Formation of cyclic allenes and cumulenes by cooperative addition of frustrated Lewis pairs to conjugated enynes and diynes

Article abstract of DOI:10.1002/anie.200906697

Eight, not six: The intramolecular frustrated Lewis pair 1 reacts with conjugated enynes and diynes by 1, 4-addition to yield the corresponding eight-membered cyclic allenes 2 and cumulenes 3, respectively. The thermodynamically more favorable 1, 2-addition (formation of six-mem bered-ring products) is not observed, which indicates that the observed addition is a kinetically controlled reaction. (Figure Presented)

Full text of DOI:10.1002/anie.200906697

Communications
DOI: 10.1002/anie.200906697
Frustrated Lewis Pairs
Formation of Cyclic Allenes and Cumulenes by Cooperative Addition
of Frustrated Lewis Pairs to Conjugated Enynes and Diynes**
Cornelia M. Mꢀmming, Gerald Kehr, Birgit Wibbeling, Roland Frꢀhlich, Birgitta Schirmer,
Stefan Grimme, and Gerhard Erker*
Dedicated to Professor Gꢁnther Wilke on the occasion of his 85th birthday
Allenes and cumulenes are not only synthetically important
substrates;[1] they are also structurally interesting organic
compounds, especially when incorporated into small and
medium-sized ring systems. In this context allene and
cumulene units may introduce substantial strain if their
carbon frameworks become markedly distorted from the
usual geometries.[2] Therefore, the synthesis of cyclic allenes
or cyclic cumulenes sometimes presents a challenge.[3,4]
Herein we report on the facile addition reactions of an
intramolecular frustrated Lewis pair to an enyne and two
conjugated diynes which lead directly to the formation of the
respective eight-membered-ring cyclocumulene derivatives
under very mild conditions.
Our new reaction makes use of the remarkable features of
frustrated Lewis pairs. Pairs of strong Lewis acids and bases
that bear substituents bulky enough to prevent formation of
the adduct can potentially react cooperatively with a variety
of substrates.[5] Most notably such systems have been used for
the heterolytic activation of dihydrogen and concomitantly
for metal-free catalytic hydrogenation of several functional-
ized alkenes[6] and bulky imines.[7–9] Frustrated Lewis pairs
have been shown to add to olefinic substrates,[10,11] to terminal
alkynes,[11,12] to N2O,[13] to organic carbonyl compounds[11,14]
and even to carbon dioxide.[15] The intramolecular frustrated
Lewis pair 1 (Scheme 1) was shown to be especially reactive
in some of these binding or activation reactions of small
molecules.[11,15–17]
We treated the Lewis pair system 1 with 2-methyl-1,3-
butenyne (2) and found a remarkable new reaction pathway.
Treatment of the Lewis pair 1, which was generated in situ by
hydroboration of dimesitylvinylphosphine[16] with HB-
(C6F5)2,[18] with an equimolar amount of butenyne 2 in
pentane at room temperature resulted in an instantaneous
reaction to yield a white precipitate which was isolated in
80% yield. The NMR analysis revealed a mixture of two
compounds in a 1:2 ratio. Single crystals suitable for the X-ray
crystal structure analysis were obtained for both compounds:
3 by diffusion of heptane into a benzene solution, and 4 from
a layered CH2Cl2/pentane mixture at À368C. We used these
data along with the NMR spectra obtained for the mixture to
identify the two products.
The minor product arises by deprotonation of the CH-
acidic acetylene[12] by the basic phosphorus component of the
Lewis pair 1 to give a phosphonium cation (31P NMR: d =
À3.4 ppm, 1H: d = 7.53 ppm, 1JPH = 468 Hz); the formally
resulting acetylide anion was then trapped by the electrophilic
borane functionality of the Lewis pair to give a boron
acetylide. In the crystal the zwitterion 3 features a tetracoor-
3
À
À
dinate boron atom with B C(sp ) and B C(sp) bond lengths
À
À
of 1.646(3) ꢀ (B1 C2) and 1.587(3) ꢀ (B1 C3), respectively
À
À
À
[B C(aryl): 1.654(3) ꢀ (B1 C31), 1.657(3) ꢀ (B1 C41))]
(Figure 1). The zwitterion displays an antiperiplanar confor-
mation of the central B1-C2-C1-P1 unit in the solid state
À
[dihedral angle À168.5(1)8, P1 C1 1.802(2) ꢀ]. It shows
typical “phosphonium” C-P-C angles at the phosphorus atom
[C1-P1-C11 118.0(1)8, C1-P1-C21 108.7(1)8, C11-P1-C21
114.8(1)8] (for details see the Supporting Information).
The major product of this reaction, the cyclic allene syn-4,
was formed by regioselective 1,4-addition of the P/B Lewis
Scheme 1. Reaction of the frustrated Lewis pair 1 with butenyne 2.
[*] C. M. Mꢀmming, Dr. G. Kehr, B. Wibbeling, Dr. R. Frꢀhlich,
B. Schirmer, Prof. Dr. S. Grimme, Prof. Dr. G. Erker
Organisch-Chemisches Institut der Universitꢁt Mꢂnster
Corrensstrasse 40, 48149 Mꢂnster (Germany)
E-mail: erker@uni-muenster.de
[**] Financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and
the Fonds der Chemischen Industrie is gratefully acknowledged.
Supporting information for this article is available on the WWW
under http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.200906697.
Figure 1. Molecular structure of the zwitterion 3.
2414
ꢀ 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 2414 –2417

Angewandte
Chemie
Table 1: Computed reaction energies (in kcalmolÀ1) for the formation of
syn-4, its regioisomer anti-4, and the related formation of the six-
membered-ring product 4’.
pair 1 to the conjugated butenyne 2. The phosphorus atom is
=
attached to the former CH2 terminus. We observe corre-
sponding [P]–CH2 NMR resonances at d = + 32.8 ppm (31P),
d = 27.6 ppm (13C, 1JPC = 43.7 Hz), and d = 3.07, 2.85 ppm
Formation of:
TPSS-D/
def2-TZVP
B2PLYP-D/
def2-TZVP
1
(1H). The diastereotopic splitting of the H NMR methylene
signals is caused by the introduction of the axially chiral
allene moiety within the eight-membered ring. Consequently,
we also observe the typical NMR resonances of a pair of
mesityl substituents at phosphorus and a pair of C6F5 groups
at boron (11B NMR: d = À14.5 ppm). The allene unit itself
exhibits very typical 13C NMR resonances of the central sp-
hybridized carbon atom (d = 204.5 ppm) and of the adjacent
syn-4 (observed)
anti-4 (not observed)
4’ (not observed)
À22.2
À22.0
À44.3
À18.7
À17.6
À43.5
2
13
1
=
C(sp ) atoms [ CH d = 103.4 ppm ( C), d = 5.85 ppm ( H);
13
=
C(CH3): d = 81.7 ppm ( C)].
In the crystal compound syn-4 features an eight-mem-
bered cyclic allene structure (Figure 2). The phosphorus
center is attached to the former terminal enyne C(sp2)
Scheme 2. Possible isomeric addition products, anti-4 and 4’.
almost isoenergetic to syn-4 (anti-4 is only 0.2–1.1 kcalmolÀ1
higher in energy, which is close to the expected error of the
methods). Because anti-4 was not found experimentally, the
preferential formation of syn-4 seems not to be controlled by
thermodynamics. We also considered the possible (but not
observed) 1,2-addition of 1 to the triple bond of 2 leading to
the formation of a six-membered-ring product 4’. This
reaction is energetically even more favored than the forma-
tion of the eight-membered-ring product syn-4 by about
20 kcalmolÀ1. This finding also indicates a kinetically con-
trolled, rather complex reaction mechanism. In our all
computational attempts so far we have not been able to
locate reasonable transition states.
Figure 2. Molecular structure of the cyclic allene syn-4.
We were curious to learn how general this novel reaction
type might be. In this respect the reaction of a conjugated
diyne with the Lewis pair 1 would represent a logical but
possibly challenging extension of the underlying reaction
principle. Therefore, we treated 1 with 4,6-decadiyne (5a)
(Scheme 3). When the compounds were mixed in pentane, the
solution turned orange. The mixture was stirred for six days
under ambient conditions to eventually produce an off-white
precipitate, which was isolated in 64% yield. It contained a
single product which was identified as the eight-membered
heterocyclic cumulene 6a. The product shows typical phos-
phonium 31P (d = + 31.6 ppm) and borate 11B NMR resonan-
ces (d = À9.3 ppm). The four separate 13C NMR resonances
of the newly formed 1,2,3-butatriene subunit are located at
À
carbon atom [P1 C6 1.816(4) ꢀ, C6-P1-C1 107.5(2)8] and
ꢀ
the boron atom binds to the former C-H unit of the
À
acetylene [B1 C3 1.633(6) ꢀ, C2-B1-C3 102.6(3)8]. The
eight-membered heterocyclic framework is nonplanar [dihe-
dral angle P1-C1-C2-B1 À89.8(4)8]. The endocyclic allene
À
unit features internal bond lengths of 1.305(6) ꢀ (C3 C4) and
À
1.311(6) ꢀ (C4 C5); it deviates slightly from linearity [C3-
C4-C5 169.0(4)8]. The substituent planes at the allene termini
do not deviate much from the expected perpendicular
arrangement [angle between the C6-C5-C7 and B1-C3-H
planes 79.68, bond angles C6-C5-C7 116.7(4)8, C6-C5-C4
118.3(4)8, C4-C3-B1 121.6(4)8] (for details see the Supporting
Information).
P
B
=
=
d = 91.9 ( C ), 191.4, 156.5, and 178.3 ppm ( C ), values that
are very different from the corresponding 13C NMR reso-
nances of the diyne starting material 5a (d = 77.3, 66.6 ppm).
The addition reaction of the Lewis pair 1 to 2-methyl-1-
buten-3-yne (2) was studied by computational chemistry. We
performed accurate quantum chemical calculations at the
dispersion-corrected double-hybrid density functional level
(B2PLYP-D//TPSS-D,[19] for details see the Supporting Infor-
mation) employing large Gaussian AO basis sets for various
possible reaction products. Similar to other addition reactions
of 1 to unsaturated substrates,[11] the formation of syn-4 is very
exothermic (about À19 kcalmolÀ1) (Table 1). The regioiso-
mer anti-4 (see Scheme 2), in which the phosphorus atom is
connected to the carbon atom from the triple bond of 2, is
Scheme 3. Synthesis of the cyclic cumulenes 6.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 2414 –2417
ꢀ 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.angewandte.org
2415

Communications
Compound 6a displays a chiral ring conformation in
respective reaction systems; they appear to be formed by
means of a favorable kinetic pathway which must be
elucidated in detail. It seems that the remarkable 1,4-addition
reaction of a frustrated Lewis pair could provide a useful
simple entry to the formation of cyclic systems with cumu-
solution. This leads to the observation of the NMR signals of
pairs of diastereotopic mesityl substituents at phosphorus and
of diastereotopic C6F5 groups at boron [e.g. d = À160.9 (1F),
d = À161.2 ppm (1F), p-C6F5]. Consequently, the 1H NMR
spectrum of 6a features four separate signals of the [P]-CH2-
CH2-[B] unit [d = 2.78, 2.30 ppm (P-CH2), d = 1.55, 1.12 ppm
(CH2-B)].
=
lative C C double bonds.
The X-ray crystal structure analysis of 6a (single crystals Experimental Section
Synthesis of
3 and syn-4: Dimesitylvinylphosphine (100 mg,
were obtained by diffusion of heptane into a benzene
solution) shows an eight-membered heterocycle that features
a strongly nonplanar P-CH2-CH2-B unit [dihedral angle P1-
C1-C2-B1 À129.8(2)8] and a close-to-planar endocyclic 1,2,3-
butatriene subunit (Figure 3). This unit exhibits a short
0.34 mmol) and bis(pentafluorophenyl)borane (117 mg, 0.34 mmol)
in pentane (8 mL) reacted with 2-methyl-1-buten-3-yne (35 mL,
0.37 mmol) to give a mixture of 3 and syn-4 (ratio 1:2) as a white
powder (193 mg, 80%). Anal. calcd (%) for C37H32BF10P: C 62.73,
H 4.55; found: C 62.24, H 4.58. For more experimental details and
complete characterization, see the Supporting Information.
Synthesis of 6a: Dimesitylvinylphosphine (100 mg, 0.34 mmol)
and bis(pentafluorophenylborane) (117 mg, 0.34 mmol) reacted with
4,6-decadiyne (55 mL, 0.34 mmol) to give an off-white powder
consisting of 6a (168 mg, 64%). Anal. calcd (%) for C42H40BF10P:
C 64.96, H 5.19; found: C 64.83, H 5.29. For more experimental
details and complete characterization of 6a and its similarly prepared
analogue 6b, see the Supporting Information.
Received: November 27, 2009
Published online: February 28, 2010
Keywords: boron · cyclic allenes · cyclic cumulenes ·
.
frustrated Lewis pairs · phosphorus
[1] a) Modern Allene Chemistry, Vol. 1 (Eds.: A. S. K. Hashmi, N.
Krause), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2004; b) H. H. A. M. Hassan,
Curr. Org. Synth. 2007, 4, 413 – 439.
Figure 3. Molecular structure of the cyclic cumulene 6a.
[2] K. J. Daoust, S. M. Hernandez, K. M. Konrad, I. D. Mackie, J.
Winstanley, Jr., R. P. Johnson, J. Org. Chem. 2006, 71, 5708 –
5714.
[3] For reviews, see: a) T. Kawase, Sci. Synth. 2007, 44, 395 – 449;
b) M. Christl in Modern Allene Chemistry, Vol. 1 (Eds. A. S. K.
Hashmi, N. Krause), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2004, pp. 243 – 357;
c) R. P. Johnson, Chem. Rev. 1989, 89, 1111 – 1124.
=
À
central C(sp) C(sp) bond (C4 C5 1.263(3) ꢀ) and two
2
=
À
slightly longer adjacent C(sp) C(sp ) bonds (C3 C4
À
1.326(3) ꢀ, C5 C6 1.320(3) ꢀ). The central cumulene C4
unit deviates slightly from linearity [angles C3-C4-C5
161.1(2)8, C4-C5-C6 165.0(2)8]. The planes of the substituents
at the terminal cumulene C(sp2) centers are close to parallel
(angle formed by the P1-C3-C31 and B1-C6-C61 planes
12.08). The bond angles at C3 amount to 111.0(2)8 (C4-C3-
P1), 124.9(2)8 (C4-C3-C31), and 123.8(2)8 (P1-C3-C31), and
at C6 they are 113.0(2)8 (C5-C6-B1), 123.0(2)8 (C5-C6-C61),
and 123.9(2)8 (B1-C6-C61). The lengths of the newly formed
[4] a) M. Christl, B. Engels, Angew. Chem. 2009, 121, 1566 – 1567;
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 1538 – 1539; b) M. Melaimi, P.
Parameswaran, B. Donnadieu, G. Frenking, G. Bertrand, Angew.
Chem. 2009, 121, 4886 – 4889; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48,
4792 – 4795; c) I. Fernꢁndez, C. A. Dyker, A. DeHope, B.
Donnadieu, G. Frenking, G. Bertrand, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009,
131, 11875 – 11881; d) T. Mahlokozera, J. B. Goods, A. M.
Childs, D. M. Thamattoor, Org. Lett. 2009, 11, 5095 – 5097;
e) M. Christl, M. Schreck, T. Fischer, M. Rudolph, D. Moigno, H.
Fischer, S. Deuerlein, D. Stalke, Chem. Eur. J. 2009, 15, 11256 –
11265; f) J. Ugolotti, G. Kehr, R. Frꢂhlich, S. Grimme, G. Erker,
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 1996 – 2007; g) V. Lavallo, C. A.
Dyker, B. Donnadieu, G. Bertrand, Angew. Chem. 2008, 120,
5491 – 5494; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 5411 – 5414; h) J.
Ugolotti, G. Dierker, G. Kehr, R. Frꢂhlich, S. Grimme, G. Erker,
Angew. Chem. 2008, 120, 2662 – 2665; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
2008, 47, 2622 – 2625; i) A. F. Nikitina, R. S. Sheridan, Org. Lett.
2005, 7, 4467 – 4470; j) B. Engels, J. C. Schꢂneboom, A. F.
Mꢃnster, S. Groetsch, M. Christl, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124,
287 – 297; k) M. A. Hofmann, U. Bergstrasser, G. J. Reiss, L.
Nyulꢁszi, M. Regitz, Angew. Chem. 2000, 112, 1318 – 1320;
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2000, 39, 1261 – 1263; l) Y. Pang, S. A.
Petrich, V. G. Young, Jr., M. S. Gordon, T. J. Barton, J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 2534 – 2537; m) T. Shimizu, F. Hojo, W.
À
carbon–heteroatom linkages are 1.804(2) ꢀ (P1 C3) [angle
C3-P1-C1 105.1(1)8] and 1.651(3) ꢀ (B1 C6) [angle C6-B1-
À
C2 111.0(2)8] (for details see the Supporting Information).
The Lewis pair 1 could have undergone simple 1,2-
addition reactions at the alkene (or alkyne) unit in reagent 2
(or 5a,b). However, under the applied reaction conditions we
observe in both cases the formation of the alternative 1,4-
addition product, similar to the products observed recently
for reactions of Lewis pairs with conjugated dienes.[10b]
Although both the heterocyclic allene syn-4 and the hetero-
cyclic cumulene 6a show some distortion of their central C
(C)n C moieties, the structural and spectroscopic features
(and the results of the DFT calculation) indicate that these
systems are probably only slightly strained. Nevertheless, they
are not the thermodynamically favored isomers in the
=
=
2416
www.angewandte.org
ꢀ 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 2414 –2417

Angewandte
Chemie
Ando, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 3111 – 3115; n) H. J.
Bestmann, D. Hadawi, H. Behl, M. Bremer, F. Hampel,
Angew. Chem. 1993, 105, 1198 – 1200; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
Engl. 1993, 32, 1205 – 1208; o) H. J. Bestmann, H. Behl, M.
Bremer, Angew. Chem. 1989, 101, 1303 – 1304; Angew. Chem.
Int. Ed. Engl. 1989, 28, 1219 – 1221; p) J. D. Price, R. P. Johnson,
Tetrahedron Lett. 1986, 27, 4679 – 4682.
meyer, Chem. Commun. 2008, 1701 – 1703; g) P. A. Chase, T.
Jurca, D. W. Stephan, Chem. Commun. 2008, 1701 – 1703.
[10] a) J.-B. Sortais, T. Voss, G. Kehr, R. Frꢂhlich, G. Erker, Chem.
Commun. 2009, 7417 – 7418; b) M. Ullrich, K. S.-H. Seto, A. J.
Lough, D. W. Stephan, Chem. Commun. 2009, 2335 – 2337;
c) J. S. J. McCahill, G. C. Welch, D. W. Stephan, Angew. Chem.
2007, 119, 5056 – 5059; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 4968 –
4971; d) W. Tochtermann, Angew. Chem. 1966, 78, 355 – 375;
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1966, 5, 351 – 371; e) G. Wittig, E.
Benz, Chem. Ber. 1959, 92, 1999 – 2013.
[11] C. M. Mꢂmming, S. Frꢂmel, G. Kehr, R. Frꢂhlich, G. Erker, J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 12280 – 12289.
[12] M. A. Dureen, D. W. Stephan, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131,
8396 – 8397.
[5] For reviews, see: a) D. W. Stephan, G. Erker, Angew. Chem.
2010, 122, 50 – 81; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 46 – 76;
b) D. W. Stephan, Dalton Trans. 2009, 3129 – 3136; c) D. W.
Stephan, Org. Biomol. Chem. 2008, 6, 1535 – 1539.
[6] a) K. V. Axenov, G. Kehr, R. Frꢂhlich, G. Erker, Organometal-
lics 2009, 28, 5148 – 5158; b) K. V. Axenov, G. Kehr, R. Frꢂhlich,
G. Erker, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 3454 – 3455; c) H. Wang,
R. Frꢂhlich, G. Kehr, G. Erker, Chem. Commun. 2009, 5966 –
5968.
[13] E. Otten, R. C. Neu, D. W. Stephan, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131,
9918 – 9919.
[14] a) S. Moebs-Sanchez, G. Bouhadir, N. Saffon, L. Maron, D.
Bourissou, Chem. Commun. 2008, 3435 – 3437; b) A. S. Balueva,
E. R. Mustakimov, G. N. Nivkonov, A. P. Pisarvskii, Yu. T.
Struchkov, Russ. Chem. Bull. Int. Ed. 1996, 45, 1965 – 1969; Izv.
Akad. Nauk Ser. Khim. 1996, 2070 – 2074; c) A. S. Balueva, G.
Nikonov, Russ. Chem. Bull. Int. Ed. 1993, 42, 341 – 343; Izv.
Akad. Nauk Ser. Khim. 1993, 378 – 380; d) A. S. Balueva, O. A.
Erastov, Russ. Chem. Bull. Int. Ed. 1988, 37, 151 – 153; Izv. Akad.
Nauk SSR Ser. Khim. 1988, 163 – 165; e) A. S. Balueva, O. A.
Erastov, Russ. Chem. Bull. Int. Ed. 1987, 36, 1113; Izv. Akad.
Nauk SSR Ser. Khim. 1987, 1199 – 1200.
[15] a) G. Mꢅnard, D. W. Stephan, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132,
1796 – 1797; b) C. M. Mꢂmming, E. Otten, G. Kehr, R. Frꢂhlich,
S. Grimme, D. W. Stephan, G. Erker, Angew. Chem. 2009, 121,
6770 – 6773; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 6643 – 6646;
c) A. E. Ashley, A. L. Thompson, D. OꢆHare, Angew. Chem.
2009, 121, 10023 – 10027; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 9839 –
9843.
[7] For P/B systems, see: a) C. Jiang, O. Blacque, H. Berke,
Organometallics 2009, 28, 5233 – 5239; b) A. Ramos, A. J.
Lough, D. W. Stephan, Chem. Commun. 2009, 1119 – 1120; c) P.
Spies, G. Kehr, K. Bergander, B. Wibbeling, R. Frꢂhlich, G.
Erker, Dalton Trans. 2009, 1534 – 1541; d) M. Ullrich, A. Lough,
D. W. Stephan, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 52 – 53; e) S. J.
Geier, T. M. Gilbert, D. W. Stephan, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008,
130, 12632 – 12633; f) D. P. Huber, G. Kehr, K. Bergander, R.
Frꢂhlich, G. Erker, S. Tanino, Y. Ohki, K. Tatsumi, Organo-
metallics 2008, 27, 5279 – 5284; g) G. C. Welch, D. W. Stephan, J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 1880 – 1881; h) P. A. Chase, G. C.
Welch, T. Jurca, D. W. Stephan, Angew. Chem. 2007, 119, 8196 –
8199; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 8050 – 8053; i) G. C.
Welch, L. Cabrera, P. A. Chase, E. Hollink, J. D. Masuda, P. Wei,
D. W. Stephan, Dalton Trans. 2007, 3407 – 3414; j) G. C. Welch,
R. R. San Juan, J. D. Masuda, D. W. Stephan, Science 2006, 314,
1124 – 1126.
[8] For C/B systems, see: a) D. Holschumacher, C. Taouss, T.
Bannenberg, C. G. Hrib, C. G. Daniliuc, P. G. Jones, M. Tamm,
Dalton Trans. 2009, 6927 – 6929; b) P. A. Chase, A. Gille, T. M.
Gilbert, D. W. Stephan, Dalton Trans. 2009, 7179 – 7188; c) P. A.
Chase, D. W. Stephan, Angew. Chem. 2008, 120, 7543 – 7547;
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 7433 – 7437; d) D. Holschu-
macher, T. Bannenberg, C. G. Hrib, P. G. Jones, M. Tamm,
Angew. Chem. 2008, 120, 7538 – 7542; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
2008, 47, 7428 – 7432.
[9] For N/B systems, see: a) S. J. Geier, D. W. Stephan, J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2009, 131, 3476 – 3477; b) C. Jiang, O. Blacque, H. Berke,
Chem. Commun. 2009, 5518 – 5520; c) V. Sumerin, F. Schulz, M.
Nieger, M. Atsumi, C. Wang, M. Leskelꢄ, P. Pyykkꢂ, T. Repo, B.
Rieger, J. Organomet. Chem. 2009, 694, 2654 – 2660; d) V.
Sumerin, F. Schulz, M. Atsumi, C. Wang, M. Nieger, M. Leskelꢄ,
T. Repo, P. Pyykkꢂ, B. Rieger, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130,
14117 – 14119; e) V. Sumerin, F. Schulz, M. Nieger, M. Leskelꢄ,
T. Repo, B. Rieger, Angew. Chem. 2008, 120, 6090 – 6092; Angew.
Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 6001 – 6003; f) D. Chen, J. Klanker-
[16] P. Spies, G. Erker, G. Kehr, K. Bergander, R. Frꢂhlich, S.
Grimme, D. W. Stephan, Chem. Commun. 2007, 5072 – 5074.
[17] P. Spies, S. Schwendemann, S. Lange, G. Kehr, R. Frꢂhlich, G.
Erker, Angew. Chem. 2008, 120, 7654 – 7657; Angew. Chem. Int.
Ed. 2008, 47, 7543 – 7546.
[18] a) D. J. Parks, W. E. Piers, G. P. A. Yap, Organometallics 1998,
17, 5492 – 5503; b) R. E. von H. Spence, W. E. Piers, Y. E. Sun,
M. Parvez, L. R. MacGillivray, M. J. Zaworotko, Organometal-
lics 1998, 17, 2459 – 2469; c) D. J. Parks, R. E. von H. Spence,
W. E. Piers, Angew. Chem. 1995, 107, 895 – 897; Angew. Chem.
Int. Ed. Engl. 1995, 34, 809 – 811; d) R. E. von H. Spence, D. J.
Parks, W. E. Piers, M.-A. McDonald, M. J. Zaworotko, S. J.
Rettig, Angew. Chem. 1995, 107, 1337 – 1340; Angew. Chem. Int.
Ed. Engl. 1995, 34, 1230 – 1233; Review: e) W. E. Piers, T.
Chivers, Chem. Soc. Rev. 1997, 26, 345 – 354.
[19] a) S. Grimme, J. Comput. Chem. 2006, 27, 1787 – 1799; b) T.
Schwabe, S. Grimme, Acc. Chem. Res. 2008, 41, 569 – 579;
c) V. N. Staroverov, G. E. Scuseria, J. Tao, J. P. Perdew, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 2003, 91, 146401 – 146404.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 2414 –2417
ꢀ 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.angewandte.org
2417