Enantioselective addition of boronates to chromene acetals catalyzed by a chiral bronsted acid/lewis acid system

Article abstract of DOI:10.1002/anie.201003469

Chiral α ,β-dihydroxy carboxylic acids catalyze the enantioselective addition of alkenyl and aryl boronates to chromene acetals. The optimal carboxylic acid is the easily available tartaric acid amide shown in the scheme. Spectroscopic and kinetic mechanistic studies demonstrate that an exchange process generates a reactive dioxoborolane intermediate leading to enantioselective addition to the pyrylium ion formed from the chromene acetal.

Full text of DOI:10.1002/anie.201003469

Communications
DOI: 10.1002/anie.201003469
Asymmetric Catalysis
Enantioselective Addition of Boronates to Chromene Acetals
Catalyzed by a Chiral Brønsted Acid/Lewis Acid System**
Philip N. Moquist, Tomohiro Kodama, and Scott E. Schaus*
Boronates exhibit wide-ranging utility in synthesis.[1] As
carbon donors in cross-coupling reactions[2] and metal-based
nucleophiles in p addition reactions,[3] their utility is charac-
terized by their ease of preparation, stability towards isolation
and storage, and predictable reactivity patterns to afford
valuable products.[4] In a seminal discovery Petasis and co-
workers demonstrated how boronates could be activated
towards addition to iminiums.[5] However, an elusive area of
reactivity is the addition of vinyl and aryl boronates to
carbonyl and oxonium compounds.[6] While less reactive than
imines and iminium compounds, carbonyl-based electrophiles
would significantly expand the utility of boronates in syn-
thesis. Coincident with our interest in new reaction method-
ology[7] we sought to expand the repertoire of nucleophilic
boronate reactions to enantioselective addition to acetals.[8]
We identified 2-alkoxy-2H-chromenes as our first substrate
Scheme 1. Natural product benzopyrans.
class for investigation [Eq. (1)].[9]
We initiated our study by investigating the addition of
boronate 5 to 2-ethoxy-2H-chromene (4) (Table 1). A brief
survey of Lewis acids failed, providing none of the desired
addition product when used in catalytic amount and led to
substantial decomposition of the chromene 4. We postulated
that organic acids would serve as mild catalysts for the
formation of the pyrylium, thereby promoting the reaction.
Indeed, the use of acetic acid and trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)
provided the desired addition product 6 in modest yields
(Table 1, entries 1 and 2).
Encouraged by these preliminary results, we explored the
use of available chiral acids. (+)-Mandelic acid (9) and
dihydroxy acid 10 were nominally successful at promoting the
enantioselective addition reaction (Table 1, entries 3 and 4).
However, the use of catalytic N-Boc amino acids derived from
l-serine and l-threonine resulted in a more selective reaction.
Notably, l-threonine 12 afforded the product in lower
selectivity than l-serine 11 (entries 5 and 6), enantioselectiv-
ity that returned upon use of the epimeric allo-l-threonine 13
(entry 7). These results led us to consider chiral acids that
possess hydroxy groups at the b-position of the carboxylic
acid; namely tartaric acid and derivatives. (+)-Tartaric acid
(14) provided similar levels of enantioselectivity to serine-
derived catalyst 11 (entry 8); however, conversion of one of
the hydroxy groups to an ester (15) ablated selectivity
(entry 9). Alternatively, amides of tartaric acid (16–19)
provided the highest enantioselectivities in the reaction
(entries 10–13) and were thusly selected as the catalyst
design for further investigation.
The addition of vinyl- and aryl-based nucleophiles to this
class of electrophiles give rise to chiral chromene products[10]
that could readily be utilized in the synthesis of benzopyran-
containing natural products (Scheme 1) such as epigallocate-
chin-3-gallate, a nutraceutical with potent antioxidant proper-
ties,[11] procyanidin B2, a proapoptotic polyphenol,[12] myris-
tinin A, an inhibitor of DNA polymerase B,[13] and the
antibacterial fungal metabolite aposphaerin A.[14] A general
synthetic method to access this structural class in enantioen-
riched form would be attractive.[15] Herein, we describe the
development of an enantioselective boronate addition to
chromene acetals catalyzed by a chiral Brønsted acid/metal
salt Lewis acid system.
[*] P. N. Moquist, Dr. T. Kodama, Prof. Dr. S. E. Schaus
Department of Chemistry, Center for Chemical Methodology and
Library Development at Boston University (CMLD-BU)
Life Science and Engineering Building, Boston University
24 Cummington Street, Boston, MA 02215 (USA)
Fax: (+1)617-353-6466
E-mail: seschaus@bu.edu
[**] This research was supported by the NIH (R01 GM078240) and
Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. T.K. gratefully acknowledges
support as a visiting scientist from Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma
Co., Ltd.
The initial results were promising but far from ideal.
Tartaric acid derived amides[16] were an excellent starting
point as asymmetric catalysts but despite relatively high
Supporting information for this article is available on the WWW
under http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.201003469.
7096
ꢀ 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 7096 –7100

Angewandte
Chemie
Table 1: Acid-catalyzed addition of boronate 5 to 2-ethoxy-2H-chromene
(4).[a]
Table 2: Use of Lewis acids in the addition of boronates to 2-ethoxy-2H-
chromene (4).[a]
Entry Mol% 16 Metal salt mol% Solvent T [8C] Yield[b] e.r.[c]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
30
30
30
30
30
5
5
5
5
5
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
EtOAc
PhCH3
THF
20 44% 83:17
20 72% 80:20
20 <5% ND
20 51% 82:18
20 45% 84:16
20 54% 94:6
20 18% 84:16
CH2Cl2
EtOAc
EtOAc
EtOAc
EtOAc
EtOAc
EtOAc
EtOAc
Zn(OTf)2 30
Zn(OTf)2 4.5
Zn(OTs)2 4.5
Zn(TFA)2 4.5
Sc(OTf)3 4.5
Ce(OTf)4 4.5
Ce(OTf)4 4.5
Ce(OTf)4 4.5
Ce(OTf)4 4.5
Yb(OTf)3 4.5
Ce(OTf)3 4.5
20 8%
65:35
9
20 18% 66:34
20 65% 97.5:2.5
20 <2% ND
Entry
Catalyst
Yield[b]
e.r.[c]
10
11
12
13
14
15
–
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
AcOH (7)
TFA (8)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
33%
43%
50%
26%
55%
38%
46%
81%
59%
44%
0%
–
–
EtOAc À20 75% 97.5:2.5
EtOAc À40 83% 99:1
EtOAc À40 87% 98.5:1.5
EtOAc À40 78% 96:4
59:41
50:50
63:37
54:46
66:34
63:37
55:45
83:17
–
5
[a] Reactions were run with 0.50 mmol chromene 4, 0.75 mmol boronate
5, 16, and metal salt in solvent (1 mL) for 16 h at the indicated
temperature under Ar, followed by flash chromatography on silica gel.
[b] Yield of isolated product. [c] Enantiomeric ratios determined by HPLC
analysis using a chiral stationary phase. ND=not determined.
was substantially better than the more commonly employed
triflate salt Sc(OTf)3 (entry 9). However, the use of Ce-
54%
40%
82:18
81:19
[21]
(OTf)4
resulted in a substantially improved reaction
[a] Reactions were run with 0.50 mmol chromene 4, 0.75 mmol boronate
5, and 0.15 mmol catalyst in EtOAc (1 mL) for 16 h at room temperature
under Ar, followed by flash chromatography on silica gel. [b] Yield of
isolated product. [c] Enantiomeric ratios determined by HPLC analysis
using a chiral stationary phase.
obtaining good yields and the highest enatioselectivities
(39:1 e.r., entry 10).
The omission of acid catalyst 16 resulted in almost no
conversion indicating that the primary mode of enantioselec-
tive catalysis had not changed (entry 11). Lower temperatures
improved the chemo- and enantioselectivity of the reaction
(entries 12 and 13) while CeIII, CeIV, and YbIII triflate salts all
gave comparably high yields and enantioselectivities. At the
conclusion of the initial optimization studies, we had identi-
fied a set of conditions that utilized a chiral Brønsted acid/
metal triflate Lewis acid catalytic system to achieve a highly
enantioselective reaction.
The Brønsted acid/Lewis acid catalytic reaction condi-
tions proved general for a range of boronate additions to
chromene acetals. However, optimal yields and selectivities
required further experimentation and were found to be
dependent on the electronic nature of the chromene acetal
and boronate employed in the reaction. The parameters used
to moderate the reaction were temperature, catalyst identity
and concentration, and tBuOH (an additive that decreases the
rate of starting material decomposition, but unfortunately,
also the rate of the addition reaction). For example, reactions
using less reactive boronates could be executed at 48C,
whereas more reactive boronates required lower temper-
atures (À408C) and the addition of tBuOH to attenuate the
reactivity (Table 3, entries 1 and 2). Similar observations were
made of electron-deficient and electron-rich chromene ace-
catalyst concentrations, the enantioselectivities were moder-
ate and catalytic efficiency low. Solvent selection could
provide some increase in catalysis but failed to give rise to
correspondingly higher levels of enantioselectivity (Table 2,
entries 1–4). We postulated that the addition of a metal-
derived Lewis acid would increase the catalytic efficiency of
the Brønsted acid catalyst. A concept pioneered by Yama-
moto et al., Lewis acid assisted Brønsted acids[17] were
originally developed for enantioselective protonation reac-
tions.[18] Furthermore, Lewis acids are capable of facilitating
allylboration reactions according to observations made in the
groups of Hall,[19] Ishiyama, and Miyaura.[20] The addition of
Zn(OTf)2 to the reaction of 4 and 5 in the presence of acid 16
resulted in a slight increase in selectivity but almost no change
in the yield of the isolated product (Table 2, entry 5). A
noticeable change to the reaction was significant levels of
decomposition; the additional Lewis acid either degraded the
starting material or product. Reducing the amount of the
Brønsted acid/Lewis acid combination resulted in a substan-
tial increase in the enantioselectivity of the reaction and a
slight increase in yield, again due to decomposition (entry 6).
The triflate counterion appeared to be the best and Zn(OTf)2
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 7096 –7100
ꢀ 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.angewandte.org 7097

Communications
tals (entries 5–8). However, good yields and high enantiose-
Studies were performed to ascertain the roles of the
catalysts and the species formed during the course of the
reaction. First, the addition of boronate 5 to diol 16 results in
an exchange process to form the dioxaborolane 34 (Figure 1).
1H NMR analysis of the catalyst–boronate complex 34
illustrated the methine protons, doublets at d = 4.87 and
4.46 ppm, shifted downfield to d = 5.62 and 5.29 ppm within
2 min of boronate addition. Direct injection electron spray
ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) analysis of the
complex detected the sodium salt dioxaborolane 35 (calcu-
lated [MÀH+Na]: 463.2; measured: 463.7). The spectroscopic
and spectrometric evidence supported the formation of
dioxoborolane 35; however, the role of the carboxylic acid
and amide moieties was not clear. While the carboxylic acid is
necessary for catalysis (Table 1, entry 11), a structural or
catalytic role could not be discerned. Although there was
evidence for dioxaborolane 34, the possibility remained that
the dioxaborolane might be forming by exchange with one of
lectivities were achieved with alkenyl boronate nucleophiles
(entries 1–8). Aryl boronates proved to be less reactive and
required activating groups on the aromatic ring such as
methoxy substitution. Higher catalyst loadings were used to
achieve the desired reaction rates, but increased catalyst
concentrations also led to product decomposition. The
addition of tBuOH tempered the amount of decomposition
observed (entries 9–14). Oxygenation of the chromene acetal
led to low reaction yields and selectivities with the addition of
aryl boronates. However, the donating capability of the
oxygen substitution could be attenuated using a dimethyl
carbamate rather than a methoxy group achieving good yields
and high selectivities in the addition reaction (entries 13 and
14). While no single set of reaction conditions were applicable
to all of the substrates evaluated, an optimal set could be
identified for each substrate based on an understanding of the
reactivity.
Table 3: Enantioselective addition of boronates to 2-ethoxy-2H-chromenes.[a]
Entry Product
1
Conditions T [8C] Yield e.r.
Entry Product
Conditions T [8C] Yield e.r.
A
B
4
4
77% 87.0:13.0
72% 94.0:6.0
A
4
71% 96.5:3.5
8
9
A
B
À40 92% 88.0:12.0
À40 71% 98.5:1.5
A
D
4
4
75% 86.0:14.0
72% 95.5:4.5
2
3
4
5
6
A
4
60% 98.5:1.5
A
B
À20 75% 99.0:1.0 10
À40 77% 99.5:0.5 11
D
À10 71% 98.5:1.5
A
D
4
4
50% 97.5:2.5
68% 97.5:2.5
A
C
10 59% 93.0:7.0
12
A
D
4
4
75% 97.0:3.0
85% 97.0:3.0
20 79% 96.0:4.0
A
D
4
4
40% 96.0:4.0
71% 97.0:3.0
A
C
À20 74% 96.0:4.0 13
7
4
70% 91.0:9.0 14
D
À10 75% 95.0:5.0
[a] Reactions listed under Condition A were run with 1.5 equiv boronate, 5 mol% 16, and 4.5 mol% Ce(OTf)4; those under Condition B were run with 1.5 equiv
boronate, 5 mol% 16, 4.5 mol% Ce(OTf)4, and 1 equiv tBuOH; those under Condition C were run with 1.5 equiv boronate, 5 mol% 16, 4.5 mol% Yb(OTf)3, and
1 equiv tBuOH; those under Condition D were run with 3.0 equiv boronate, 10 mol% 16, and 9.0 mol% Yb(OTf)3 except entry 14 which was run with
4.0 equivboronate, 15 mol% 16, and 13.5 mol% Yb(OTf)3.
7098 www.angewandte.org
ꢀ 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 7096 –7100

Angewandte
Chemie
Figure 1. Characterization of boronate 34. Formation of boronate 34 was accomplished by addition of boronate 5 in a solution of ethyl acetate to
a solution of acid 16 in CDCl3 at room temperature. The 1H NMR chemical shift change of Ha and Hb to Hc and Hd indicates the formation of
boronate 34. Analysis of the reaction mixture using electron spray ionization mass spectrometry resulted in the characterization of sodium salt
35. In situ IR spectroscopic analysis of the reaction indicated only minor shifts in the carbonyl absorbance (16: acid 1757 cmÀ1, amide 1653 cmÀ1
34: acid 1765 cmÀ1, amide 1659 cmÀ1). Bn=benzyl, Ph=phenyl.
;
the alcohols and the carboxylate.[22] In situ Fourier transform
infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) was used to characterize the
structure of the dioxaborolane. The catalyst was dissolved in
Lewis acids, the Ce(OTf)4 is likely to bind with the oxygen of
the boronate as well.[23] Detection of the oxocarbenium
species was also performed. Benzopyrylium species exhibit
UV/Vis absorbances at 400–600 nm.[24] The spectroscopic
analysis showed a distinct peak at 449 nm over the course of
time indicating the formation of a pyrylium intermediate.
Kinetic evaluation of the reaction demonstrated a first-order
dependence of tartaramide acid catalyst 16 and Ce(OTf)4,
consistent with the spectroscopic data. Finally, the addition of
chiral dioxoborolane 34 to chromene acetal 4 promoted by
Ce(OTf)4 afforded the addition product 6 in 85% isolated
yield and 98:2 e.r. [Eq. (2)], supporting the intermediacy of 34
in the catalytic process.
=
EtOAc and the C O of the carboxylic acid absorbance was
assigned to 1757 cmÀ1 and the amide was assigned to
1653 cmÀ1 (in situ FT-IR, Figure 1). Boronate 5 and carboxylic
acid 16 were mixed and the carbonyl shifts monitored. The
absorbances did not shift indicating the exchange occurred
exclusively to form dioxoborolane 34. Next, the interaction of
Ce(OTf)4 with 34 was investigated using ESI-MS and FT-IR.
The addition of Ce(OTf)4 to 34 under the reaction conditions
was then analyzed by ESI-MS. A 1:1 complex of 34 and
Ce(OTf)4 was detected (34
+ Ce(OTf)3, mass: 1027).
However, the presence of the complex does not demonstrate
how the Ce(OTf)4 interacts with the dioxaborolane. To
ascertain the type of complexation, in situ FT-IR was used.
To a solution of boronate 34 was added Ce(OTf)4. The
carboxylic acid absorbance did not shift, whereas the amide
began to shift from 1653 to 1609 cmÀ1. Continued addition of
Ce(OTf)4 (> 1 mol equiv) began to affect the carbonyl of the
carboxylic acid. Complexation of the metal appears to be
selective for the amide carbonyl under the reaction condi-
tions, and in line with previous work involving boronates and
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 7096 –7100
ꢀ 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.angewandte.org 7099

Communications
[3] a) S. R. Chemler, W. R. Roush in Modern Carbonyl Chemistry
(Ed.: J. Otera), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2000, chap. 11, p. 403;
b) S. E. Denmark, N. G. Almstead in Modern Carbonyl Chemis-
try (Ed.: J. Otera), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2000, chap. 10,
p. 299.
[4] a) H. C. Brown in Organic Synthesis via Boranes, Wiley-VCH,
Weinheim, 1975; b) D. S. Matteson in Stereodirected Synthesis
with Organoboranes, Springer, Berlin, 1995; c) C. D. Roy, H. C.
Brown, Monatsh. Chem. 2007, 138, 879 – 887.
[5] a) N. A. Petasis, I. Akritopoulou, Tetrahedron Lett. 1993, 34,
583 – 586; b) N. A. Petasis, Aust. J. Chem. 2007, 60, 795 – 798.
[6] a) R. T. Wu, J. M. Chong, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 4908 –
4909; b) T. A. Mitchell, J. W. Bode, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131,
18057 – 18058.
[7] a) S. Lou, P. N. Moquist, S. E. Schaus, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006,
128, 12660 – 12661; b) J. A. Bishop, S. Lou, S. E. Schaus, Angew.
Chem. 2009, 121, 4401 – 4404; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48,
4337 – 4340.
Scheme 2. Proposed catalytic cycle.
[8] a) H. Oguri, S. Tanaka, T. Oishi, M. Hirama, Tetrahedron Lett.
2000, 41, 975 – 978; b) S. E. Reisman, A. G. Doyle, E. N.
Jacobsen, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 7198 – 7199; c) U.
Schneider, H. T. Dao, S. Kobayashi, Org. Lett., 2010, 12, 2488 –
2491.
Our preliminary studies indicate a possible catalytic cycle
(Scheme 2). The catalytic cycle begins with the formation of
dioxaborolane 34 from the boronate and tartaramide acid 16.
The addition of Lewis acid to complex 34 enhances the acidity
of the boronate. Thusly with the addition of chromene acetal,
the boronate serves to facilitate pyrylium formation concom-
itant with generation of boronate 36. Activation through
formation of the “ate” complex 36 leads to the nucleophilic
addition of the styryl group to the electrophile. Nucleophilic
delivery serves to provide the necessary reservoir of tartar-
amide acid 16 for re-entry into the catalytic cycle. The
proposed activation of the boronate accounts for the enhanc-
ing role of the Lewis acid, although not crucial for reactivity
and is consistent with the spectroscopic, spectrometric, and
kinetic studies. Continued investigations focus on the physical
characteristics of boronate 34, the mode of enantioselectivity,
and the catalytic turnover processes.
[9] R. Doodeman, F. P. J. T. Rutjes, H. Hiemstra, Tetrahedron Lett.
2000, 41, 5979 – 5983.
[10] a) J. P. A. Harrity, D. S. La, D. R. Cefalo, M. S. Visser, A. H.
Hoveyda, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 2343 – 2351; b) P. Wipf,
W. S. Weiner, J. Org. Chem. 1999, 64, 5321 – 5324.
[11] a) J. Jankun, S. H. Selman, R. Swiercz, E. Skrzypczak-Jankun,
Nature 1997, 387, 561; b) G. D. Stoner, H. Mukhtar, J. Cell.
Biochem. 1995, 59, 169 – 180.
[12] a) L. Y. Foo, L. J. Porter, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans. 1 1983,
1535 – 1543; b) G. Williamson, C. Manach, Am. J. Clin. Nutr.
2005, 81, 243S-255S.
[13] a) S. Sawadjoon, P. Kittakoop, K. Kirtikara, V. Vichai, M.
Tanticharoen, Y. Thebtaranonth, J. Org. Chem. 2002, 67, 5470 –
5475; b) J.-Z. Deng, S. R. Starck, S. Li, S. M. Hecht, J. Nat. Prod.
2005, 68, 1625 – 1628.
[14] U. Albrecht, M. Lalk, P. Langer, Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2005, 13,
1531 – 1536.
In summary, we have developed a dual catalyst system for
the enantioselective addition of boronates to oxoniums. The
catalyst system is a tartaric acid derived Brønsted acid used in
conjunction with a lanthanide triflate Lewis acid used in
catalytic amounts to promote the enantioselective addition of
alkenyl and aryl boronates to chromene acetals. The reaction
was optimized for a range of chromene acetals possessing
both electron-deficient and electron-rich substitution pat-
terns. Mechanistic studies demonstrate an exchange process
leading to a reactive dioxoborolane intermediate. Ongoing
studies include further mechanistic investigations, expansion
of the scope, and utility for the synthesis of natural products.
[15] a) B. M. Trost, F. D. Toste, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 9074 –
9075; b) K. J. Hodgetts, Tetrahedron Lett. 2000, 41, 8655 – 8659;
c) M. M. Biddle, M. Lin, K. A. Scheidt, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007,
129, 3830 – 3831; M. M. Biddle, M. Lin, K. A. Scheidt, J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 3830 – 3831.
[16] Y. Dobashi, S. Hara, J. Org. Chem. 1987, 52, 2490 – 2496.
[17] H. Yamamoto, K. Futatsugi, Angew. Chem. 2005, 117, 1958 –
1977; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2005, 44, 1924 – 1942.
[18] K. Ishihara, M. Kaneeda, H. Yamamoto, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1994,
116, 11179 – 11180.
[19] J. W. J. Kennedy, D. G. Hall, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 11586 –
11587.
[20] T. Ishiyama, T. Ahiko, N. Miyaura, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124,
12414 – 12415.
[21] D. A. Evans, H.-J. Song, K. R. Fandrick, Org. Lett. 2006, 8, 3351 –
3354.
Received: June 7, 2010
Published online: August 18, 2010
[22] T. A. Houston, S. M. Levonis, M. J. Kiefel, Aust. J. Chem. 2007,
60, 811 – 815.
[23] a) V. Rauniyar, D. G. Hall, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 4518 –
4519; b) K. Sakata, H. Fujimoto, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130,
12519 – 12526.
Keywords: asymmetric catalysis · boronates · Brønsted acids ·
enantioselective synthesis · natural products
.
[1] D. G. Hall in Boronic Acids. Preparations and Applications in
Organic Synthesis and Medicine, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2005.
[2] a) N. Miyaura, A. Suzuki, Chem. Rev. 1995, 95, 2457 – 2483;
b) S. V. Ley, A. W. Thomas, Angew. Chem. 2003, 115, 5558 –
5607; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 5400 – 5449.
[24] A. R. Katritzky, P. Czerney, J. R. Levell, W. Du, Eur. J. Org.
Chem. 1998, 2623 – 2629.
7100 www.angewandte.org
ꢀ 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 7096 –7100