Diels-Alder Reactions of Connected Enyne Dienophiles
A R T I C L E S
Figure 2. Frontier molecular orbitals for the reaction of dimethoxybuta-
diene (DMB) with dimethyl-hex-2-en-4-ynedioate. Orbital coefficients are
shown above the LUMO orbital of the dienophile.
Figure 1. Frontier molecular orbitals for the reactions of dimethoxybuta-
diene (DMB) with methyl acrylate and methyl propiolate.
sites (“o” and “a”) would be directly linked. We here note that
Kocienski et al. have reported that the reaction of an enyne,
activated by a single ester substituent on the alkyne moiety,
with a Danishefsky-type diene afforded the product formed from
addition to the double bond in about 40% yield.5a Two other
minor products were also formed from addition to the triple
bond, in yields of only about 9% each. Nevertheless, in light
of the massive body of Diels-Alder driven research,6 the
question we were implicitly asking, i.e., that of the chemose-
lectivity of reaction of a conjugated enyne, wherein each linkage
is equipped with an identical terminal activating group, had not
otherwise been posed in the literature.
Our reading of Sauer’s elegant investigations of Diels-Alder
reactions of symmetrical dienes, such as cyclopentadiene and
9,10-dimethylanthracene, with alkynes and alkenes suggested
that, at least in these cases, alkenes are usually more reactive
than alkynes in Diels-Alder reactions.7 Konovalov and co-
workers demonstrated that with symmetrical cyclopentadienones
as the dienic components, alkynes are more reactive than alkenes
when the accepting characteristics of the diene increases.8 In
general, it seems that, with symmetrical dienes, disubstituted
alkenes are somewhat more reactive than similarly substituted
alkynes.9-11
These trends are well accommodated by frontier molecular
orbital (FMO) theory,12 which teaches that reactions having
small HOMOdiene-LUMOdienophile gaps manifest faster rates.
Thus, regiochemistry of the Diels-Alder reaction is controlled
by the better overlap of the diene HOMO and dienophile LUMO
orbitals, both of which have coefficients controlled by the
substituent locations.12d,e
The FMO interactions in the reactions of 1,3-dimethoxyb-
utadiene (DMB) with the dienophiles, methyl acrylate and
methyl propiolate, are shown pictorially in Figure 1. HF
(Hartree-Fock) energies for the frontier orbitals of the diene
Scheme 3. Diels-Alder Reaction of Cyclic Diene 13 with the
Enyne Dienophile, 11
and dienophile components are shown; p-orbitals are sized in
proportion to the coefficient of the atomic orbitals in the
molecular orbitals.
The LUMO energy of methyl acrylate (3.16 eV) is lower
than that of methyl propiolate (3.29 eV). As a result, the
HOMOdiene-LUMOdienophile gap for the reaction involving
methyl acrylate (11.16 eV) is smaller than that for the corre-
sponding reaction involving methyl propiolate (11.29 eV). The
regiochemical outcome of each reaction is controlled by the
overlap of the largest lobes, on C4 of the diene and on the
â-carbon of the dienophile.
Similarly, FMO theory can also, in principle, be used to
predict the selectivities of Diels-Alder reactions involving
enynes. Figure 2 shows FMO interactions in the cycloaddition
reaction of DMB with the diactivated enyne, dimethyl-hex-2-
en-4-ynedioate. The HOMOdiene-LUMOenyne gap is smallest,
and both the chemoselectivity and regiochemistry of the reaction
should be controlled by overlap of C4 of the diene with C3 of
the dienophile. Thus, strictly on the basis of FMO consider-
ations, in keeping with the analogy to monoactivated dienophiles
described above, it would be predicted that reaction will occur
at the ene of the enyne, with the expectation that the directly
connected ester substituent will control the regiochemical
outcome (cf. Scheme 2).
A number of deficiencies of FMO theory have been identified
since the development of the theory, mainly due to the lack of
quantitative significance of FMO interactions.13,14 In connection
with these early findings, empirical findings as well as higher
(10) Singleton, D. A.; Schulmeier, B. E.; Hang, C.; Thomas, A. A.; Leung,
S.-W.; Merrigan, S. R. Tetrahedron 2001, 57, 5149.
(11) (a) Fuks, R.; Viehe, H. G. In Chemistry of Acetylenes; Viehe, H. G., Ed.;
Marcel Dekker: New York, 1969; p 478. (b) Veliev, M. G.; Guseinov,
M. M.; Yanovskaya, L. A.; Burstein, K. Y. Tetrahedron Lett. 1985, 41,
749. (c) Bondarev, G. N.; Ryzhov, V. A.; Chelpanova, L. F.; Petrov, A. A.
Zh. Org. Khim. 1967, 3, 816.
(12) (a) Sustmann, R. Tetrahedron Lett. 1971, 29, 2721. (b) Sustmann, R.;
Schubert, R. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1972, 11, 840. (c) Sustmann,
R. Pure Appl. Chem. 1974, 40, 569. (d) Houk, K. N. Acc. Chem. Res.
1975, 8, 361. (e) Houk, K. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1973, 95, 4092.
(13) (a) Alston, P. V.; Ottenbrite, R. M.; Shillady, D. D. J. Org. Chem. 1973,
38, 4075. (b) Alston, P. V.; Ottenbrite, R. M. J. Org. Chem. 1975, 40,
1111. (c) Alston, P. V.; Ottenbrite, R. M.; Cohen, T. J. Org. Chem. 1978,
43, 1864. (d) Cohen, T.; Ruffner, R. J.; Shull, D. W.; Daniewski, W. M.;
Ottenbrite, R. M.; Alston, P. V. J. Org. Chem. 1978, 43, 4052. For a review,
see (e) Ginsburg, D. Tetrahedron 1983, 39, 2095.
(14) Kahn, S. D.; Pau, C. F.; Overman, L. E.; Hehre, W. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1986, 108, 7381.
9
J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 129, NO. 3, 2007 647