Scheme 5. Acetal Hydrolysis Mechanism
the same intermediate thiocarbonyl adduct 12 suggested in
Mechanism 2. Loss of dimethyl sulfide, with simultaneous
Grob-type fragmentation7 could generate the protonated
ketone 19. Subsequent proton transfer, followed by cycliza-
tion of 20, would ultimately generate the appropriately
labeled product 7.
Figure 1. Correlation of rates of reaction of 1 in HCl/DMSO-d6
with rates of acid-catalyzed hydrolyses of 15.
Scheme 6.
17O Labeling Study
suggests a similar stabilization demand in the transition state
for the reaction of 1, i.e., neighboring oxygen stabilization
of a cationic intermediate as well as aryl stabilization.
In order to determine the source of the oxygen atom in
the oxazoline-2-thione 7, the reaction was carried out on the
labeled substrate 17O-1 (R ) Ph). The product of this reaction
shows an 17O NMR signal (Figure 2) at δ 250 (H217O as an
While protonation of the thioamide by (CH3)2SOH+ seems
reasonable, the possibility exists that the electrophilic sulfur
atom in this species is the actual catalytic species. Reaction
of such an electrophile at the sulfur atom of 1 could generate
21 (Mechanism 4). Grob-type fragmentation would generate
the thio-acylium ion 22. Subsequent proton loss and cycliza-
tion would lead to the appropriately 17O-labeled 7. Alterna-
tively, cyclization of 21 to the strained system 24, as in
Mechanism 5, could lead to the observed product via a
cyclopropylcarbinyl-homoallylic cation type of rearrange-
ment of 24.8
In order to support or rule out the suggestion that
electrophilic sulfur of (CH3)2SOH+ promotes the rearrange-
ment, hydroxythiolactams 1 were added to a mixture of
trifluoroacetic anhydride and DMSO in methylene chloride
at -78 °C. This mixture is known to generate
+
(CH3)2SOCOCF3 , a reagent known to be a source of
electrophilic sulfur.9 Reaction of 1 (R ) Ph) gave a complex
mixture from which 7 (R ) Ph) could be isolated in 35%
Figure 2.
17O NMR spectra of 17O-1 (R ) Ph) and the product
17O-7 (R ) Ph) formed on reaction in HCl/DMSO-d6.
(6) (a) Young, R. P.; Bogseth, R. C.; Rietz, E. G. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1980, 102, 6268. (b) Jensen, J. L.; Herold, L. R.; Lenz, P. A.; Trusty, S.;
Sergi, V.; Bell, K.; Rogers, P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1979, 101, 4672.
(7) (a) Grob, C. A.; Baumann, W. HelV. Chim. Acta 1955, 38, 594. (b)
Weyerstahl, P.; Marsshall, H. Comp. Org. Syn. 1991, 6, 1044.
(8) For a discussion of this type of rearrangement, see: (a) Story, P. R.;
Clark, B. C., Jr. In Carbonium Ions; Olah, G. A., Schleyer, P. v. R., Eds.;
Wiley-Interscience: New York, 1972; Vol. III, pp 1007-1098. (b) Olah,
G. A.; Reddy, V. P.; Prakash, G. K. S. Chem. ReV. 1992, 92, 69. (c) Olah,
G. A.; Reddy, V.; Prakash, In Chemistry of the Cyclopropyl Group, Part
2; Rappoport, Z., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1995; pp 813-
859.
external standard). The 17O of the starting material (δ 42)
has therefore been incorporated into the product 17O-7 (R )
Ph). Hence the DMSO, as in Mechanisms 1 and 2, cannot
be the source of the oxygen atom in 7. Therefore the more
obvious Mechanisms 1 and 2 can be eliminated.
With the failure of Mechanisms 1 and 2 to survive labeling
scrutiny, other suggestions are worthwhile. Three such
possibilities are shown in Scheme 7. Mechanism 3 involves
(9) (a) Mancuso, A. J.; Swern, D. Synthesis 1981, 165. (b) Omura, K.;
Sharma, A. K.; Swern, D. J. Org. Chem. 1976, 41, 957.
Org. Lett., Vol. 10, No. 21, 2008
4977