LETTER
Access to a-Functionalized Glycine Derivatives
2955
Table 1 Scope of the Arylation Reactiona (continued)
It is interesting to note that for the imino amide substrate,
N-alkyl amides (entries 1–9, and entries 11–16, Table 1)
are much more reactive than the N-phenyl amide (entry
10, Table 1). This may be due to the fact that the phenyl
group of N-phenyl amide will withdraw electrons from
amide, making the tautomerization to the iminol more dif-
ficult compared with N-alkyl amides in the current reac-
tion conditions (Figure 1). This reduced activity is
consistent with our previously proposed reaction mecha-
nism.
O
O
H
R1
DCE
N
R1
N
ArB(OH)2
+
PMP
N
PMP
N
100 °C
H
H
Ar
6
7
8
Entry
Product
Yield (%)
O
O
O
H
N
OEt
PMP
N
H
11
12
81
In summary, an alternative route for the synthesis of a-
arylated glycine derivatives and dipeptides was described
via the a-arylation of imino amides with arylboronic ac-
ids. Furthermore, the study supported the mechanism of
our previously reported oxidative coupling reaction of
glycine amide with arylboronic acids. Further studies on
the application of the reaction are in progress.
O
8k
H
N
OEt
PMP
N
H
64
O
Me
General Procedure for the Arylation Reaction of Imino Amide
The N-PMP imine amide (0.10 mmol) and arylboronic acid (0.15
mmol) were added to DCE (0.5 mL) in a test tube. The test tube was
sealed and heated at 100 °C for 5 h. After the reaction was complet-
ed, DCE was removed in vacuo. Flash chromatography using
EtOAc–hexanes (1:4 to 1:2) afforded the arylated product.
8l
H
N
OEt
OEt
OEt
PMP
N
H
13
14
73
41
O
O
O
O
O
Isolation and Characterization of Compound 8a12
8m
1H NMR (300 MHz, CD3Cl): d = 7.46–7.36 (m, 5 H), 7.28–7.13 (m,
5 H), 6.77 (d, 2 H, J = 9.0 Hz), 6.59 (d, 2 H, J = 9.0 Hz), 4.73 (s, 1
H), 4.55 (dd, 1 H, J = 14.7, 6.3 Hz), 4.40 (dd, 1 H, J = 14.7, 6.3 Hz),
3.75 (s, 3 H) ppm. 13C NMR (75 MHz, CD3Cl): d = 171.4, 153.2,
140.6, 138.8, 138.0, 129.2, 128.6, 127.6, 127.4, 127.3, 127.3, 115.1,
114.8, 65.2, 55.7, 43.4 ppm.
H
N
PMP
N
H
S
8n
O
H
N
Supporting Information for this article is available online at
PMP
N
H
15
82
Acknowledgment
OMe
O
We are grateful to the Canada Research Chair (Tier I) foundation (to
C.-J. Li), NSERC, CFI, ACS-Green Chemistry Pharmaceutical
Roundtable and McGill University for their support of our research.
8o
H
N
OEt
PMP
N
H
References
O
16
50
(1) (a) Nagarajan, R. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1991, 35,
605. (b) Perkins, H. R. Pharmacol. Ther. 1982, 16, 181.
(c) Williams, D. H. Acc. Chem. Res. 1984, 17, 364.
(2) (a) Connon, S. J. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 1176.
(b) Groger, H. Chem. Rev. 2003, 103, 2795. (c) Yet, L.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2001, 40, 875.
(3) (a) Dömling, A.; Ugi, I. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2000, 39,
3169. (b) Ugi, I. Angew. Chem. 1959, 71, 386. (c) Ugi, I.
Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1962, 1, 8. (d) Ugi, I.;
Steinbruckner, C. Angew. Chem. 1960, 72, 267.
(4) (a) For a comprehensive review on Petasis reaction, see:
Batey, R. A. In Boronic Acids; Hall, D. G., Ed.; Wiley-
VCH: Weinheim, 2005, 279–304. (b) Petasis, N. A.;
Akritopoulou, I. Tetrahedron Lett. 1993, 34, 583.
Cl
8p
a Reaction conditions: imino amide (0.10 mmol), arylboronic acid
(0.15 mmol), DCE (0.5 mL), 5 h at 100 °C.
OH
O
N
R
N
R
N
N
H
O
O
Figure 1 Tautomerization between the amide and the iminol
(c) Petasis, N. A.; Zavialov, I. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997,
119, 445. (d) Petasis, N. A.; Zavialov, I. A. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1998, 120, 11798. (e) Petasis, N. A.; Goodman, A.;
Synlett 2009, No. 18, 2953–2956 © Thieme Stuttgart · New York