Scheme 3
Scheme 4
of the resulting (E)-enolate to acetaldehyde set the 1,4-syn-
3,4-anti relationship in the intermediate aldolate 9 as
expected6 and was followed by an in situ ketone reduction
using LiBH4.7 After oxidative cleavage of the resulting
boronate ester, the 1,3-syn diol 10 was isolated in 88% yield
and >95:5 dr, thereby efficiently controlling the configuration
at the three new stereocenters. The hydroxyl groups were
then differentiated8a by exposure of the PMB ether 10 to
anhydrous DDQ oxidation conditions which afforded the
corresponding six-membered PMP acetal in 92% yield. A
DEIPS group8b was then appended to the remaining C37
hydroxyl to give the ether 11 (97%). Further elaboration to
the aldehyde 8 was then effected by the regioselective
reductive ring opening of the PMP acetal using DIBAL and
Dess-Martin periodinane-mediated oxidation of the resulting
C33 alcohol.
With aldehyde 8 in hand, attention focused on the
installation of the second stereotetrad contained within the
C30-C38 tetrapropionate segment of the brasilinolides
(Scheme 3). Thus, an aldol addition of the (E)-dicyclohexy-
lboron enolate derived from ethyl ketone 66b to aldehyde 8
was initiated at -78 °C and, with warming to -20 °C in
Et2O, afforded adduct 12 cleanly (87%, >95:5 dr). On this
occasion, a 1,3-anti reduction9 of the aldol adduct was
required. Consequently, treatment of 12 with
Me4NBH(OAc)3 gave the corresponding 1,3-anti diol with
high diastereoselectivity. Once again, we were able to
differentiate the hydroxyl groups formed in this operation
by using DDQ to oxidize the PMB ether at C35 and generate
the PMP acetal 13 in 85% yield.10 The remaining strategi-
cally important alcohol at C31 was then protected as a TES
ether. Care was needed to chemoselectively cleave the C29
benzyl ether in the presence of the PMP acetal. Yonemitsu
and co-workers’ hydrogenolysis conditions using W-2 Raney
nickel proved to be optimum (92%),11 giving the desired
primary alcohol with no detectable PMP acetal cleavage.
Finally, a Dess-Martin oxidation provided the required
C29-C38 aldehyde 5 in 11 steps and 32% overall yield from
ketone 7. This efficient aldol-based sequence proved readily
scalable and was used to produce multigram quantities of 5.
Attention now turned to the preparation of the ꢀ-keto-
phosphonate 4 required as the HWE coupling partner for 5
(Scheme 4). After some experimentation, a hydrolytic kinetic
resolution (HKR) approach was selected to set the config-
uration at C23. Thus, alkene 14 was epoxidized using
mCPBA and then subjected to the HKR conditions developed
by Jacobsen and co-workers,12 using (R,R)-Co(salen) as the
catalyst, to provide essentially enantiopure 15. This epoxide
in turn was opened by isopropenyl magnesium bromide in
the presence of catalytic CuI to give alcohol 16 (99% ee).
Next, DMB protection of 16 (NaH, DMBCl) was followed
by cleavage of the TBS ether in 17 to give the alcohol 18.
Conversion of the derived aldehyde 19 into the ꢀ-ketophos-
phonate
4
was accomplished by addition of
LiCH2P(O)(OMe)2 and subsequent Dess-Martin periodinane-
mediated oxidation. This readily scalable sequence proceeded
in 19% overall yield from 5-hexen-1-ol.
With both fragments 4 and 5 in hand, we could now
investigate their Horner-Wadsworth-Emmons coupling
(Scheme 5). A screen of HWE conditions revealed Ba(OH)2
in wet THF13 to be optimum, affording the enone 20 cleanly
(91%, >95:5 E:Z). Importantly, this reaction proceeded
(7) Paterson, I.; Perkins, M. V. Tetrahedron 1996, 52, 1811.
(8) (a) Oikawa, Y.; Yoshioka, T.; Yonemitsu, O. Tetrahedron Lett. 1982,
23, 889. (b) The selection of hydroxyl protecting groups in the C20-C38
segment 3 was made to potentially enable access to all three brasilinolide
congeners by suitable derivatization at C23 and C37.
(11) Horita, K.; Yoshioka, T.; Tanaka, T.; Oikawa, Y.; Yonemitsu, O.
Tetrahedron 1986, 42, 3021.
(9) Evans, D. A.; Chapman, K. T.; Carreira, E. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1988, 110, 3560.
(12) Schaus, S. E.; Brandes, B. D.; Larrow, J. F.; Tokunaga, M.; Hansen,
K. B.; Gould, A. E.; Furrow, M. E.; Jacobsen, E. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2002, 124 (7), 1307.
(10) The (33R, 34S, 35R) configurational assignments were confirmed
by NOE analysis of this acetal (see the Supporting Information).
(13) Paterson, I.; Yeung, K-S.; Smaill, J. B. Synlett 1993, 774.
Org. Lett., Vol. 11, No. 3, 2009
695