Ph substituent and the alteration to an unsubstituted methylene
bridge in ligand 3 appears to orient the ligand in a less favorable
position in terms of asymmetric induction than can be achieved
with the more conformationally mobile ligand 1. The only
exception to this pattern is with substrate 8, where 58% ee was
achieved using ligand 3.
In an attempt to improve the enantioselectivity of the decom-
position of 8, the reaction conditions were carefully optimized
using ligands 2 and 3 and NaBARF. A range of copper salts
were examined, including CuCl2, Cu(MeCN)4PF6 and Cu(OTf)2,
however no additional positive effect was detected. A change of
reaction solvent to toluene was found to result in a decrease in
overall enantiocontrol.
The experiments summarized in Table 1 involve pre-generation
of the catalytic species for 1.5 h prior to addition of the diazo
sulfone. A number of experiments were conducted where the
diazo compound and catalytic mixture were added directly to the
reaction flask prior to heating to reflux with significant detrimental
effect on the enantioselectivity, but without a noticeable effect on
reaction efficiency. Interestingly, this is in direct contrast to our
earlier reports on C–H insertion to form cyclic sulfones,7 where
preformed catalysts were not necessary to achieve the excellent
enantiopurities observed.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that the use of copper
bis(oxazoline) catalysts, in the presence of the non-coordinating
counterion NaBARF, for C–H insertion reactions with a-diazo-
b-keto sulfones leads to enantioenriched cyclopentanones with
up to 82% ee. The results achieved in this study represent, to
the best of our knowledge, the highest enantioselectivity realised
to date in a copper-mediated C–H insertion cyclopentanone
synthesis. Further investigation is underway to explore substrate,
catalyst, ligand and counterion effects, with a view to deter-
mining the mechanism for asymmetric induction and expand-
ing the scope of this powerful enantioselective C–H insertion
process.
Acknowledgements
Financial support from the Irish Research Council for Science,
Engineering and Technology, and Eli Lilly is gratefully acknowl-
edged.
Notes and References
1 C. N. Slattery, A. Ford and A. R. Maguire, Tetrahedron, 2010, 66,
6681–6705.
2 H. M. L. Davies and R. E. J. Beckwith, Chem. Rev., 2003, 103, 2861–
2904.
3 M. P. Doyle, R. Duffy, M. Ratnikov and L. Zhou, Chem. Rev., 2010,
110, 704–724.
4 A. Demonceau, A. F. Noels, A. J. Hubert and P. Teyssie´, J. Chem. Soc.,
Chem. Commun., 1981, 688–689.
5 P. Mu¨ller and C. Bolea, Molecules, 2001, 6, 258–266.
6 J. M. Fraile, J. I. Garcia, J. A. Mayoral and M. Roldan, Org. Lett., 2007,
9, 731–733.
7 C. J. Flynn, C. J. Elcoate, S. E. Lawrence and A. R. Maguire, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 2010, 132, 1184–1185.
8 M. Honma, T. Sawada, Y. Fujisawa, M. Utsugi, H. Watanabe, A.
Umino, T. Matsumura, T. Hagihara, M. Takano and M. Nakada, J.
Am. Chem. Soc., 2003, 125, 2860–2861.
9 A. M. P. Koskinen and L. Munoz, J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun.,
1990, 652–653.
10 M. Kennedy, M. A. McKervey, A. R. Maguire and G. H. P. Roos, J.
Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun., 1990, 361–362.
11 A. R. Maguire and L. L. Kelleher, Tetrahedron Lett., 1997, 38, 7459–
7462.
12 S. O’Neill, S. O’Keeffe, F. Harrington and A. R. Maguire, Synlett, 2009,
2312–2314.
13 S.-F. Zhu, C. Chen, Y. Cai and Q.-L. Zhou, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.,
2008, 47, 932–934.
14 C. Chen, S.-F. Zhu, B. Liu, L.-X. Wang and Q.-L. Zhou, J. Am. Chem.
Soc., 2007, 129, 12616–12617.
15 B. Liu, S.-F. Zhu, W. Zhang, C. Chen and Q.-L. Zhou, J. Am. Chem.
Soc., 2007, 129, 5834–5835.
16 A. R. Maguire, L. L. Kelleher and G. J. Ferguson, J. Mol. Catal. B:
Enzym., 1996, 1, 115–126.
17 S.-i. Hashimoto, N. Watanabe, T. Sato, M. Shiro and S. Ikegami,
Tetrahedron Lett., 1993, 34, 5109–5112.
18 S.-i. Hashimoto, N. Watanabe and S. Ikegami, Synlett, 1994, 353–355.
This journal is
The Royal Society of Chemistry 2011
Org. Biomol. Chem., 2011, 9, 667–669 | 669
©