10a in 79% yield and in an excellent diastereomeric ratio
of 14:1. X-ray crystallographic analysis of the major
product established the configuration of the major
isomer as the undesired (S,R,R)-isomer (Figure 3).
It was envisaged that use of the pseudoenantiomeric
ligand (DHQ)2-PHAL would furnish the desired (S,S,S)-
isomer. However, replacing (DHQD)2-PHAL with
(DHQ)2-PHAL gave a 6:1 d.r. of lactone 10a again favor-
ing the (S,R,R)-isomer (Table 2, entry 3).
diol. The homogeneous aqueous THF solvent mixture was
therefore changed to a biphasic system. Conducting the
dihydroxylation reaction of 8e in chloroform/pH 7 aque-
ous buffer provided the desired diol ester 9e in 80% yield
(96% based on recovered starting material), with no
lactonization evident (Scheme 3). The diastereoselec-
tivity was the same as that observed in the homogeneous
reaction.
The failure of pseudoenantiomeric ligands to direct
opposite facial selectivity in the dihydroxylation of allylic
N- and O-substituted olefins is a reasonably common
occurrence.15ꢀ17 Screening a range of cinchona-derived
ligands has been shown to overcome such issues,17 and
accordingly a variety of chiral ligands were employed in
AD reactions of the dehydrohomophenylalanine deriva-
tive 8a (Table 2, entries 2ꢀ7). The (DHQD)2-AQN ligand
was the only one to provide even low selectivity in favor of
the (S,S,S)-isomer (dr 1:1.4, entry 4).
Scheme 3
With no discernible trend in the stereoselectivity of the
dihydroxylation reactions of 8a (R = H), it was decided to
examine the corresponding reactions of the dehydroho-
motyrosine derivative 8e (R = OMe) with a range of chiral
ligands (entries 8ꢀ13). To our surprise, use of (DHQD)2-
AQN ; the only ligand to direct selectivity toward the
desired (S,S,S)-isomer of 10a ; resulted in selectivity for
the undesired (S,R,R)-diastereomer of the methoxy-sub-
stituted derivative 10e (dr 9:1, entry 10). Fortunately,
(DHQ)2-PHAL was found to yield the desired (S,S,S)-
configured dihydroxy-homotyrosine lactone 10e with
good selectivity (dr 1:5, entry 9).
It is apparent that several factors are affecting the
stereoselectivity of the dihydroxylation reactions of 8a
and 8e. There are not only different binding interactions
with the different ligands, and matched/mismatched ef-
fects of the ligands with the chiral substrates, but also the
inherent facial bias directed by the allylic stereocenter.18 In
addition, there is the effect of the different substituents
(H vs OMe) on the electronic nature of the olefins. The
subtle interplay of these multiple factors makes it difficult
to interpret the seemingly random nature of the stereo-
selectivities observed under different conditions.
In conclusion, an efficient and stereoselective route to
β,γ-dihydroxyamino acid derivatives has been developed
through a Petasis reactionꢀAD approach that generates
the three contiguous stereocenters in two key steps. The
route was exemplified through synthesis of the β,γ-dihy-
droxyhomotyrosine component of echinocandin B. Im-
portantly, the use of tert-butylsulfinamide as the ‘amine’
component in Petasis reactions with vinylboronic acids
was shown to proceed in excellent yield and stereoselectiv-
ity. Further, the tert-butylsulfinyl group is removed under
mild, acidic conditions that do not affect the olefin, such
that it is available for further elaboration. The judicious
choice of AD reaction conditions to suppress ester hydro-
lysis, epimerization and lactonization enables synthesis of
all isomers of the corresponding syn-β,γ-dihydroxyamino
acid derivatives.
Acknowledgment. The Australian Research Council is
acknowledged for support.
Supporting Information Available. Full experimental
1
details, characterization data, and H and 13C NMR
Next, given that Edagwa and Taylor recently reported
that γ-lactones arising fromβ,γ-dihydroxy amino acids are
unsuitable for incorporation into peptide synthesis,19 con-
ditions were sought that minimized lactonization of the
spectra for all new compounds. This material is available
(18) (a) Krysan, D. J.; Rockway, T. W.; Haight, A. R. Tetrahedron:
Asymmetry 1994, 5, 625. (b) Vedejs, E.; McClure, C. K. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1986, 108, 1094. (c) Houk, K. N.; Moses, l. R.; Wu, Y.-D.; Rondan,
N. G.; Jager, V.; Schohe, R.; Fronczek, F. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984,
106, 3880. (d) Stork, G.; Kahn, M. Tetrahedron Lett. 1983, 24, 3951.
(19) Edagwa, B. J.; Taylor, C. M. J. Org. Chem. 2009, 74, 4132.
(15) Cha, J. K.; Kim, N.-S. Chem. Rev. 1995, 95, 1761.
(16) Thoen, J. C.; Morales-Ramos, A. I.; Lipton, M. A. Org. Lett.
2002, 4, 4455.
(17) Iwashima, M.; Kinsho, T.; Smith, A. B., III. Tetrahedron Lett.
1995, 36, 2199.
Org. Lett., Vol. 13, No. 11, 2011
2903