Organic Letters
Letter
2).18 The problem of competing S- vs N-arylation had been
previously noted as a limitation.7e We discovered that the
choice of copper source was important; e.g., an initial screening
showed that the Cu/CuCl system used by Krief and co-
workers19 (Table 1, entry 1) gave the corresponding sulfonium
salt in 40% yield along with N-arylated product, which proved
to be difficult to remove by chromatography. Use of toluene as
solvent gave some product but was less effective than DCE
(entry 2). CuI gave S-selective arylation in Maruoka’s
sulfoximine synthesis20 and also gave high levels of selectivity
in our system (entry 3). Cu(TC) gave slightly reduced levels of
selectivity compared to CuI, with isolation of 2a again proving
problematic (entry 4). Optimization of the copper source
revealed that Cu(OTf)2 produced the desired sulfonium salt 2a
in 69% yield with negligible amounts of competing N-arylation
(entry 5). Using a modification of the copper-free method
developed by Olofsson and co-workers for S-arylation of
thioamides,21 there was no reaction (entry 6). The factors
influencing S- vs N-arylation remain a topic of investigation in
our laboratory.
Using this new S-selective arylation method, various novel
functionalized sulfonium salts 2b−2i were furnished on
multigram scale (Table 2) with no further optimization
required. While the S-arylation of hindered sulfides (1b,c)
was slightly lower yielding, it was pleasing to see that a range of
electronically varied salts 2d−h could be obtained in good-to-
excellent yields. Bromo-substituted salt 2i demonstrated the
potential complementarity of the proposed ligand-coupling
system. Sulfonium salts were bench-stable with no sign of
degradation over a full year.
bipyridines (Table 4). Both electron-rich and electron-poor
systems were well tolerated in different substitution patterns.
Dihalogenated pyridines were competent reaction partners (8,
13, 17, 29, 30). Functional groups such as amines, alkenes,
alkynes, sulfides and acetals were also well tolerated. Thus, a
wide range of further functionalization of the product
bipyridines is possible. Ligand-coupling also proceeded
efficiently in the presence of trifluoromethyl and fluoro groups,
two functionalities that are prevalent in medicinal chemistry.
Another noteworthy feature of the methodology is that it
enables access to underexplored 2,3′-bipyridines which have
potential in medicinal chemistry,23 as ligands,24 and have been
proposed as scaffolds for N2-fixation recently.25 No mod-
ification of conditions was required, and the method did not
seem to suffer from the problem of ligand exchange leading to
undesired 2,2′-bipyridines that had been reported for coupling
with some 3-pyridylsulfoxides8f,11 (it is unclear if Qin’s
sulfoxide method17 suffers from this problem, they report
two examples of 2,3′-bipyridines). The method is comple-
mentary to previously reported methods, and as with any
method there are limitations. In particular, to-date we have
been unable to make 2,4′-bipyridines (whereas Qin17 reports
several successful examples) and certain functional groups are
incompatible with organolithiums (see SI for further details).
Although the method is not “pot-efficient”, we note that the
single set of arylation and coupling conditions will be useful for
library synthesis. By contrast, Qin’s method17 is more “pot-
efficient” but requires different conditions for different
products.
Next, we explored the synthesis of bipyridines through
variation of sulfonium salt coupling partner (Table 4).
Substituted pyridylsulfonium salts 2b−2i were reacted with
various lithiated pyridines. A diverse range of symmetrical and
unsymmetrical bipyridines were synthesized via this method-
ology. Electron-deficient and electron-rich bipyridines could be
accessed successfully with various substitution patterns.
Sterically hindered substituted bipyridines 23−26 could be
accessed with no deleterious effect on yield, demonstrating the
tolerance of sterically hindered ligands in the carbon−carbon
bond formation step. Halogenated bipyridines were also
synthesized, providing functional handles for further derivati-
zation, highlighting the orthogonality of this process. A
limitation was that reactions with nitro-substituted sulfonium
salt 2e gave complex mixtures of products that were difficult to
separate.
With respect to the mechanism, the coupling reaction is
proposed to proceed through the formation of a sulfurane
intermediate: attack of the organolithium species at the
electropositive sulfur center, followed by subsequent ligand-
coupling of the two pyridine units forms the bipyridine
product and phenyltolylsulfide (Scheme 3).8 Sulfuranes
bearing solely carbon substituents have been proposed and
detected previously.2,8 Recently they have been invoked in
aryl−aryl, aryl−vinyl, and vinyl−vinyl couplings.2b,d In our
case, the selectivity for bipyridine formation over pyridyl−aryl
or phenyl−tolyl couplings can be rationalized as follows: the
incoming nucleophile would be expected to occupy an apical
position and ligand coupling with an equatorial pyridine would
be favored over phenyl or tolyl groups.10,11,16 The reaction
pathway may involve pseudorotations if both pyridines occupy
the apical positions in the initially formed intermediate.
Direct SNAr attack could also lead to the formation of the
bipyridine products. An initial probe of this possibility was
With a robust route to pyridylsulfonium salts in hand, we
began investigating the ligand-coupling reaction (Table 3).
Table 3. Ligand-Coupling Optimization
a
Entry
Deviation from standard conditions
Yield (%)
b
1
2
3
4
5
none
90
3-bromopyridine in place of ArI
0.05 M
0.2 M
65
67
69
48
2 equiv of halopyridine
a
b
Spectroscopic yield. Isolated yield.
Reaction conditions were screened using sulfonium salt 2a as
the model substrate and 3-iodopyridine as the coupling
partner. Under the best conditions found, lithiation at −78
°C with n-BuLi22 was followed by the addition of sulfonium
salt 2a and the reaction was left to stir at −78 °C for 2 h. The
corresponding 2,3′-bipyridine 3 was obtained in 90% yield.
Changing to 3-bromopyridine gave a yield of 65% (entry 2).
Varying the concentration from 0.1 to 0.05 or 0.2 M gave
lower yields (entries 3 and 4). Use of two equivalents of
iodopyridine also gave lower yields (entry 5).
Having identified suitable reaction conditions, we began to
explore the functional group tolerance of our system.
Sulfonium salt 2a was subjected to reaction with various
lithiated pyridines to produce a range of 2,2′- and 2,3′-
C
Org. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX