ꢀ,γ-unsaturated ester 21, a substrate that was shown to be
quite viable toward the synthesis of bryostatin 7. Thus,
treatment of alkynes 17 and 18 with 21 separately under the
aforementioned conditions, afforded dienes 22c and 22d, in
57% and 93% yield, respectively (entries 3 and 4). Supris-
ingly, concomitant TBS deprotection and acetonide formation
occurred upon alkene-alkyne coupling of 18. Unfortunately,
pyran formation via a subsequent Michael addition to R,ꢀ-
unsaturated ester 22d proved ineffectual. However, the in
situ desilylation-acetonide formation was a pleasant obser-
vation as one can certainly imagine a sequence wherein a
protecting group exchange and carbon-carbon bond forma-
tion, performed in a three step, one-pot tandem operation,
would be synthetically practical.
Table 1. Ruthenium-Catalyzed Alkene-Alkyne Couplinga
Nevertheless, we explored the possibility of installing the
isopropylidene moiety at a later stage via olefin cross-
metathesis.15 To that end, ether 8 was examined, but failed
to provide the corresponding 1,4-dienes in acceptable yield
from reaction with alkynes 17 and 19 (entries 5 and 6). Given
the low catalyst turnover in the presence of the metal
coordinating nitrile and PMB group we next examined diol
16. Treatment with ether 8 did provide 1,4-diene 22g in
which in situ acetonide protection occurred, but in poor yield
(entry 7). However, treatment of epoxide 7 and aryl ether 8
with [CpRu(MeCN)3]PF6 gave the desired diene 22h in a
gratifying 81% yield (entry 8). It should be noted that
although the reaction conditions are Lewis acidic enough to
facilitate desilylation and ketalization with acetone, the
epoxide moiety in 7 remained intact. However, if the acetone
was not freshly distilled just prior to use we observed
formation of acetonide 22g. The synthesis of 22h proved
quite reliable, even on multigram scale, and was subsequently
employed in the synthesis of pyran 6.
a Conditions: all reactions were performed with 1 equiv of alkyne and
1 equiv of alkene. b Only the branched 1,4-diene products were obtained.
c 93% yield based on recovered starting material.
Two distinct observations upon an examination of the
results depicted in Table 1 deserve comment. First, only the
so-called branched isomer is obtained from the productive
alkene-alkyne couplings. This predominant regioselectivity
has previously been observed with TMS-protected alkynes.11b
Second, ester 21 proved to be a better alkene substrate than
ethers 20 and 8 as indicated by entries 2–5 and 7. Both
observations lend insight into the overall process. As
illustrated in Scheme 4, upon formation of intermediate A
by coordination of the alkene and alkyne in a head-to-tail
arrangement, oxidative addition yields ruthenacycle B. At
this stage, ꢀ-hydride elimination gives C followed by
reductive elimination, to the branched 1,4-diene. Our results
seem to indicate that conversion from B to C is the product-
determining step of the catalytic cycle. This would explain
why ester 21 is a better alkene substrate as it would activate
the R-hydrogen (in red) for elimination better than ether 8.
The selectivity for the branched isomer indicates that
formation of ruthenacycle B is preferred, presumably for
steric effects, wherein C-C bond formation preferentially
occurs at the less hindered alkyne carbon.16 Thus, ꢀ-hydride
provided epoxide 7 (89% overall yield). At this stage,
treatment of 7 with Et2AlCN gave nitrile 17 as a latent acetyl
group to be unmasked at a later stage. In an effort to directly
install the trisubstituted olefin in 6, ether 20 was chosen as
the alkene component in the coupling reaction (Table 1, entry
1). Unfortunately, a mixture of nitrile 17, alkene 20 and
[CpRu(MeCN)3]PF6 (10 mol %) returned a near quantitative
yield of both substrates. Thus, we embarked on an examina-
tion of alternative alkene-alkyne coupling substrates.
To determine if the nitrile group was somehow hindering
the reaction, selective monosilylation of diol 16 yielded
alkyne 18. Subsequent treatment with 20 in the presence of
[CpRu(MeCN)3]PF6 failed to provide the desired product
(entry 2). At this stage, we explored the use of the
(12) Gao, Y.; Hanson, R.; Klunder, J.; Ko, S.; Masamune, H.; Sharpless,
K. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1987, 109, 5765.
(13) Suzuki, T.; Saimoto, H.; Tomioka, H.; Oshima, K.; Nozaki, H.
Tetrahedron Lett. 1982, 23, 3597.
(14) Martinelli, M. J.; Vaidyanathan, R.; Pawlak, J. M.; Nayyar, N. K.;
Dhokte, U. P.; Doecke, C. W.; Zollars, L. M. H.; Moher, E. D.; Khau,
V. V.; Kosmrlj, B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 3578.
(15) Chatterjee, A. K.; Sanders, D. P.; Grubbs, R. H. Org. Lett. 2002,
4, 1939.
(16) Earl, R. A.; Vollhardt, K. P. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983, 105, 6991.
Org. Lett., Vol. 10, No. 10, 2008
1895