construction of the tetrahydrofuran had to be put into practice
(Scheme 2). At first, the absolute configuration at C13 was
set by a CBS reduction of the enone 19 which delivered the
corresponding allylic alcohol in 72% yield (dr >95/5) after
chromatographic separation of the minor diastereomer (crude
product dr ) 9/1). Chemoselective cleavage of the TBS ether
then provided the diol 20 which was epoxidized with
m-CPBA25 to deliver a 3/2 mixture of the corresponding
diastereomeric oxiranes in 95% yield. Attempts to improve
the diastereoselectivity of the substrate-directed epoxidation
were unsuccessful; the VO(acac)2/t-BuOOH epoxidation26
favored the formation of the undesired diastereomer (dr )
15:85), and the outcome of a Katsuki-Sharpless asymmetric
epoxidation (SAE)27 (L-(+)-DIPT, Ti(O-i-Pr)4, t-BuOOH)
was dedicated by an unfortunate divergent interplay of
substrate- and catalyst-induced diastereoselectivity (dr ) 1:1).
Subsequent treatment of the 3/2 diastereomeric mixture from
the Prileschajew epoxidation with (+)-10-camphorsulfonic
acid (CSA)28 in acetone provided, after chromatographic
separation, the desired C8-C18 segment 3 (55%) as well
as the acetonide 21 (37%); 21 was formed from the diol
which resulted from the SNi ring-opening of the undesired
diastereomer of the epoxidation. The configuration of the
newly generated stereogenic carbon atoms was deduced from
NOE experiments.
Scheme 2
In order to gain insights into the reason(s) for the
remarkable diastereomer-differentiating acetalization, DFT
calculations using the functionals B1B95,29 M05-2X30
(hybrid meta-GGA), and B3LYP31 (hybrid GGA) were
performed for the model systems II and III (Figure 2).32
Geometry optimization and harmonic vibrational frequency
calculations were realized using the 6-311++G(d,p) basis
set. System II represents a simplification of the experimen-
tally observed acetonide 21, and system III was used as a
model for the inaccessible acetonide of the diol 3; in both
cases, the C8-C10 and the C16-C18 appendixes were
replaced by a methyl group in order to limit the computa-
tional cost. In support of the experimental observation, the
B3LYP calculations then demonstrate that the cis-
bicyclo[4.3.0]nonane-like model II is 1.6 kcal/mol more
stable than the trans-annulated model acetal III. Notably,
our B3LYP computations predict a more pronounced dipole
moment for the cis-annulated acetal II (2.4 D) compared to
III (1.3 D); therefore, the enthalpic preference for the
the corresponding aldehyde. Using the aldehyde as an
electrophile toward lithiated trimethyl phosphonate furnished
a ꢀ-hydroxy phosphonate that was oxidized12 to deliver the
ꢀ-keto phosphonate 17. Subsequent HWE reaction between
17 and the aldehyde 1822,23 (TPS ) t-BuPh2Si) using
Paterson conditions24 afforded the C8-C18 building block
19 in a remarkable yield.
(25) Prileschajew, N. Ber. Dtsch. Chem. Ges. 1909, 42, 4811–4815.
(26) (a) Sheng, M. N.; Zajacek, J. G. J. Org. Chem. 1970, 35, 1839–
1843. (b) Sharpless, K. B.; Michaelson, R. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1973, 95,
6136–6137.
(27) Katsuki, T.; Sharpless, K. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1980, 102, 5974–
5976.
With a concise synthesis of the carbon backbone of the
C8-C18 segment 3 in place, the projected key steps for the
(28) (a) Fukuyama, T.; Wang, C.-L. J.; Kishi, Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1979, 101, 260–262. (b) Xiong, Z.; Corey, E. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000,
122, 4831–4832. (c) Xiong, Z.; Busch, R.; Corey, E. J. Org. Lett. 2010,
12, 1512–1514. (d) Tanimoto, N.; Gerritz, S. W.; Sawabe, A.; Noda, T.;
Filla, S. A.; Masamune, S. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1994, 33, 673–
675.
(22) Prepared in four steps from 11; see: (a) Lin, N.-H.; Overman, L. E.;
Rabinowitz, M. H.; Robinson, L. A.; Sharp, M. J.; Zablocki, J. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1996, 118, 9062–9072. (b) Mulzer, J.; Langer, O. J. Org. Chem. 2000,
65, 6540–6546 (enantiomer). (c) Evans, D. A.; Bender, S. L.; Morris, J.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110, 2506–2526. (d) Gramatica, P.; Manitto, P.;
Monti, D.; Speranza, G. Tetrahedron 1988, 44, 1299–1304. Experimental
details are provided in the Supporting Information.
(29) Becke, A. D. J. Chem. Phys. 1996, 104, 1040–1046.
(30) Zhao, Y.; Truhlar, D. G. Org. Lett. 2006, 8, 5753–5755.
(31) (a) Becke, A. D. J. Chem. Phys. 1993, 98, 5648–5652. (b) Lee, C.;
Yang, W.; Parr, R. G. Phys. ReV. B 1988, 37, 785–789.
(32) The calculations were carried out with Gaussian03, see: Frisch,
M. J. Gaussian 03, reVision E.01; Gaussian, Inc.: Wallingford, CT, 2004.
Full reference given in the Supporting Information.
(23) Keyling-Bilger, F.; Schmitt, G.; Beck, A.; Luu, B. Tetrahedron
1996, 52, 14891–14904
.
(24) Paterson, I.; Yeung, K.-S.; Smaill, J. B. Synlett 1993, 774–776.
5260
Org. Lett., Vol. 12, No. 22, 2010