Chemistry students are taught that some molecular shapes are so strained they simply cannot exist. For about 100 years, one of those supposed impossibilities has been locked into textbooks as a hard rule. Now a team of researchers has not only broken that rule, they have done it twice, forcing chemists to rethink how double bonds behave in three dimensions.
At the center of the story is Bredt’s rule, a century-old guideline that said double bonds could not sit at the “bridgehead” of certain ring systems. By building stable molecules that violate this rule and then pushing even further with bizarre cage-like structures, scientists have opened a new frontier in how I, and many others, think about molecular design.
What Bredt’s rule said could never happen
For generations, organic chemistry has leaned on Bredt’s rule to explain why some double bonds are off limits. The rule states that a double bond cannot occupy a bridgehead position in a rigid bicyclic system because the geometry would twist the bond out of the flat alignment it needs, making the molecule too unstable to exist. According to UCLA, this idea became a cornerstone of how chemists predict which structures are even worth trying to make. It was not just a classroom curiosity, it shaped how synthetic routes were planned in labs around the world.
The molecules that violate this rule are often called anti-Bredt olefins, and they were long treated as theoretical oddities rather than realistic targets. As one detailed account notes, People in the field assumed these structures would fall apart before they could be isolated. The rule in question, known as Bredt, effectively told chemists not to bother. That is why the new work feels so disruptive: it takes a long-standing “cannot” and turns it into a “can, if you are clever enough.”
The first crack in a 100-year-old certainty
The first major break came when a team at UCLA showed how to build stable anti-Bredt olefins on demand. They did not stumble onto a single weird molecule, they developed a general strategy for creating these strained structures and using them in reactions. Reporting on the work describes how the researchers deliberately targeted bridgehead double bonds that Bredt’s rule said should not exist, then proved those bonds were not only real but robust enough to handle further chemistry.
That initial breakthrough was widely framed as chemists breaking a 100-year-old principle, and the team itself argued that it was time to rethink how rigidly such rules are taught. A separate overview notes that at a Science level, the work laid out how to create organic molecules that had previously been dismissed as impossible. For students, that means a rule once presented as absolute is now clearly a guideline with important exceptions.
From breaking the rule once to shattering it twice
What makes the story even more striking is that the same research community did not stop after the first violation. As one feature on the topic puts it, a Rule of Chemistry 100 Years. Now, Scientists Have Broken Twice. After the initial anti-Bredt olefins, the group moved on to even stranger architectures, including cage-shaped molecules where double bonds are trapped inside rigid frameworks. These structures push the idea of strain to an extreme, yet they still hold together.
According to a detailed summary of the latest work, UCLA chemists are now exploring molecules that contain highly unusual double bonds in cage-like systems. Another report on the same research notes that UCLA scientists have gone beyond Bredt’s rule again with cage-shaped double-bonded molecules that would have seemed outlandish a decade ago. In other words, the first violation was not a fluke, it was the opening move in a systematic campaign to map out the true limits of double-bond geometry.
Inside the “impossible” molecules
To appreciate why these molecules matter, it helps to look at what they actually are. The early anti-Bredt structures placed a double bond at a bridgehead in a relatively compact ring system, creating what chemists call a highly strained alkene. Later work pushed this idea further into cage-like frameworks, including exotic species with names like cubene and quadricyclene. A recent summary of the new cage compounds explains that Key cage-shaped molecules contain Chemical bonds that are forced into extreme angles yet remain intact.
These structures are not just curiosities for molecular art. One analysis of the work notes that such “impossible” molecules could reshape how future medicines are made, because they offer new three-dimensional shapes for drug designers to exploit. A report on the broader impact argues that Scientists have created “impossible” molecules that could influence drug discovery and pharmaceutical research significantly. By forcing double bonds into new orientations, chemists can tune how molecules interact with biological targets in ways that were previously unavailable.
Why textbooks and drug design may never look the same
The implications of this work reach far beyond a single rule. One overview of the research argues that textbooks need a rewrite, because what was once presented as a prohibition is now clearly a matter of degree. Another detailed account emphasizes that According to Bredt’s original formulation, double bonds could not exist at certain positions if the molecule’s geometry deviated too far from planarity. The new molecules show that with the right design, even extreme deviations can be tolerated.
For drug discovery, the payoff is the ability to explore new regions of chemical space. A synthesis-focused summary notes that Listing Description of the work from the University of California, Los Angeles and its collaborators highlights how these strained frameworks can be functionalized and incorporated into larger molecules. Another perspective on the same theme points out that When chemists expand the menu of possible shapes, they expand the options for how drugs can fit into enzymes, receptors, and other biological targets.
More from Morning Overview