Communications
DOI: 10.1002/anie.201102092
Alkohol–Carbonyl Interconversion
Controlled Alcohol–Carbonyl Interconversion by Nickel Catalysis**
Takehisa Maekawa, Hiromi Sekizawa, and Kenichiro Itami*
The ability to transform one functional group into another lies
at the heart of organic chemistry. Such functional-group
interconversions do not involve carbon–carbon bond-forming
reactions and are thus seen as less efficient for the con-
struction of complex molecules, however, these interconver-
sions are often critical to “set up” a molecule for such a
transformation. The oxidation of primary and secondary
alcohols (1 and 3) to produce aldehydes (2) and ketones (4)
prior to the addition of organometallic species is a prime
example (Scheme 1). Although this reaction is often essential
alcohol-to-carbonyl transformations are oxidative, the
reverse processes such as carbonyl addition reactions are
reductive in nature. Herein, we report that [Ni(cod)2]/IPr
(cod = 1,5-cyclooctadiene, IPr= 1,3-bis(2,6-diisopropylphe-
nyl)imidazol-2-ylidene) serves as a general catalyst for the
controlled one-pot oxidation–addition of alcohols and car-
bonyl compounds. We demonstrate the feasibility of all
possible multistep transformations in alcohol–carbonyl inter-
conversions (Scheme 1). A one-pot nickel-catalyzed synthesis
of flumecinol (a hepatic microsomal enzyme inducer) is also
described.
As an important progress toward controlled carbonyl–
alcohol interconversions, we recently established that the
[Ni(cod)2]/IPr catalyst promotes the otherwise difficult inter-
molecular 1,2-addition of arylboronate esters to unactivated
ketones and aldehydes.[2] Among the various arylboron
reagents screened, arylboronic acid neopentyl glycol ester
ArB(neo) turned out to be the most reactive. The advantage
of our [Ni–IPr] catalytic system[2] over other transition-metal-
catalyzed organoboron-based 1,2-additions is obvious from
the viewpoint of the substrate scope. While other catalytic
systems are generally only applicable to aldehydes[3] and some
electronically and strain-activated ketones,[4] our [Ni–IPr]
catalysis shows good reactivity not only toward aldehydes but
also toward diaryl, alkyl aryl, and dialkyl ketones under mild
reaction conditions.[2] The high reactivity of our [Ni–IPr]
catalyst might be partly due to the unique Ni0/NiII mechanism
(right-hand catalytic cycle, Scheme 2).
Since many transition-metal complexes are able to
mediate the oxidation of alcohols to aldehydes or ketones,[5]
we envisioned that our nickel catalysis could be extended to a
controlled alcohol–carbonyl interconversion through a one-
pot oxidation–addition with an appropriate combination of
oxidant and organoboron compound. When identifiying a
suitable reagent pair that is capable of achieving this
synthetically useful process, we were particularly attracted
by the reports of Navarro and co-workers who described the
application of [Ni(cod)2]/IPr, which is identical to our
organoboronate addition catalyst, in the oxidation of secon-
dary alcohols to ketones by using chlorobenzene (PhCl) as an
oxidant and KOtBu as a promoter (left-hand catalytic cycle,
Scheme 2).[6–8]
Scheme 1. Interconversion of alcohols and carbonyl compounds
through oxidation and organometallic addition. The Ni/IPr catalyst
described here promotes all possible multistep transformations in one
pot (1!3, 1!4, 1!5, 2!4, 2!5, 3!5).
for the subsequent carbon–carbon bond-forming transforma-
tion, it does add an extra, linear step to the sequence. Thus, we
imagined that performing the two steps, oxidation and
addition, together would greatly simplify synthetic routes by
essentially eliminating the need to carry out a preliminary
oxidation before converting, for example, a primary alcohol
(1) into a secondary alcohol (3), or similarly 3 into a tertiary
alcohol (5).
Numerous practical advantages are associated with such
one-pot multistep alcohol–carbonyl interconversions,[1] but a
uniform methodology has not been developed, partly because
of the incompatibility of the reaction conditions. Whereas
[*] T. Maekawa, H. Sekizawa, Prof. Dr. K. Itami
Department of Chemistry, Graduate School of Science
Nagoya University
We must stress that the merging of these two catalytic
cycles (Scheme 2) is not as straightforward as we initially
surmised. At the outset, there are two critical hurdles to
overcome for our strategy to provide a synthetically useful
protocol for alcohol–carbonyl interconversions: 1) the oxida-
tion of primary alcohols to aldehydes must be achieved
(Navarro and co-workers reported that primary alcohols do
not undergo oxidation under the conditions that they
described)[6] and 2) unwanted side-reactions such as the
Chikusa, Nagoya 464-8602 (Japan)
Fax: (+81)52-788-6098
E-mail: itami.kenichiro@a.mbox.nagoya-u.ac.jp
[**] This work was financially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research from MEXT and JSPS (Japan). We thank Dr. Jean Bouffard
and Prof. Cathleen M. Crudden for fruitful discussions and critical
comments.
Supporting information for this article is available on the WWW
7022
ꢀ 2011 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 7022 –7026