, J = 6.5 Hz, 6H, 2”-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 165.1 (s, 1-C), 158.3 (t, J = 6.3 Hz, 4’-C), 139.6
(s, 3-C), 132.4 (t, J = 2.1 Hz, 6’-C), 127.8 (s, 1’-C), 125.0 (t, J = 5.9 Hz, 2’-C), 123.2 (t, J = 22.2 Hz, 3’-C),
120.1 (s, 2-C), 111.3 (t, J = 236.3 Hz, CF2H), 111.3 (s, 5’-C), 56.0 (s, CH3O), 41.7 (s, 1”-C), 23.0 (s, 2”-C).
EIMS m/z (%): 269 (57, M+), 211 (100), 183 (23), 132 (19), 58 (34). Analysis for C14H17F2NO2: Calcd: C,
62.42; H, 6.36; N, 5.20%. Found: C, 62.45; H, 6.32; N, 4.98%.

3.2.4. N-Methyl-3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenamide (11a)

Compound 11a was prepared from acid 9 (30.0 mg, 0.145 mmol), Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene
(0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol), methylamine hydrochloride (0.030 g, 0.435 mmol), and triethylamine (0.082
mL, 0.580 mmol) following the procedure described for 11b. Compound 11a was obtained as a
crystalline white solid (0.021 g, 60 %); m.p. 169–171 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3-CD3OD 9:1) δ: 7.76–7.71 (m,
1H, 2’-H), 7.57–7.54 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 7.54 (d, J = 15.5 Hz, 1H, 3-H), 6.97–6.93 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.93 (t, J =
55.5 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.40 (d, J = 15.7 Hz, 1H, 2-H), 3.90 (s, 3H, CH3O), 2.89 (s, 3H, NCH3); 13C-NMR
(CDCl3-CD3OD 9:1) δ: 167.5 (1-C), 158.2 (t, JCF = 5.7 Hz, 4’-C), 139.4 (3-C), 132.2 (6’-C), 127.6 (1’-C),
125.0 (t, JCF = 5.9 Hz, 2’-C), 123.0 (t, JCF = 22.2 Hz, 3’-C), 119.3 (2-C), 111.2 (t, JCF = 236.1 Hz, CF2H), 111.2
(5’-C), 55.8 (CH3O), 26.2 (NCH3). EIMS m/z (%): 241 (55, M+), 240 (26), 211 (100), 183 (25), 132 (22).
Analysis for C12H13F2NO2: Calcd: C, 59.75; H, 5.43; N, 5.81 %. Found: C, 59.27; H, 5.28; N, 5.66 %.

3.2.5. N-(2-Methylpropyl)-3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenamide (11c).

Compound 11c was prepared from acid 9 (30.0 mg, 0.145 mmol), Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene
(0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol), isobutylamine (0.044 mL, 0.435 mmol), and triethylamine (0.061 mL, 0.435
mmol) following the procedure described for 11b. Compound 11c was obtained as a crystalline white
solid (0.027 g, 66 %); m.p. 145–146 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.77–7.72 (m, 1H, 2’-H), 7.59 (d, J = 15.5 Hz,
1H, 3-H), 7.56–7.49 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 6.93 (t, J = 55.5 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.94–6.90 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.35 (d, J =
15.5 Hz, 1H, 2-H), 5.74 (t, J = 5.4 Hz, 1H, NH), 3.89 (s, 3H, CH3O), 3.23 (dd, J = 6.2, 6.7 Hz, 2H, 1’’-H),
1.92–1.77 (1 H, m, 2”-H), 0.96 (d, J = 6.7 Hz, 6H, 3”-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 166.0 (1-C), 158.3 (t, JCF =
5.7 Hz, 4’-C), 139.8 (3-C), 132.4 (6’-C), 127.8 (1’-C), 125.0 (t, JCF = 5.9 Hz, 2’-C), 123.3 (t, JCF = 22.3 Hz, 3’-
C), 119.8 (2-C), 111.3 (t, JCF = 236.2 Hz, CF2H), 111.3 (5’-C), 56.0 (CH3O), 47.2 (1’’-C), 28.8 (2’’-C), 20.3
(3’’-C). EIMS m/z (%): 283 (30, M+), 226 (53), 211 (100), 183 (22), 132 (20), 43 (18). Analysis for
C15H19F2NO2·0.5H2O: Calcd: C, 61.63; H, 6.90; N, 4.79%. Found: C, 61.51; H, 6.57; N, 4.76%.

3.2.6. N-(3-Methylbutyl)-3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenamide (11d)

Compound 11d was prepared from acid 9 (30.0 mg, 0.145 mmol), Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene
(0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol), isopentylamine (0.051 mL, 0.435 mmol), and triethylamine (0.061 mL, 0.435
mmol) following the procedure described for 11b. Compound 11d was obtained as a crystalline white
solid (0.025 g, 58%); m.p. 110–111 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.80–7.68 (m, 1H, 2’-H), 7.58 (d, J = 15.5 Hz,
1H, 3-H), 7.55–7.49 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 6.92 (t, J = 55.5 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.97–6.85 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.33 (d, J =
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 10 of 20

15.5 Hz, 1H, 2-H), 5.71 (t, J = 5.6 Hz, 1H, NH), 3.89 (s, 3H, CH3O), 3.50–3.33 (m, 2H, 1’’-H), 1.72–1.61
(1 H, m, 2”-H), 1.46 (dt, J = 7.0, 8.5 Hz, 2H, 3”-H), 0.94 (d, J = 6.6 Hz, 6H, 4”-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ:
165.9 (1-C), 158.3 (t, JCF = 5.7 Hz, 4’-C), 139.7 (3-C), 132.4 (t, JCF = 1.9 Hz, 6’-C), 127.8 (1’-C), 125.0 (t, JCF
= 5.9 Hz, 2’-C), 123.2 (t, JCF = 22.2 Hz, 3’-C), 119.9 (2-C), 111.3 (t, JCF = 236.2 Hz, CF2H), 111.3 (5’-C), 56.0
(CH3O), 38.7 (2’’-C), 38.2 (1’’-C), 26.0 (3’’-C), 22.6 (4’’-C). EIMS m/z (%): 297 (30, M+), 241 (44), 240 (32),
226 (22), 211 (100), 183 (27), 132 (25). Analysis for. C16H21F2NO2: Calcd: C, 64.63; H, 7.12; N, 4.71%.
Found: C, 64.48; H, 7.05; N, 4.74%.

3.2.7. N-Cyclohexyl-3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenamide (11e)

Compound 11e was prepared from acid 9 (30.0 mg, 0.145 mmol), Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene
(0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol), cyclohexylamine (0.050 mL, 0.435 mmol), and triethylamine (0.061 mL, 0.435
mmol) Following the procedure used for 11b. Compound 11e was obtained as a crystalline white
solid (0.034 g, 76%); m.p. 181–183 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.75–7.73 (m, 1H, 2’-H), 7.58 (d, J = 15.5 Hz,
1H, 3-H), 7.52 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 6.92 (t, J = 55.5 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.93–6.90 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.32 (d, J = 15.5
Hz, 1H, 2-H), 5.61 (d, J = 6.2 Hz, 1H, NH), 3.97–3.90 (m, 1H, 1”-H), 3.89 (s, 3H, CH3O), 2.04–1.92 (m,
2H, 2”-Heq), 1.79–1.69 (m, 2H, 3”-Heq), 1.68–1.59 (m, 1H, 4”-Heq), 1.48–1.34 (m, 2H, 3”-Hax), 1.29–1.11
(m, 3H, 2”-Hax and 4”-Hax); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 165.0 (1-C), 158.3 (t, JCF = 5.6 Hz, 4’-C), 139.6 (3-C),
132.4 (6’-C), 127.9 (1’-C), 125.0 (t, JCF = 5.8 Hz, 2’-C), 123.3 (t, JCF = 22.3 Hz, 3’-C), 120.2 (2-C), 111.3 (t,
JCF = 236.2 Hz, CF2H), 111.3 (5’-C), 56.0 (CH3O), 48.5 (1”-C), 33.4 (2”-C), 25.7 (4”-C), 25.0 (3”-C). EIMS
m/z (%): 309 (62, M+), 226 (64), 211 (100), 183 (33), 132 (25), 98 (39). Analysis for C17H21F2NO2: Calcd C,
66.00; H, 6.84; N, 4.53%. Found: C, 65.85; H, 6.86; N, 4.36%.

3.2.8. N-Phenyl-3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenamide (11f).

Compound 11f was prepared from acid 9 (30.0 mg, 0.145 mmol), Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene
(0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol), aniline (0.040 mL, 0.435 mmol), and triethylamine (0.061 mL, 0.435 mmol)
following the procedure used for 11b. Compound 11f was obtained as a crystalline white solid (0.025
g, 57%); m.p. 138–139 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.76 (m, 1H, 2’-H), 7.70 (d, J = 15.5 Hz, 1H, 3-H), 7.63 (d,
J = 7.2 Hz, 2H, 2”-H), 7.60 (bs, 1H, NH), 7.54–7.50 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 7.37–7.31 (m, 2H, 3’’-H), 7.14–7.10 (m,
1H, 4”-H), 6.92 (t, J = 55.5 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.92–6.88 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.50 (d, J = 15.5 Hz, 1H, 2-H), 3.89
(s, 3H, CH3O); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 164.0 (1-C), 158.5 (t, JCF = 5.6 Hz, 4’-C), 141.2 (3-C), 138.1 (1”-C),
132.5 (6’-C), 129.1 (3”-C), 127.4 (1’-C), 125.2 (t, JCF = 5.7 Hz, 2’-C), 124.4 (4”-C), 123.2 (t, JCF = 22.2 Hz,
3’-C), 120.0 (2”-C), 119.7 (2-C), 111.1 (5’-C), 111.2 (t, JCF = 236.4 Hz, CF2H), 55.9 (CH3O). EIMS m/z (%):
303 (25, M+), 211 (100), 183 (17), 132 (15), 93 (19). Analysis for C17H15F2NO2: Calcd C, 67.32; H, 4.98; N,
4.62%. Found: C, 67.31; H, 5.00; N, 4.37%.

3.2.9. N-(2-Phenylethyl)-3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenamide (11g)

Compound 11g was prepared from acid 9 (30.0 mg, 0.145 mmol), Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene
(0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol), 2-phenylethylamine (0.055 mL, 0.435 mmol), and triethylamine (0.061 mL,
0.435 mmol) following the procedure used for 11b. Compound 11g was obtained as a crystalline
white solid (0.029 g, 60%); m.p. 104–105 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.72–7.71 (m, 1H, 2’-H), 7.57 (d, J =
15.6 Hz, 1H, 3-H), 7.52–7.49 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 7.35–7.30 (m, 2H, 3’”-H), 7.26–7.21 (m, 3H, 2’”-H and 4’”-
H), 6.91 (t, J = 55.5 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.92–6.88 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.26 (d, J = 15.5 Hz, 1H, 2-H), 5.74 (t, J = 5.3
Hz, 1H, NH), 3.88 (s, 3H, CH3O), 3.66 (td, J = 6.9, 5.4 Hz, 2H, 1”-H), 2.89 (t, J = 6.9 Hz, 2H, 2”-H); 13C-
NMR (CDCl3) δ: 166.0 (1-C), 158.3 (t, JCF = 5.6 Hz, 4’-C), 139.9 (3-C), 139.0 (1’”-C), 132.4 (6’-C), 128.9
(2’”-C), 128.8 (3’”-C), 127.7 (1’-C), 126.7 (4’”-C), 125.1 (t, JCF = 5.9 Hz, 2’-C), 123.2 (t, JCF = 22.2 Hz, 3’-
C), 119.6 (2-C), 111.3 (t, JCF = 236.3 Hz, CF2H), 111.3 (5’-C), 56.0 (CH3O), 40.9 (1”-C), 35.8 (2’’-C). EIMS
m/z (%): 331 (34, M+), 226 (32), 211 (100), 183 (19), 132 (16), 104 (17), 91 (47). Analysis for C19H19F2NO2:
Calcd C, 68.87; H, 5.78; N, 4.23%. Found: C, 68.86; H, 5.83; N, 4.10%.

3.2.10. N-Methoxy-N-methyl-3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenamide (11h)

Molecules 2020, 25, 789 11 of 20

Compound 11h was prepared from acid 9 (30.0 mg, 0.145 mmol), Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene
(0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol), N,O-dimethylhydroxylamine hydrochloride (0.043 g, 0.435 mmol), and
triethylamine (0.082 mL, 0.580 mmol) following the procedure used for 11b. Compound 11h was
obtained as a crystalline white solid (0.026 g, 66%); m.p. 101 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.83–7.80 (m, 1H,
2’-H), 7.69 (d, J = 15.8 Hz, 1H, 3-H), 7.62–7.58 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 6.96 (d, J = 15.8 Hz, 1H, 2-H), 6.96–6.93
(m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.94 (t, J = 55.5 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 3.91 (s, 3H, CH3OAr), 3.78 (s, 3H, N(CH3)OCH3), 3.31 (s,
3H, N(CH3)OCH3); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 167.1 (1-C), 158.5 (t, JCF = 5.7 Hz, 4’-C), 142.4 (3-C), 132.7 (6’-
C), 128.1 (1’-C), 125.5 (t, JCF = 5.9 Hz, 2’-C), 123.3 (t, JCF = 22.1 Hz, 3’-C), 114.8 (2-C), 111.4 (t, JCF = 236.3
Hz, CF2H), 111.3 (5’-C), 62.1 (N(CH3)OCH3), 56.0 (CH3OAr), 32.7 (N(CH3)OCH3). EIMS m/z (%): 271
(3.4, M+), 211 (100), 183 (18), 132 (12). Analysis for C13H15F2NO3: Calcd C, 57.56; H, 5.57; N, 5.16%.
Found: C, 57.84; H, 5.65; N, 5.24%.

3.2.11. N,N-Bis(2-methoxyethyl)-3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenamide (11i)

A solution of Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene (0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol) was added dropwise to a
suspension of 0.030 g of 3-formyl-4-methoxycinnamic acid (9, 0.030 g, 0.145 mmol) in 0.4 mL of dry
dichloromethane under an argon atmosphere. The reaction mixture was stirred for 45 min at room
temperature. Triethylamine (0.061 mL, 0.435 mmol) was added and the mixture was subsequently
stirred for 1 h at room temperature. The solution was diluted with 10 mL of dichloromethane, washed
twice with 1M HCl and once with water, dried with anhydrous sodium sulfate, and the solvent
evaporated. The resulting solid was purified by flash column chromatography eluting with mixtures
of ethyl acetate–hexane of increasing polarity to give 11i as a crystalline white solid (0.042 g, 84%);
m.p. 60–61 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.76–7.71 (m, 1H, 2’-H), 7.64 (d, J = 15.4 Hz, 1H, 3-H), 7.58–7.52 (m,
1H, 6’-H), 6.93 (t, J = 55.5 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.95–6.91 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.89 (d, J = 15.4 Hz, 1H, 2-H), 3.90 (s,
3H, CH3OAr), 3.72 (t, J = 5.8 Hz, 2H, NCH2), 3.68 (t, J = 5.3 Hz, 2H, NCH2), 3.59 (t, J = 5.4 Hz, 2H,
CH3OCH2), 3.56 (t, J = 5.8 Hz, 2H, CH3OCH2), 3.35 (s, 3H, CH3OCH2), 3.34 (s, 3H, CH3OCH2); 13C-
NMR (CDCl3) δ: 167.0 (1-C), 158.3 (t, JCF = 5.60 Hz, 4’-C), 141.3 (3-C), 132.3 (t, JCF = 2.05 Hz, 6’-C), 128.4
(1’-C), 125.3 (t, JCF = 5.8 Hz, 2’-C), 123.2 (t, JCF = 22.1 Hz, 3’-C), 117.0 (2-C), 111.4 (t, JCF = 236.2 Hz, CF2H),
111.3 (5’-C), 71.4 (x2, CH3OCH2), 59.3 and 59.0 (CH3OCH2), 56.0 (CH3OAr), 49.2 and 47.5 (NCH2).
EIMS m/z (%): 344 (5.4, M+1), 343 (3.2, M+), 211 (100), 183 (9), 132 (3). Analysis for C17H23F2NO4: Calcd
C, 59.46; H, 6.75; N, 4.08%. Found: C, 59.08; H, 6.55; N, 4.10%.

3.2.12. (E)-3-[3-(Difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-1-(morpholin-4-yl)propenone (11j)

Compound 11j was prepared from acid 9 (30.0 mg, 0.145 mmol), Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene
(0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol), morpholine (0.0376 mL, 0.435 mmol), and triethylamine (0.061 mL, 0.435
mmol) following the procedure used for 11b. Compound 11j was obtained as a crystalline white solid
(0.024 g, 56%); m.p. 120–121 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.82–7.75 (m, 1H, 2’-H), 7.68 (d, J = 15.4 Hz, 1H,
3-H), 7.56–7.54 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 6.95 (t, J = 55.5 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.95–6.93 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.78 (d, J = 15.4
Hz, 1H, 2-H), 3.91 (s, 3H, CH3O), 3.79–3.66 (m, 8H, 2”-H, 3”-H, 5”-H and 6”-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ:
165.7 (1-C), 158.4 (t, JCF = 5.7 Hz, 4’-C), 142.2 (3-C), 132.7 (6’-C), 128.0 (1’-C), 124.9 (t, JCF = 5.8 Hz, 2’-C),
123.3 (t, JCF = 22.2 Hz, 3’-C), 115.4 (2-C), 111.3 (t, JCF = 237.0 Hz, CF2H), 111.3 (5’-C), 67.0 (2”-C and 6”-
C), 56.0 (CH3O), 46.4 and 42.6 (br s, 3”-C and 5”-C). EIMS m/z (%): 297 (53, M+), 211 (100), 183 (22), 132
(15), 86 (12). Analysis for C15H17F2NO3: Calcd C, 60.60; H, 5.76; N, 4.71%. Found: C, 61.02; H, 5.74; N,
4.42%.

3.2.13. N-(2,5-Bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)-3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-
propenamide (11k)
A solution of Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene (0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol) was added dropwise to a
suspension of 3-formyl-4-methoxycinnamic acid (9, 0.030 g, 0.145 mmol) in 0.4 mL of dry
dichloromethane under an argon atmosphere. The reaction mixture was stirred for 45 min at room
temperature, diluted with 2 mL of dry dichloromethane, and percolated through 2.5 g of silica gel
under an argon atmosphere. The silica gel bed was rinsed with 8 mL of dry dichloromethane and the
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 12 of 20

resulting solution was dried under a nitrogen flow to give a white solid. Anhydrous THF (1.0 mL),
2,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)aniline (0.068 mL, 0.435 mmol) and 2.0 M lithium diisopropylamide in THF-
heptane-ethylbenzene (0.145 mL, 0.29 mmol) were added and the mixture was stirred for 2 h at 25 °C
under an argon atmosphere. The solution was diluted with 10 mL of dichloromethane, quenched
with ice-water, washed twice with 1M HCl and once with water, dried with anhydrous sodium
sulfate, and the solvent evaporated. The resulting oil was purified by flash column chromatography
eluting with mixtures hexane–ethyl acetate of increasing polarity to give 11k as a white solid (0.030
g, 47%); m.p. 168–169 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 8.83 (bs, 1H, 6”-H), 7.85–7.82 (m, 1H, 2’-H), 7.78 (d, J =
15.5 Hz, 1H, 3-H), 7.76 (d, J = 8.3 Hz, 1H, 3”-H), 7.64 (s, 1H, NH), 7.66–7.59 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 7.49 (d, J =
8.2 Hz, 1H, 4”-H), 7.00–6.96 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.96 (t, J = 55.41 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.47 (d, J = 15.4 Hz, 1H, 2-
H), 3.93 (s, 3H, CH3O); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 164.1 (1-C), 159.1 (t, JCF = 5.57 Hz, 4’-C), 143.3 (3-C), 136.6
(1”-C), 135.2 (q, JCF = 33.4 Hz, 5”-C), 133.0 (6’-C), 127.0 (q, JCF = 5.40 Hz, 3”-C), 127.0 (1’-C), 125.8 (t, JCF
= 5.78 Hz, 2’-C), 123.6 (q, JCF = 273.1 Hz, 2”-CF3), 123.6 (t, JCF = 22.2 Hz, 3’-C), 123.3 (q, JCF = 273.2 Hz,
5”-CF3), 122.3 (q, JCF = 30.1 Hz, 2”-C), 121.0 (q, JCF = 3.8 Hz, 6”-C), 120.9 (q, JCF = 3.7 Hz, 4”-C), 118.5 (2-
C), 111.5 (5’-C), 111.2 (t, JCF = 236.6 Hz, CF2H), 56.1 (CH3O). EIMS m/z (%): 439 (5, M+), 420 (2), 212 (12),
211 (100), 183 (15), 132 (12). Analysis for C19H13F8NO2·0.5H2O: Calcd C, 50.90; H, 3.15; N, 3.12%. Found:
C, 51.20; H, 3.10; N, 3.50%.

3.2.14. N,N’-Bis [3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenoyl]-1,3-propanediamine (11l).

Compound 11l was prepared from acid 9 (30.0 mg, 0.145 mmol), Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene
(0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol), 1,3-diaminopropane (0.0055 mL, 0.065 mmol), and triethylamine (0.061 mL,
0.435 mmol) following the procedure used for 11b. Compound 11l was obtained as a white solid
(0.019 g, 59%); m.p. 174–175 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3-CD3OD 9:1) δ: 7.74 (m, 2H, 2”-H), 7.56 (d, J = 15.8
Hz, 2H, 3’-H), 7.57–7.53 (m, 2H, 6”-H), 6.94–6.90 (m, 2H, 5”-H), 6.92 (t, J = 55.5 Hz, 2H, CF2H), 6.43 (d,
J = 15.7 Hz, 2H, 2’-H), 3.90 (s, 6H, CH3O), 3.45–3.35 (m, 4H, 1-H and 3-H), 1.80–1.74 (m, 2H, 2-H); 13C-
NMR (CDCl3-CD3OD 9:1) δ: 167.2 (1’-C), 158.3 (t, JCF = 5.6 Hz, 4”-C), 139.8 (3’-C), 132.1 (6”-C), 127.6
(1”-C), 125.4 (t, JCF = 5.8 Hz, 2”-C), 123.1 (t, JCF = 22.1 Hz, 3”-C), 119.6 (2’-C), 111.3 (t, JCF = 236.2 Hz,
CF2H), 111.3 (5”-C), 55.9 (CH3O), 36.5 (1-C and 3-C), 29.3 (2-C). HRMS: calcd for C25H27F4N2O4+
(M+H)+: 495.1902, found: 495.1893; HRMS/MS (33 eV) from (M+H)+ m/z (%): 268.1155 (4), 211.0570
(100), 183.0614 (13). Analysis for C25H26F4N2O4: Calcd C, 60.72; H, 5.30; N, 5.67%. Found: C, 60.46; H,
5.41; N, 5.23%.

3.2.15. 1,4-Bis[3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenoyl]-piperazine (11m)

Compound 11m was prepared from acid 9 (30.0 mg, 0.145 mmol), Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene
(0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol), piperazinium diacetate (0.015 g, 0.073 mmol), and triethylamine (0.102 mL,
0.730 mmol) following the procedure used for 11b. Compound 11m was obtained as a white solid
(0.017 g, 46%); m.p. 259–261 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3-CD3OD 9:1) δ: 7.80 (m, 2H, 2’-H), 7.66 (d, J = 15.3
Hz, 2H, 3-H), 7.65–7.61 (m, 2H, 6’-H), 7.03–6.99 (m, 2H, 5’-H), 6.96 (t, J = 55.5 Hz, 2H, CF2H), 6.88 (d,
J = 15.4 Hz, 2H, 2-H), 3.93 (s, 6H, CH3O), 3.86–3.76 (m, 8H, N(CH2CH2)2N); 13C-NMR (CDCl3-CD3OD
9:1) δ: 166.3 (1-C), 158.5 (t, JCF = 5.6 Hz, 4’-C), 142.8 (3-C), 132.3 (br s, 6’-C), 127.4 (1’-C), 125.2 (br s, 2’-
C), 123.1 (t, JCF = 22.2 Hz, 3’-C), 114.8 (2-C), 111.2 (5’-C), 111.1 (t, JCF = 236.1 Hz, CF2H), 55.7 (CH3O),
45.4 and 42.2 (br s, N(CH2CH2)2N). HRMS calcd for C26H27F4N2O4+ (M+H)+: 507.1902, found: 507.1892;
HRMS/MS (33 eV) from (M+H)+ m/z (%): 211.0558 (100), 183.0610 (31), 160.0515 (4). Analysis for
C26H26F4N2O4·0.5H2O: Calcd C, 60.58; H, 5.28; N, 5.43%. Found: C, 60.13; H, 5.15; N, 5.19%.

3.2.16. N-(1-Methylethyl)-3-(4-methoxyphenyl)-(E)-propenamide (13a)

To a solution of 4-methoxycinnamic acid (12a, 50 mg, 0.28 mmol) in dry DMF (0.6 mL),
triethylamine (0.059 mL, 0.42 mmol), isopropylamine (0.048 mL, 0.56 mmol) and a solution of
(benzotriazol-1-yloxy)tris(dimethylamino)phosphonium hexafluorophosphate (0.186 g, 0.42 mmol)
in dry dichloromethane (0.6 mL) were added at 0 °C. The reaction mixture was stirred at 0 °C for 30
min and then at 25 °C for 2 h. Water (15 mL) was added and the mixture was extracted with
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 13 of 20

dichloromethane (30 mL). The extract was washed with 1M HCl and water, dried over anhydrous
sodium sulfate, and the solvent evaporated. The residue was recrystallized from hexane to give 13a
as a crystalline white solid (0.052 g, 85%); m.p. 131 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.57 (d, J = 15.6 Hz, 1H, 3-
H), 7.44 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H, 2’-H and 6’-H), 6.88 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 2H, 3’-H and 5’-H), 6.24 (d, J = 15.6 Hz,
1H, 2-H), 5.49 (d, J = 8.2 Hz, 1 H, NH), 4.28–4.17 (m, 1H, 1”-H), 3.82 (s, 3 H, CH3O), 1.22 (d, J = 6.6 Hz,
6 H, 2”-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 165.5 (1-C), 160.9 (4’-C), 140.5 (3-C), 129.4 (2’-C and 6’-C), 127.8 (1’-
C), 118.8 (2-C), 114.3 (3’-C and 5’-C), 55.5 (CH3O), 41.7 (1”-C), 23.0 (2”-C). EIMS m/z (%): 220 (18, M+1),
219 (51, M+), 161 (100), 134 (28), 133 (40), 118 (14). Analysis for C13H17NO2: C, 71.21; H, 7.81; N, 6.39%.
Found: C, 70.93; H, 7.82; N, 6.36%.

3.2.17. N-(1-Methylethyl)-3-(4-methoxy-3-methylphenyl)-(E)-propenamide (13b)

Compound 13b was prepared from acid 12b (50 mg, 0.26 mmol), triethylamine (0.054 mL, 0.39
mmol), isopropylamine (0.045 mL, 0.52 mmol), and (benzotriazol-1-yloxy)-tris(dimethylamino)-
phosphonium hexafluorophosphate (0.173 g, 0.39 mmol) following the procedure used for 13a. The
reaction product was purified by flash column chromatography eluting with mixtures of hexane–
ethyl acetate of increasing polarity to give 13c as a pale yellow solid (0.049 g, 80%); m.p. 124–125 °C;
1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.54 (d, J = 15.5 Hz, 1H, 3-H), 7.33–7.29 (m, 2H, 2’-H and 6’-H), 6.80 (d, J = 9.0 Hz,

1H, 5’-H), 6.22 (d, J = 15.5 Hz, 1H, 2-H), 5.38 (d, J = 6.6 Hz, 1H, NH), 4.30–4.16 (m, 1H, 1”-H), 3.85 (s,
3H, CH3O), 2.21 (s, 3H, CH3Ar), 1.22 (d, J = 6.5 Hz, 6H, 2”-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 165.6 (1-C), 159.2
(4’-C), 140.8 (3-C), 129.8 (2’-C), 127.5 (6’-C), 127.2 (1’-C and 3’-C), 118.4 (2-C), 110.0 (5’-C), 55.5 (CH3O),
41.6 (1”-C), 23.1 (2”-C), 16.4 (CH3Ar). EIMS m/z (%): 234 (13, M+1), 233 (36, M+), 175 (100), 148 (32),
147 (26), 115 (17). Analysis for C14H19NO2·0.25H2O: Calcd: C, 70.71; H, 8.26; N, 5.89%. Found: C, 70.77;
H, 8.15; N, 5.86%.

3.2.18. N-(1-Methylethyl)-3-(3-hydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl)-(E)-propenamide (13c)

Compound 13c was prepared from isoferulic acid (8, 54 mg, 0.28 mmol), triethylamine (0.059
mL, 0.42 mmol), isopropylamine (0.048 mL, 0.56 mmol), and (benzotriazol-1-yloxy)-
tris(dimethylamino)-phosphonium hexafluorophosphate (0.186 g, 0.42 mmol) following the
procedure used for 13a. The reaction product was purified by flash column chromatography eluting
with mixtures of hexane–ethyl acetate of increasing polarity to give 13b as a white solid (0.048 g,
73%); m.p. 164–165 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3-CD3OD 9:1) δ: 7.46 (d, J = 15.6 Hz, 1H, 3-H), 7.08 (d, J = 2.1
Hz, 1H, 2’-H), 6.98 (dd, J = 2.0, 8.6 Hz, 1H, 6’-H), 6.83 (d, J = 8.3 Hz, 1H, 5’-H), 6.25 (d, J = 15.6 Hz,1H,
2-H), 4.21–4.12 (m, 1H, 1”-H), 3.90 (s, 3H, CH3O), 1.21 (d, J = 6.6 Hz, 6H, 2”-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3-
CD3OD 9:1) δ: 166.1 (1-C), 148.7 (4’-C), 146.0 (3’-C), 140.6 (3-C), 128.4 (1’-C), 121.4 (6’-C), 118.8 (2-C),
112.9 (2’-C), 111.0 (5’-C), 55.9 (CH3O), 41.5 (1”-C), 22.6 (2”-C). EIMS m/z (%): 235 (43, M+), 178 (35), 177
(98),150 (27), 145 (28), 134 (27), 117 (43), 89 (69), 58 (100). Analysis for C13H17NO3: Calcd C, 66.36; H,
7.28; N, 5.95%. Found: C, 66.28; H, 7.17; N, 5.69%.

3.2.19. N-(1-Methylethyl)-3-[4-(difluoromethyl)-3-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenamide (15)

Methyl-3-[4-formyl-3-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenoate (14, 33 mg, 0.150 mmol) was dissolved in
a mixture of methanol (2 mL) and 20% aqueous potassium carbonate solution (1 mL). The reaction
mixture was stirred for 4 h at 20 °C and concentrated under reduced pressure to a third of its volume.
The solution was acidified with conc. HCl (to pH 1) and the precipitate was filtered and used without
further purification. The crude product was treated with Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene (0.107 mL, 0.435
mmol), isopropylamine (0.044 mL, 0.435 mmol) and triethylamine (0.061 mL, 0.435 mmol) following
the procedure described for 11b. Compound 15 was obtained as a crystalline white solid (0.025 g,
62% 2 steps); m.p. 128–130 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.62 (d, J = 15.5 Hz, 1H, 3-H), 7.59–7.56 (m, 1H, 5’-
H), 7.22–7.18 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 7.05–7.01 (m, 1H, 2’-H), 6.95 (t, J = 55.5 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.41 (d, J = 15.5 Hz,
1H, 2-H), 5.48 (d, J = 6.5 Hz, 1H NH), 4.32–4.20 (m, 1H, 1’’-H), 3.92 (s, 3H, CH3O), 1.26 (d, J = 6.6 Hz,
6H, 2”-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 164.6 (s, 1-C), 157.6 (t, J = 6.0 Hz, 3’-C), 140.0 (s, 3-C), 138.9 (t, J = 1.8
Hz, 1’-C), 126.8 (t, J = 5.8 Hz, 5’-C), 123.8 (t, J = 22.3 Hz, 4’-C), 122.9 (s, 2-C), 120.0 (s, 6’-C), 111.4 (t, J =
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 14 of 20

236.4 Hz, CF2H), 110.2 (s, 2’-C), 55.9 (s, CH3O), 41.9 (s, 1”-C), 23.0 (s, 2”-C). EIMS m/z (%): 269 (55, M+),
211 (100), 183 (24), 132 (18), 58 (33). Analysis for C14H17F2NO2: Calcd C, 62.42; H, 6.36; N, 5.20%. Found:
C, 62.44; H, 6.35; N, 4.99%.

3.2.20. 3-(4-Acetyloxy-3-formylphenyl)-(E)-propenoic acid (17)

To a solution of 5-iodosalicylaldehyde 16 (2.68 g, 10.8 mmol) in dry acetone (50 mL) was added
K2CO3 (3.0 g, 21.6 mmol) and then acetic anhydride (2.15 mL, 21.6 mmol) was added dropwise to the
suspension with vigorous stirring. Stirring was continued at room temperature for 2.5 h and the
reaction mixture was percolated through a silica gel pad using acetone as eluent. The percolate was
evaporated to dryness and the residue recrystallized from n-hexane to give 5-iodo-2-acetyloxy-
benzaldehyde as pale yellow needles (2.9 g, 92%); m.p. 89–90 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 10.01 (s, 1H,
ArCHO), 8.16 (d, J = 2.2 Hz, 1H, 2-H), 7.91 (dd, J = 2.3, 8.5 Hz, 1H, 6-H), 6.96 (d, J = 8.5 Hz, 1H, 5-H),
2.38 (s, 3H, CH3C(O)Ar); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 187.0 (ArCHO), 168.7 (CH3C(O)Ar), 151.3 (2-C), 143.8
(4-C), 139.5 (6-C), 129.5 (1-C), 125.5 (3-C), 90.2 (5-C), 20.8 (CH3C(O)Ar).
The 5-iodo-2-acetyloxybenzaldehyde obtained above (0.2 g, 0.69 mmol) was dissolved in 5 mL
of acetonitrile and oxygen was removed by bubbling nitrogen through the solution. Triethylamine
(0.673 mL, 4.82 mmol) and acrylic acid (0.095 mL, 1.38 mmol) were added dropwise with stirring to
the solution, followed by tri-o-tolylphosphine (16 mg, 0.069 mmol) and palladium (II) acetate (8.0 mg,
0.047 mmol). The mixture was then heated at 65–70 °C for 4 h, volatiles were removed by distillation,
and the residue was dissolved in dichloromethane. The resulting solution was percolated through
silica gel eluting with a mixture of hexane–ethyl acetate (6:4). The percolate was evaporated to
dryness and purified by flash column chromatography eluting with mixtures of hexane–ethyl acetate
of increasing polarity to give compound 17 as a white solid (0.095 g, 54%); m.p. 205–207 °C; 1H-NMR
(DMSO-d6) δ: 12.53 (s, 1H, COOH), 10.07 (s, 1H, ArCHO), 8.22 (d, J = 2.3 Hz, 1H, 2’-H), 8.08 (dd, J =
8.6, 2.3 Hz, 1H, 6’-H), 7.67 (d, J = 16.0 Hz, 1H, 3-H), 7.36 (d, J = 8.5 Hz, 1H, 5’-H), 6.63 (d, J =16.1 Hz,
1H, 2-H), 2.35 (s, 3H, CH3CO); 13C-NMR (DMSO-d6) δ: 189.9 (ArCHO), 169.1 (CH3CO), 167.3 (1-C),
151.7 (4’-C), 141.8 (3-C), 134.7 (6’-C), 132.8 (1’-C), 131.2 (2’-C), 128.2 (3’-C), 124.5 (5’-C), 120.9 (2-C),
20.7 (CH3CO). EIMS m/z (%): 234 (1, M+), 192 (23), 146 (9), 91 (20), 89 (45), 63 (19), 43 (100).

3.2.21. N-(1-Methylethyl)-3-[4-acetyloxy-3-(difluoromethyl)phenyl]-(E)-propenamide (18a).

Compound 18a was prepared from acid 17 (30.0 mg, 0.128 mmol), Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene
(0.095 mL, 0.386 mmol), isopropylamine (0.033 mL, 0.386 mmol), and triethylamine (0.054 mL, 0.386
mmol) following the procedure used for 11b. Compound 18a was obtained as a white solid (0.018 g,
47%); m.p. 131–133 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.76–7.71 (m, 1 H, 2’-H), 7.60 (d, J = 15.5 Hz, 1H, 3-H),
7.61–7.55 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 7.23–7.18 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.74 (t, J = 55.2 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.36 (d, J = 15.6 Hz, 1H,
2-H), 5.50 (d, J = 7.8 Hz, 1 H, NH), 4.28–4.17 (m, 1H, 1”-H), 2.34 (s, 3 H, CH3CO), 1.23 (d, J = 6.6 Hz, 6
H, 2”-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 168.7 (CH3CO), 164.5 (1-C), 149.1 (t, JCF = 5.2 Hz, 4’-C), 138.9 (3-C), 133.4
(1’-C), 131.2 (br s, 6’-C), 127.0 (t, JCF = 22.6 Hz, 3’-C), 125.5 (t, JCF = 6.4 Hz, 2’-C), 123.8 (s, 5’-C), 122.6 (s,
2-C), 111.6 (t, J = 238.9 Hz, CF2H), 41.9 (s, 1’’-C), 23.0 (s, 2”-C), 21.0 (CH3CO). EIMS m/z (%): 298 (23,
M+1), 297 (18, M+), 255 (88), 197 (68), 177 (44), 101 (30), 58 (100), 43 (60). Analysis for C15H17F2NO3:
Calcd C, 60.60; H, 5.76; N, 4.71%. Found: C, 60.21; H, 5.76; N, 4.64%.

3.2.22. N-(1-Methylethyl)-3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-hydroxyphenyl]-(E)-propenamide (18b)

To a solution of 18a (10.0 mg, 0.034 mmol) in MeOH (1.0 mL) was added conc. H2SO4 (50 µL)
and the mixture stirred at 60 °C for 2 h. The reaction mixture was diluted with water (15 mL) and
concentrated under reduced pressure. The milky suspension was extracted with ethyl acetate (30
mL), the organic layer was dried with anhydrous sodium sulfate, and the solvent evaporated. The
residue was purified by flash column chromatography eluting with mixtures of hexane–ethyl acetate
of increasing polarity to give compound 18b as a white amorphous solid (0.007 g, 82%); m.p. 153–154
°C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3-CD3OD 9:1) δ: 7.70–7.65 (m, 1H, 2’-H), 7.50 (d, J 15.6, 1H, 3-H), 7.41–7.35 (m, 1H,
6’-H), 6.95 (t, 1H, J = 55.7 Hz, CF2H), 6.87–6.82 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.29 (d, J = 15.6 Hz, 1H, 2-H), 4.23–4.13
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 15 of 20

(m, 1H, 1”-H), 1.21 (d, J = 6.5 Hz, 6H, 2”-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3-CD3OD 9:1) δ: 165.9 (1-C), 156.6 (t, JCF =
5.6 Hz, 4’-C), 140.0 (3-C), 132.0 (6’-C), 126.6 (1’-C), 125.3 (t, JCF = 5.6 Hz, 2’-C), 121.5 (t, JCF = 22.3 Hz, 3’-
C), 118.9 (2-C), 116.1 (5’-C), 111.8 (t, JCF = 235.5 Hz, CF2H), 41.6 (1”-C), 22.7 (2”-C). EIMS m/z (%): 255
(13, M+), 197 (36), 177 (45),121 (23), 101 (77), 58 (100), 43 (33). HRMS: calcd for C13H16F2NO2+ (M+H)+:
256.1144, found: 256.1145.

3.2.23. N-(1-Methylethyl)-trans-2-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-cyclopropanecarboxamide
(19)
Compound S2 (see the Supplementary Materials) (0.018 g, 0.066 mmol) was dissolved in diethyl
ether (0.1 mL) and water (0.003 mL) and potassium t-butoxide (40 mg, 0.036 mmol) were added. The
mixture was stirred at room temperature for 3 h. After this, the reaction mixture was diluted with 2M
HCl (2 mL) and extracted with dichloromethane, the organic layer was dried with anhydrous sodium
sulfate, and the solvent evaporated. The resulting crude product was treated with BOP and
isopropylamine following the same procedure used for compound 13a. The residue was purified by
flash column chromatography eluting with mixtures of hexane–ethyl acetate of increasing polarity to
give compound 19 as a white solid (0.015 g, 80%); m.p. 166–167 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.22 (bs, 1H,
2’-H), 7.24–7.19 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 6.91 (t, J = 55.7 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.86 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 5.47 (d, J = 7.2 Hz, 1H,
NH), 4.20–4.04 (m, 1H, 1’’-H), 3.84 (s, 3H, CH3OAr), 2.47 (ddd, J = 4.1, 6.3, 9.1 Hz, 1H, 2-H), 1.58 (ddd,
J = 4.1, 5.2, 9.1 Hz, 1H, 3a-H), 1.49 (ddd, J = 4.1, 5.2, 8.2 Hz, 1H, 1-H), 1.17 (d, J = 6.6 Hz, 3H, 2a’’-H),
1.19–1.14 (m, 1H, 3b-H), 1.17 (d, J = 6.6 Hz, 3H, 2b’’-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 170.8 (C(O)N), 155.9 (t,
JCF = 6.0 Hz, 4’-C), 133.4 (1’-C), 130.4 (t, JCF = 2.1 Hz, 6’-C), 123.3 (t, JCF = 5.7 Hz, 2’-C), 122.8 (t, JCF = 22.0
Hz, 3’-C), 111.6 (t, JCF = 235.6 Hz, CF2H), 111.2 (5’-C), 55.9 (CH3OAr), 41.8 (1’’-C), 26.6 (1-C), 24.1 (1-
C), 23.1 (2b’’-C), 23.0 (2a’’-C), 15.8 (3-C). EIMS m/z (%): 284 (39, M+1), 283 (100, M+), 264 (29), 224 (21),
197 (30), 178 (21), 146 (42), 43 (15). Analysis for C15H19F2NO2: Calcd C, 63.59; H, 6.76; N, 4.94%. Found:
C, 63.29; H, 6.50; N, 4.82%.

3.2.24. N-(1-Methylethyl)-3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-propanamide (20).

Compound 11b (0.030 g, 0.111 mmol) was dissolved in ethyl acetate (10 mL), 10% wt. Pd/C (0.003
g) added and the mixture hydrogenated at 3 bar and room temperature for 8 h. The catalyst was
filtered and the residue crystallized from n-hexane to give compound 20 as a crystalline white solid
(0.028 g, 93%); m.p. 84 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.38 (m, 1H, 2’-H), 7.30 – 7.23 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 6.92 (t, J =
55.7 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.86–6.83 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 5.16 (d, J = 6.4 Hz, 1H, NH), 4.05 (d heptet, J = 6.6, 7.9 Hz,
1H, 1’’-H), 3.84 (s, 3H, CH3OAr), 2.94 (t, J = 7.6 Hz, 2H, 3-H), 2.40 (t, J = 7.6 Hz, 2H, 2-H), 1.08 (d, J =
6.6 Hz, 6H, 2’’-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 171.1 (1-C), 155.9 (t, JCF = 6.1 Hz, 4’-C), 133.3 (1’-C), 132.1 (6’-
C), 126.0 (t, JCF = 5.7 Hz, 2’-C), 122.7 (t, JCF = 22.2 Hz, 3’-C), 111.7 (t, JCF = 235.3 Hz, CF2H), 111.2 (5’-C),
55.9 (CH3OAr), 41.5 (1’’-C), 38.9 (2-C), 31.0 (3-C), 22.9 (2’’-C). EIMS m/z (%): 272 (70, M+1), 271 (100,
M+), 252 (21), 184 (46), 171 (46), 100 (19). Analysis for C14H19F2NO2: Calcd C, 61.98; H, 7.06; N, 5.16%.
Found: C, 62.04; H, 7.02; N, 5.11%.

3.2.25. N-(1-Methylethyl)-2-methyl-3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenamide (21).

Compound 21 was prepared from 2-Methyl-3-(3-formyl-4-methoxyphenyl)-(E)-propenoic acid
(S3, see the Supplementary Materials) (24.0 mg, 0.109 mmol), Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene (0.160 mL,
0.327 mmol), isopropylamine (0.028 mL, 0.327 mmol), and triethylamine (0.046 mL, 0.327 mmol)
following the procedure used for 11b. Compound 21 was obtained as a crystalline white solid (0.020
g, 65%); m.p. 96–97 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.57–7.53 (m, 1H, 2’-H), 7.47–7.37 (m, 1H, 6’-H), 7.25 (bs,
1H, 3-H), 6.97 – 6.93 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.95 (t, J = 55.6 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 5.66 (d, J = 7.3 Hz, 1H, NH), 4.20
(dhept, J = 6.6, 7.7 Hz, 1’’-H), 3.90 (s, 3H, CH3O), 2.09 (d, J = 1.4 Hz, 3H, C=CCH3), 1.24 (d, J = 6.6 Hz,
6H, 2”-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 168.8 (s, 1-C), 156.8 (t, J = 5.9 Hz, 4’-C), 133.2 (t, J = 2.1 Hz, 6’-C), 132.4
(s, 3-C), 131.9 (s, 2-C), 128.9 (s, 1’-C), 127.4 (t, J = 5.8 Hz, 2’-C), 122.7 (t, J = 22.2 Hz, 3’-C), 111.4 (t, J =
236.1 Hz, CF2H), 111.0 (s, 5’-C), 55.9 (s, CH3O), 41.9 (s, 1”-C), 23.0 (s, 2”-C), 14.4 (s, C=CCH3). EIMS
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 16 of 20

m/z (%): 284 (55, M+1), 283 (100, M+), 225 (36), 197 (30), 146 (97), 131 (16), 58 (11). Analysis for
C15H19F2NO2: Calcd C, 63.59; H, 6.76; N, 4.94%. Found: C, 63.45; H, 6.76; N, 4.94%.

3.2.26. (1-Methylethyl)-3-[3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxyphenyl]-(E)-propenoate (22)

Compound 22 was prepared from acid 9 (30.0 mg, 0.145 mmol), Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene
(0.107 mL, 0.435 mmol), isopropanol (0.034 mL, 0.435 mmol), and triethylamine (0.061 mL, 0.435
mmol) following the procedure used for 11b. Compound 22 was obtained as a white solid (0.033 g,
84%); m.p. 62 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.77–7.74 (m, 1H, 2’-H), 7.63 (d, J = 16.0 Hz, 1H, 3-H), 7.60–7.56
(m, 1H, 6’-H), 6.97–6.93 (m, 1H, 5’-H), 6.92 (t, J = 55.5 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.35 (d, J = 16.0 Hz, 1H, 2-H),
5.13 (hept, J = 6.3 Hz, 1’’-H), 3.91 (s, 3H, CH3O), 1.31 (d, J = 6.3 Hz, 6H, 2”-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ:
166.6 (s, 1-C), 158.7 (t, J = 5.7 Hz, 4’-C), 143.1 (s, 3-C), 132.1 (t, J = 1.9 Hz, 6’-C), 127.5 (s, 1’-C), 126.0 (t,
J = 5.9 Hz, 2’-C), 123.4 (t, J = 22.3 Hz, 3’-C), 117.8 (s, 2-C), 111.4 (s, 5’-C), 111.2 (t, J = 236.3 Hz, CF2H),
67.9 (s, 1”-C), 56.0 (s, CH3O), 22.1 (s, 2”-C). HRMS: calcd for C14H17F2O3+ (M+H)+ requires m/z 271.1140,
found m/z 271.1141.

3.2.27. N-(1-Methylethyl)-3-(difluoromethyl)-4-methoxybenzamide (23)

p-Methoxybenzoic acid (91 mg, 0.60 mmol) was dissolved in anhydrous dichloromethane (0.90
mL) and cooled to −40 °C. Then, dichloromethylmethyl ether (0.49 mL, 0.54 mmol) and a solution of
TiCl4 (0.144 mL, 1.30 mmol) in anhydrous dichloromethane (0.3 mL) were added dropwise under
continuous stirring. The deep red solution was stirred at −40 °C for 1.5 h and then 1M HCl (3 mL)
added. The resulting emulsion was stirred at room temperature for 0.5 h and extracted with
dichloromethane. The organic layer was dried with anhydrous sodium sulfate and the solvent
evaporated. The resulting product was treated with Deoxofluor® 50% in toluene (0.107 mL, 0.435
mmol), isopropyl amine (0.037 mL, 0.435 mmol), and triethylamine (0.061 mL, 0.435 mmol) following
the procedure used for 11b. Compound 23 was obtained as a white solid (0.025 g, 52% for 2 steps);
m.p. 99–100 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.97–7.93 (m, 1H, 6-H), 7.90 – 7.87 (m, 1H, 2-H), 7.00–6.95 (m, 1H,
5-H), 6.94 (t, J = 55.4 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 5.91 (d, J = 6.7 Hz, 1H, NH), 4.28 (dhept, J = 6.6, 7.6 Hz, 1’-H), 3.92
(s, 3H, CH3O), 1.28 (d, J = 6.6 Hz, 6H, 2’-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 165.5 (s, C(O)N), 159.6 (t, J = 5.6 Hz,
4-C), 131.8 (s, 6-C), 127.4 (s, 1-C), 124.7 (t, J = 5.9 Hz, 2-C), 122.5 (t, J = 22.3 Hz, 3-C), 111.3 (t, J = 236.4
Hz, CF2H), 111.0 (s, 5-C), 56.1 (s, CH3O), 42.1 (s, 1’-C), 23.0 (s, 2’-C). EIMS m/z (%): 243 (13, M+), 185
(100), 157 (4), 127 (4), 109 (2). Analysis for C12H15F2NO2: Calcd C, 59.25; H, 6.22; N, 5.76%. Found: C,
59.14; H, 6.23; N, 5.77%.

3.2.28. N-(1-Methylethyl)-7-(difluoromethyl)-6-methoxy-3,4-dihydronaphthalene-2-carboxamide
(24).
6-Methoxy-3,4-dihydronaphthalene-2-carboxylic acid (50 mg, 0.25 mmol) was dissolved in
anhydrous dichloromethane (0.38 mL) and cooled to −40 °C. Then, dichloromethylmethyl ether (0.49
mL, 0.54 mmol) and a solution of TiCl4 (60 µL, 0.54 mmol) in anhydrous dichloromethane (0.12 mL)
were added dropwise under continuous stirring. The deep red solution was stirred at −40 °C for 1.5
h and then 1M HCl (3 mL) was added. The resulting emulsion was stirred at room temperature for
0.5 h and then extracted with dichloromethane. The organic layer was dried with anhydrous sodium
sulfate and the solvent evaporated. The resulting product was treated with Deoxofluor® 50% in
toluene (0.192 mL, 0.779 mmol), isopropylamine (0.066 mL, 0.779 mmol), and triethylamine (0.109
mL, 0.779 mmol) following the procedure used for 11b. Compound 24 was obtained as a white solid
(0.027 g, 35% for 2 steps); mp 150–152 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 7.36 (m, 1H, 8-H), 7.10–7.06 (m, 1H, 1-
H), 6.90 (t, J = 55.7 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.75 (s, 1H, 5-H), 5.65 (d, J = 7.8 Hz, 1H, NH), 4.20 (dhept, J = 6.5,
7.1 Hz, 1’-H), 3.88 (s, 3H, CH3O), 2.89 (t, J = 8.2 Hz, 2H, 4-H), 2.57 (td, J = 1.5, 8.2 Hz, 2H, 3-H), 1.23 (d,
J = 6.5 Hz, 6H, 2’-H); 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 167.2 (s, C(O)N), 157.6 (t, J = 6.0 Hz, 6-C), 141.0 (t, J = 1.7 Hz,
10-C), 132.0 (s, 2-C), 129.6 (s, 1-C), 125.8 (s, 9-C), 125.8 (t, J = 5.7 Hz, 8-C), 121.1 (t, J = 22.4 Hz, 7-C),
111.5 (t, J = 235.5 Hz, CF2H), 110.7 (s, 5-C), 56.0 (s, CH3O), 41.7 (s, 1’-C), 28.5 (s, 4-C), 23.0 (s, 2’-C), 22.7
(s, 3-C). HRMS: calcd for C16H20F2NO2+ (M+H)+ requires m/z 296.1456, found m/z 296.1457.
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 17 of 20

3.2.29. N-(1-Methylethyl)-7-(difluoromethyl)-6-methoxy-naphthalene-2-carboxamide (25).

Compound 24 (10 mg, 0.034 mmol) and 2,3-dichloro-5,6-dicyano-1,4-benzoquinone (11.5 mg,
0.05 mmol) were dissolved in dry toluene (0.8 mL) and the mixture was heated under reflux in an
argon atmosphere for 1 h. Then, 5% NaHCO3 was added and the mixture extracted with
dichloromethane, the organic layer was dried with anhydrous sodium sulfate, and the solvent
evaporated. The residue was purified by flash column chromatography eluting with mixtures of
hexane–ethyl acetate of increasing polarity to give compound 25 as a white solid (0.0085 g, 86%); m.p.
173–174 °C; 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ: 8.22 (bs, 1H, 1-H), 8.11 (m, 1H, 8-H), 7.88 (dd, J = 1.8, 8.5 Hz, 1H, 3-
H), 7.79 (d, J = 8.5 Hz, 1H, 4-H), 7.19 (s, 1H, 5-H), 7.02 (t, J = 55.3 Hz, 1H, CF2H), 6.06 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H,
NH), 4.35 (dhept, J = 6.6, 7.7 Hz, 1’-H), 4.00 (s, 3H, CH3O), 1.31 (d, J = 6.6 Hz, 6H, 2’-H); 13C-NMR
(CDCl3) δ: 166.6 (s, C(O)N), 156.2 (t, J = 4.7 Hz, 6-C), 137.0 (s, 10-C), 131.0 (s, 2-C), 127.9 (t, J = 6.9 Hz,
8-C), 127.7 (s, 1-C), 127.1 (s, 4-C), 127.1 (s, 9-C), 125.9 (s, 3-C), 125.0 (t, J = 21.6 Hz, 7-C), 111.6 (t, J =
236.9 Hz, CF2H), 105.9 (s, 5-C), 55.9 (s, CH3O), 42.2 (s, 1’-C), 23.1 (s, 2’-C). HRMS: calcd for
C16H18F2NO2+ (M+H)+ requires m/z 294.1307, found m/z 294.1300.

3.3. Biological Activity

3.3.1. Determination of the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration

The Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC), defined as the lowest antimicrobial agent
concentration inhibiting the visible growth of a microorganism following its incubation, was
subsequently determined. For the purpose of such determination, the compounds under study were
tested against Acinetobacter guillouiae ATCC 11171, Clostridium sporogenes ATCC 19404, Enterobacter
cloacae ATCC 35587, Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212, Escherichia coli ATCC 8739, Klebsiella pneumoniae
ATCC 10273, Mycobacterium smegmatis ATCC 607, Proteus mirabilis ATCC 10005, Pseudomonas
aeruginosa ATCC 9027, Shigella boydii ATCC 12027, Shigella flexneri ATCC 11836, Staphylococcus aureus
ATCC 29737, Streptococcus pneumoniae ATCC 10015, and Streptococcus pyogenes ATCC 8133 using
Mueller–Hinton (MH) broth.
The MICs of the tested compounds were determined by microdilution with MH broth
supplemented with Mg+2 and Ca+2 cations. A stock solution of the synthesized compounds (1 mg/mL)
in DMSO was prepared and graded quantities of the test compounds were incorporated in specified
quantity of sterilized liquid medium (MH, supplemented with defibrinated horse blood for S.
pneumoniae and Tween 80 for M. smegmatis) to test different concentrations of the compounds. The
test was conducted on a plate on the basis of a 1 × 105 CFU/mL inoculum concentration, with negative,
positive, and sterility controls being simultaneously performed. Different concentrations of the
compounds under study were tested. Following incubation at 32.5 ± 2.5 °C for a 24 h period (48 h in
the case of C. sporogenes and 72 h in the case of M. smegmatis), the plates were visually read. After
incubation, the MICs were visually determined by the presence or absence of visible growth [42,43].

3.3.2. Cytotoxicity Assay

Cytotoxicity of compounds 11b–11d,11f–11g, 13a–13c, and 18a was measured using the MTT (3-
(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide; Sigma-Aldrich, USA) method [44], in
A549 and HepG2 cells, respectively. Confluent cultures in 96-well plates were exposed to two-fold
dilutions of the compounds, with three wells for each dilution, during 48 h of incubation at 37 °C.
Then, 10 µL of Maintenance Medium (MM) containing MTT (final concentration 5 mg/mL) was
added to each well. After 2 h of incubation, the supernatant was decanted and 200 µL ethanol were
added to each well to solubilize the formazan crystals. After vigorous shaking, absorbance was
measured in a microplate reader and cytotoxicity was calculated as the cytotoxic concentration 50%
(CC50), i.e. the compound concentration required to reduce the MTT signal by 50% compared to
controls.

4. Conclusions
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 18 of 20

Our results show that the combination of the difluoromethyl group and the p-methoxycinamyl
scaffold provided both selectivity and increased activity towards M. smegmatis, with a high
dependency on the characteristics of the substituent on the amide nitrogen. The most active
compounds (11b, 11d, and 11g) had an activity similar to that of the reference antibiotic, exhibited
very low cytotoxicity, and were inactive against the other bacteria assayed. This makes them potential
leads for the development of narrow spectrum antibiotics against M. tuberculosis, where long-term
treatments with broad spectrum antibiotics entail an increased risk of damaging the gut microbiota
and promoting the appearance of resistant genes [45].

5. Patents
The following patents have been granted: Compounds having antibacterial activity process for
their preparation and pharmaceutical compositions comprising them, G. Burton, F. J. Durán, M. D.
Martinez, E. Zini, V. Mora Muñoz, L. Bertoncello, (CONICET - Laboratorios Richmond), US 9,255,071
B2 (2016); EP 2,802,558 B1 (2016).

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1: Synthetic procedures
and characterization of precursors 12b, S1, S2, and S3. Table S1: Calculated LogP of compounds 11a–11m, 13a–
11c, 15, 18a,18b, and 19–25. Mass spectra for compounds 9, 11a–11m, 13a–13c, 15, 17, 18a,18b, 19–25, and S2. 1H
and 13C-NMR spectra of compounds 9, 10, 11a–11m, 13a–13c, 15, 17, 18a,18b, 19–25, S2, and S3.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Fernando Javier Durán, and Gerardo Burton; Data curation, Mario
David Martínez; Formal analysis, Mario David Martínez, Diego Ariel Riva, and Cybele Garcia; Funding
acquisition, Fernando Javier Durán and Gerardo Burton; Investigation, Mario David Martínez, Diego Ariel Riva,
and Cybele Garcia; Methodology, Mario David Martínez, Cybele Garcia, Fernando Javier Durán, and Gerardo
Burton; Project administration, Gerardo Burton; Resources, Gerardo Burton; Supervision, Fernando Javier
Durán and Gerardo Burton; Visualization, Mario David Martínez and Gerardo Burton; and Writing—review
and editing, Mario David Martínez, Fernando Javier Durán, and Gerardo Burton. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research was funded by CONICET (PIP 11220110100896CO) and a research agreement
“CONICET (Argentina)—Laboratorios Richmond”

Acknowledgments: We thank Verónica Mora Muñoz (Laboratorios Richmond) for performing the antibacterial
assays.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the
results. The antibacterial assays were performed by Laboratorios Richmond (see acknowledgments).

References
1. Theuretzbacher, U. Global antibacterial resistance: The never-ending story. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2013,
1, 63–69.
2. Borges, A.; Saavedra, M.J.; Simões, M. Insights on antimicrobial resistance, biofilms and the use of
phytochemicals as new antimicrobial agents. Curr. Med. Chem. 2015, 22, 2590–2614.
3. Fisher, J.F.; Mobashery, S. Endless resistance. Endless antibiotics? MedChemComm 2016, 7, 37–49.
4. Cars, O.; Hedin, A.; Heddini, A. The global need for effective antibiotics - Moving towards concerted action.
Drug Resist. Update 2011, 14, 68–69.
5. Freire-Moran, L.; Aronsson, B.; Manz, C.; Gyssens, I.C.; So, A.D.; Monnet, D.L.; Cars, O. Critical shortage
of new antibiotics in development against multidrug-resistant bacteria - Time to react is now. Drug Resist.
Update 2011, 14, 118–124.
6. Spagnuolo, L.A.; Tonge, P.J.; Fisher, S.L. Narrow Spectrum Antibacterial Agents. In Antibiotic Drug
Discovery: New Targets and Molecular Entities, Firestine, S.M.; Lister, T. Eds. The Royal Society of Chemistry:
London, UK, 2017; Vol. 58, pp 76–102.
7. Guzman, J.D. Natural cinnamic acids, synthetic derivatives and hybrids with antimicrobial activity.
Molecules 2014, 19, 19292–19349.
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 19 of 20

8. Sova, M. Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of cinnamic acid derivatives. Mini-Rev. Med. Chem. 2012,
12, 749–767.
9. El-Seedi, H.R.; El-Said, A.M.A.; Khalifa, S.A.M.; Göransson, U.; Bohlin, L.; Borg-Karlson, A.-K.; Verpoorte,
R. Biosynthesis, Natural Sources, Dietary Intake, Pharmacokinetic Properties, and Biological Activities of
Hydroxycinnamic Acids. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 10877–10895.
10. Budryn, G.; Rachwal-Rosiak, D. Interactions of Hydroxycinnamic Acids with Proteins and Their
Technological and Nutritional Implications. Food Rev. Int. 2013, 29, 217–230.
11. Borges, A.; Ferreira, C.; Saavedra, M.J.; Simões, M. Antibacterial activity and mode of action of ferulic and
gallic acids against pathogenic bacteria. Microb. Drug Resist. 2013, 19, 256–265.
12. Lou, Z.; Wang, H.; Zhu, S.; Ma, C.; Wang, Z. Antibacterial activity and mechanism of action of chlorogenic
acid. J. Food Sci. 2011, 76, M398–M403.
13. Andrade, M.; Benfeito, S.; Soares, P.; Magalhães e Silva, D.; Loureiro, J.; Borges, A.; Borges, F.; Simões, M.
Fine-tuning of the hydrophobicity of caffeic acid: studies on the antimicrobial activity against
Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. RSC Advances 2015, 5, 53915–53925.
14. Neelam, A.K.; Sharma, K.K. Phenylpropanoids and its derivatives: biological activities and its role in food,
pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 1-21.
15. Heleno, S.A.; Martins, A.; Queiroz, M.J.R.P.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Bioactivity of phenolic acids: Metabolites
versus parent compounds: A review. Food Chem. 2015, 173, 501–513.
16. Yoya, G.K.; Bedos-Belval, F.; Constant, P.; Duran, H.; Daffé, M.; Baltas, M. Synthesis and evaluation of a
novel series of pseudo-cinnamic derivatives as antituberculosis agents. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2009, 19,
341–343.
17. Fu, J.; Cheng, K.; Zhang, Z. m.; Fang, R. q.; Zhu, H. l. Synthesis, structure and structure-activity relationship
analysis of caffeic acid amides as potential antimicrobials. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2010, 45, 2638–2643.
18. Yingyongnarongkul, B. e.; Apiratikul, N.; Aroonrerk, N.; Suksamrarn, A. Solid-phase synthesis and
antibacterial activity of hydroxycinnamic acid amides and analogues against methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant S. aureus. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2006, 16, 5870–5873.
19. De, P.; Koumba Yoya, G.; Constant, P.; Bedos-Belval, F.; Duran, H.; Saffon, N.; Daffé, M.; Baltas, M. Design,
synthesis, and biological evaluation of new cinnamic derivatives as antituberculosis agents. J. Med. Chem.
2011, 54, 1449–1461.
20. Carvalho, S.A.; da Silva, E.F.; de Souza, M.V.N.; Lourenço, M.C.S.; Vicente, F.R. Synthesis and
antimycobacterial evaluation of new trans-cinnamic acid hydrazide derivatives. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett.
2008, 18, 538–541.
21. De, P.; De, K.; Veau, D.; Bedos-Belval, F.; Chassaing, S.; Baltas, M. Recent advances in the development of
cinnamic-like derivatives as antituberculosis agents. Expert Opin. Ther. Pat. 2012, 22, 155–168.
22. Erickson, J.A.; McLoughlin, J.I. Hydrogen bond donor properties of the difluoromethyl group. J. Org. Chem.
1995, 60, 1626–1631.
23. Gu, Y.; Kar, T.; Scheiner, S. Fundamental properties of the CH ··· O interaction: Is it a true hydrogen bond?
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 9411–9422.
24. Zafrani, Y.; Sod-Moriah, G.; Yeffet, D.; Berliner, A.; Amir, D.; Marciano, D.; Elias, S.; Katalan, S.; Ashkenazi,
N.; Madmon, M.; et al. CF2H, a Functional Group-Dependent Hydrogen-Bond Donor: Is It a More or Less
Lipophilic Bioisostere of OH, SH, and CH3? J. Med. Chem. 2019, 62, 5628–5637.
25. Dalvit, C.; Invernizzi, C.; Vulpetti, A. Fluorine as a Hydrogen-Bond Acceptor: Experimental Evidence and
Computational Calculations. Chem.–Eur. J. 2014, 20, 11058–11068.
26. Martinez, M.D.; Luna, L.; Tesio, A.Y.; Feresin, G.E.; Duran, F.J.; Burton, G. Antioxidant properties in a non-
polar environment of difluoromethyl bioisosteres of methyl hydroxycinnamates. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2016,
68, 233–244.
27. Toteva, M.M.; Richard, J.P. The generation and reactions of quinone methides. In Adv. Phys. Org. Chem.
Richard, J. Ed. Academic Press: 2011; Vol. Volume 45, pp 39–91.
28. Hathaway, B.A.; White, K.L.; McGill, M.E. Comparison of iodination of methoxylated benzaldehydes and
related compounds using iodine/silver nitrate and iodine/periodic acid. Synthetic Commun. 2007, 37, 3855–
3860.
29. Lee, S.H.; Cho, Y.J.; Bae, J.W.; Yoon, C.M. An efficient and convenient synthesis of 5-formylsalicylaldehyde.
Synthetic Commun. 2000, 30, 1003–1008.
Molecules 2020, 25, 789 20 of 20

30. Mahé, O.; Desroches, J.; Paquin, J.F. Amide formation using in situ activation of carboxylic acids with [Et
2NSF2]BF4. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2013, 4325–4331.
31. Tunoori, A.R.; White, J.M.; Georg, G.I. A one-flask synthesis of weinreb amides from chiral and achiral
carboxylic acids using the deoxo-fluor fluorinating reagent. Org. Lett. 2000, 2, 4091–4093.
32. Singh, R.P.; Shreeve, J.M. One-pot route to new α,α-difluoroamides and α-ketoamides. J. Org. Chem. 2003,
68, 6063–6065.
33. White, J.M.; Tunoori, A.R.; Turunen, B.J.; Georg, G.I. [Bis(2-methoxyethyl)amino]sulfur Trifluoride, the
Deoxo-Fluor Reagent: Application toward One-Flask Transformations of Carboxylic Acids to Amides. J.
Org. Chem. 2004, 69, 2573–2576.
34. Kangani, C.O.; Kelley, D.E.; Day, B.W. One-pot synthesis of aldehydes or ketones from carboxylic acids via
in situ generation of Weinreb amides using the Deoxo-Fluor reagent. Tetrahedron Lett. 2006, 47, 6289–6292.
35. Nguyen, T.V.; Minrovic, B.M.; Melander, R.J.; Melander, C. Identification of Anti-Mycobacterial Biofilm
Agents Based on the 2-Aminoimidazole Scaffold. ChemMedChem 2019, 14, 927–937.
36. Brunel, J.M.; Lieutaud, A.; Lome, V.; Pagès, J.-M.; Bolla, J.-M. Polyamino geranic derivatives as new
chemosensitizers to combat antibiotic resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2013, 21, 1174–
1179.
37. Doherty, E.M.; Fotsch, C.; Bo, Y.; Chakrabarti, P.P.; Chen, N.; Gavva, N.; Han, N.; Kelly, M.G.; Kincaid, J.;
Klionsky, L.; et al. Discovery of Potent, Orally Available Vanilloid Receptor-1 Antagonists.
Structure−Activity Relationship of N-Aryl Cinnamides. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 48, 71–90.
38. Rodriques, K.E. A novel route to cyclopropyl ketones, aldehydes, and carboxylic acids. Tetrahedron Lett.
1991, 32, 1275–1278.
39. Rieche, A.; Gross, H.; Höft, E. Über α-Halogenäther, IV. Synthesen aromatischer Aldehyde mit
Dichlormethyl-alkyläthern. Chem. Ber. 1960, 93, 88–94.
40. Yakubov, A.P.; Tsyganov, D.V.; Belen’kii, L.I.; Krayushkin, M.M. Formylation and dichloromethylation as
alternative directions of Rieche reaction. A novel to the synthesis of sterically hindered aromatic
dialdehydes. Tetrahedron 1993, 49, 3397–3404.
41. Calderwood, E.F.; England, D.B.; Gould, A.E.; Harrison, S.J.; Ma, L. Substituted hydroxamic acids and uses
thereof. US2012/0015942, 2011.
42. Andrews, J.M. Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2001, 48, 5–
16.
43. CLSI, Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically;
Approved Standard-Ninth Edition. CLSI Document M07-A9, Wayne, P.A. Clinical and Laboratory
Standards Institute: 2012.
44. Mosmann, T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: Application to proliferation and
cytotoxicity assays. J. Immunol. Methods 1983, 65, 55–63.
45. Melander, R.J.; Zurawski, D.V.; Melander, C. Narrow-spectrum antibacterial agents. MedChemComm 2018,
9, 12–21.

Sample Availability: Samples of the compounds are not available from the authors.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).