investigated next. Amide 3 and carbamate 4 were both found
to require much longer reaction times (entries 9 and 10) than
sulfonamide 2.
Table 2. Scope of the Reaction
The observation that strong or weak bases do not provide
an effective conversion while intermediate ones are remark-
ably efficient is noteworthy.2d Presumably, the role of the
base in this reaction is 2-fold: (1) to generate the carbene
catalyst and (2) to activate the sulfonamide leaving group
through hydrogen bonding via its conjugate acid (Figure 1).7
Figure 1. Proposed mode of hydrogen bonding activation.
Thus, the base needs to be strong enough to deprotonate the
triazolium precatalyst but weak enough for its conjugate acid
to participate in hydrogen bonding catalysis.8
The synthesis of functionalized N-Ts lactams was then
investigated with the optimized conditions (Table 2). The
model substrate 2 furnished the desired lactam in high yield
(entry 1). Prolinal derivatives with substituents at the 3, 4,
or 5 position were efficiently converted to the corresponding
lactams (entries 2-4). Surprisingly, substrate 11 resulted in
a lower yield and the presence of numerous side products
(entry 5). The sluggish reaction rates of aldehydes 8, 10,
and 11 were initially thought to be a result of the relative
configuration of the substituents; however, aliquots taken
from the reaction mixture indicated that the reactivity of each
diastereomer is similar (entries 2, 4, and 5). The reason
behind the inefficient transformation of 11 could be that of
functional group incompatibility (vide infra).
Intrigued by the postulated hydrogen bonding effect of
the conjugate acid, we then examined the importance of the
electron-withdrawing group. If the nitrogen-containing func-
tional group is indeed activated through hydrogen bonding,
the electron-withdrawing group may not be necessary at all.
If this hypothesis holds true, simple amines should form
stronger hydrogen bonds than sulfonamides, making them
a Unless otherwise noted, all reactions were performed using racemic
susbtrate (see Supporting Information for details). b Yield of isolated, pure
product. c Enantiomerically enriched substrate (>99% ee) was used.
viable leaving groups. To our delight, the reaction with
N-benzyl prolinal 16 quickly furnished the desired lactam
in quantitative yield following a simple filtration of the crude
reaction mixture through a short pad of silica (Table 3, entry
1). In contrast to previously reported NHC-catalyzed redox
amidation reactions using aliphatic amines, no nucleophilic
cocatalyst or additive is required for this methodology.2k,l
Presumably, the tethered secondary amine released during
the catalytic cycle rapidly undergoes lactamization before
any side reaction or inhibition can take place.
Intrigued with the result obtained with the N-alkyl
substrate, we investigated the scope and limitations of the
reaction (Table 3). The use of substituents bearing silyl
protecting groups is well tolerated, furnishing the desired
lactam in high yield (entry 2). As was also observed for N-Ts
substrate 11, the 5-benzyloxymethyl substituent in 18 resulted
in a sluggish reaction and the formation of unidentified side
products (entry 3). In contrast, the allyl substituent at the
same position is well tolerated (entry 4). Thus, benzyl ethers
do not appear to be compatible with these reaction conditions,
although the reason for this incompatibility is not clear at
the moment. Interestingly, both cis and trans diastereomers
of substrates with a substituent at position 5 were consumed
at similar rates (entries 3 and 4). Whereas the attempted
formation of seven-membered lactam 27 only provided a
(5) (a) Fraser, R. R.; Mansour, T. S.; Savard, S. J. Org. Chem. 1985,
50, 3232–3234. (b) Rodima, T.; Kaljurand, I.; Pihl, A.; Ma¨emets, V.; Leito,
I.; Koppel, I. A. J. Org. Chem. 2002, 67, 1873–1881.
(6) (a) Perrin, D. D. Dissociation Constants of Organic Bases in Aqueous
Solution; Butterworths: London, 1965. (b) Smith, M. B.; March, J. March’s
AdVanced Organic Chemistry; Wiley: NY, 2007.
(7) For computational evidence of hydrogen bonding activation of
substrates in an NHC-catalyzed reaction, see: (a) Dudding, T.; Houk, K. N.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2004, 101, 5770–5775. For other examples
of catalytic hydrogen bonding or Lewis acid activation of substrates in NHC-
promoted umpolung reactions, see: (b) Mennen, S. M.; Blank, J. T.; Tran-
Dube´, M. B.; Imbriglio, J. E.; Miller, S. J. Chem. Commun. 2005, 195–
197. (c) Mattson, A. E.; Zuhl, A. M.; Reynolds, T. E.; Scheidt, K. A. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 4932–4933. (d) O’Toole, S. E.; Connon, S. J. Org.
Biomol. Chem. 2009, 7, 3584–3593. (e) Cardinal-David, B.; Raup, D. E. A.;
Scheidt, K. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 5345–5347. (f) Raup, D. E. A.;
Cardinal-David, B.; Holte, D.; Scheidt, K. A. Nature Chem. 2010, 2, 766–
771.
(8) For a discussion of hydrogen bonding in sulfonamides, see: Ads-
mond, D. A.; Grant, D. J. W. J. Pharm. Sci. 2001, 90, 2058–2077.
5710
Org. Lett., Vol. 12, No. 24, 2010