Clearly, the central issue concerned with this iterative
approach is how to eliminate, or reduce, the effect from the
pre-existing alcohol, or its protected form, at the ꢀ-position
on the catalytic asymmetric allylation.7 As reported in the
preceding paper, a significant effect from a methyl group at
the ꢀ-position was detected for allylation of (R)-(+)-
citronellal with allyl and methallyl bromides, whereas only
an insignificant effect was detected for allylation with γ,γ-
dimethylallyl and 2-haloallyl bromides.1 Despite these
somewhat confusing results, we decided to study the feasibil-
ity of this approach, with the hope that a suitable protecting
group could be found, to override the pre-existing alcohol
at the ꢀ-position on the Cr-mediated catalytic asymmetric
allylation.
Scheme 2. Iterative Synthesis of syn/syn- and anti/
anti-1,3,5-Triols via Cr-Mediated Catalytic Asymmetric
Allylation in the Presence of Ligands A and ent-Aa
To avoid the technical difficulty associated with high
volatility of substrates, we chose to use heptanal (1) for this
demonstration. Thus, 1 was subjected to the Cr-mediated
catalytic asymmetric allylation in the presence of sulfonamide
ligand A, followed by TMS protection, to furnish the an-
ticipated, protected allylic alcohol 2 in 83% yield (Scheme
3).8 The enantiomeric excess (ee) of 2 was estimated to be
aOne cycle of iteration is composed of oxidative cleavage of the olefin
to form an aldehyde, catalytic asymmetric allylation, and protection of the
resultant alcohol.
Scheme 3
.
The First Cr-Mediated Catalytic Asymmetric
Allylation
Various methods are known effectively to synthesize 1,3-
polyols.4 Among them, the method by Cossy and co-workers5
is most relevant to the current work; they iteratively utilized
enantioselective allyltitanation with (R,R)- or (S,S)-cyclo-
pentadienyldialkoxy allyltitanium complex developed by
Hafner, Duthaler, and co-workers.6 An impressive level of
stereochemistry control was achieved, although it utilized a
stoichiometric amount of (R,R)- or (S,S)-titanium complex.
Scheme 2 outlines our iterative approach for a synthesis
of syn/syn- and anti/anti-1,3,5-triols. One cycle of iteration
is composed of a three-step operation, i.e., oxidative cleavage
of the olefin to form an aldehyde, catalytic asymmetric
allylation, and protection of the resultant alcohol. Conceptu-
ally, this iterative approach is the same as the method used
by Cossy, with two exceptions. First, Cossy utilized the Ti-
based asymmetric allylation, whereas we intend to utilize
the Cr-based asymmetric allylation. Second, Cossy used a
stoichiometric amount of the chiral Ti reagent, whereas we
attempt to employ a catalytic amount of the chiral Cr reagent.
97% from the 1H NMR spectra of (R)- and (S)-Mosher esters
of the allylic alcohol.9
We then conducted a preliminary study on the protecting-
group effect on the next round of catalytic asymmetric
allylation. Among three types of protecting groups tested:
(1) silyl ethers (TMS, TES, and TBS), (2) ether (PMB), and
(3) esters (Ac and MeOAc), sterically least demanding TMS
was found to give the most satisfactory result on both
asymmetric induction and yield.10
With this result in hand, we subjected the TMS-protected
allylic alcohol 2 to the first cycle of iteration (Scheme 4).
(4) For reviews on this subject, see: (a) Bode, S. E.; Wolberg, M.; Mu¨ller,
M. Synthesis 2006, 557. (b) Schneider, C. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1998,
37, 1375. (c) Rychnovsky, S. D. Chem. ReV. 1995, 95, 2021. (d) Norcross,
R. D.; Paterson, I. Chem. ReV. 1995, 95, 2041. (e) Hoveyda, A. M.; Evans,
D. A.; Fu, G. C. Chem. ReV. 1993, 93, 1307. (f) Oishi, T.; Nakata, T.
Synthesis 1990, 635. (g) Reetz, M. T. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1984,
23, 556.
(7) For a review on this subject, see: (a) Masamune, S.; Choy, W.;
Peterson, J. S.; Sita, L. R. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1985, 24, 1.
(8) With use of TMS-Cl as the dissociating agent, the transformation
of 1 into 2 could be achieved in a single step. Under this condition, however,
the rate of coupling was significantly slower and the yield was lower.
(9) For the determination of absolute configuration, see the Supporting
Information for (a) Kurosu, M.; Lin, M.-H.; Kishi, Y J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2004, 126, 12248.
(5) (a) BouzBouz, S.; Cossy, J. Org. Lett. 2000, 2, 501. (b) BouzBouz,
S.; Cossy, J Tetrahedron Lett. 2000, 41, 3361. (c) BouzBouz, S.; Cossy, J
Org. Lett. 2000, 2, 3975. (d) Cossy, J.; Willis, C.; Bellosta, V.; BouzBouz,
S J. Org. Chem. 2002, 67, 1982. (e) Amans, D.; Bellosta, V.; Cossy, J.
Org. Lett 2007, 9, 1453. (f) Ferrie´, L.; Boulard, L.; Pradaux, F.; Bouzbouz,
S.; Reymond, S.; Capdevielle, P.; Cossy, J. J. Org. Chem. 2008, 73, 1864.
(6) Hafner, A.; Duthaler, R. O.; Marti, R.; Rihs, G.; Rothe-Streit, P.;
Schwarzenbach, F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992, 114, 2321.
(10) Protection with an ether (PMB) or silyl ether (TES and TBS) group
made the rate of allylation to be significantly slower. Protection with an
acyl (Ac and MeOAc) group gave an excellent result in terms of asymmetric
induction, but products were often accompanied with the corresponding
elimination by-products. In addition, the rate of allylation with an aldehyde
bearing a free alcohol was found to be very slow.
3078
Org. Lett., Vol. 10, No. 14, 2008