When amide 12 was treated with KHMDS in THF, it
was cleanly converted to the expected Michael addition
product with complete stereocontrol, yielding the expected
cis-fused adduct. We found it convenient to combine the
Michael addition step, with a tandem enolate allylation
reaction through sequential addition of KHMDS followed
by tosylate 13 and catalytic 18-crown-6. This protocol
allowed the isolation of enol ether 14 in 78% yield, as a
single diastereomer, starting from precursor 12. The
relative stereochemistry of the Michael adduct was un-
equivocally established by single-crystal X-ray crystallo-
graphic analysis on compound 14.15 Heating enol ether 14
in refluxing mesitylene yielded the Claisen product 15 as a
diastereomeric mixture (6:1 dr by 1H NMR) in 63% yield.
Compound 15 was found to be perfectly poised for the
subsequent RCM step. Refluxing 15 in dry CH2Cl2 with
5 mol % of first-generation Grubbs catalyst furnished the
tricyclic core 16 in almost quantitative yield. The diaster-
eomeric excess was not affected by the RCM step, and 16
was isolated as a 6:1 mixture of two separable diastereoi-
somers. Once a robust protocol was established for the
preparation of tricyclic ACD core, we turned our attention
to the possibility of using the RCM step for directly
installing a ketone on the C-10 of the seven-membered
ring. We therefore decided to perform the Michael addi-
tion/allylation cascade in the presence of enol ether 17.
Although proceeding with a lower yield in comparison
with the formation of 14, we were pleased to observe that
the Michael addition/allylation sequence took place with
the desired stereo- and regiocontrol and allowed us to
isolate intermediate 18 in 52% yield.
Scheme 3. Synthesis of Tricyclic Compound 20 via Enol Ether
Ring-Closing Metathesis
product was isolated in 70% yield as a separable mixture of
two diastereomeric products when GrubbsÀHoveyda II was
used in toluene at 85 °C. The use of Grubbs II under similar
reaction conditions was also effective, but proceeded in a
slightly lower yield (61%). To the best of our knowledge, this
is one of the rare examples of enol ether RCM being used for
the construction of a 7-membered ring.17
Finally, we considered the possibility of installing the
two stereocenters at C-6 and C-8 (Scheme 4). The problem
was addressed using tricyclic structure 16, easily available
on a multigram scale using the protocol previously de-
scribed in Scheme 2. Stereo- and regioselective alkylation
of 16 on C-8 proved to be troublesome. Standard Michael
acceptors such as methyl vinyl ketone (MVK) or methyl
acrylate did not react under a variety of conditions.
Furthermore, ketone 16 was surprisingly unreactive to-
ward a variety of common alkylating reagents. We finally
identified that the combination of allyltosylate 13 and
catalytic 18-crown-6 furnished the O-alkylated product
21 in almost quantitative yield and with complete regios-
electivity. Subsequent Claisen rearrangement afforded the
carbon allylated product in good yield and in 2.6:1 dr in
favor of 22. Unfortunately, the two diastereoisomers at
C-8 proved to be very difficult to separate via standard
flash column chromatography. Nevertheless, compound
22 could be isolated in 60% yield. Subsequent Krapcho
dealkoxycarbonylation also proved to be problematic with
a screen of different conditions typically affording the
desired product 25 as the minor diastereoisomer.
Heating a freshly prepared batch of intermediate 18 in
refluxing mesitylene furnished the desired rearranged pro-
duct 19 with the expected regioselectivity in 53% yield
(Scheme 3). In this case, the required reaction time was
longer than in the case of enol ether 14, as expected for allyl
enol ethers with similar substitution patterns.16 The sub-
sequent RCM step did not proceed in the presence of
Grubbs I catalyst (no product was observed in refluxing
CH2Cl2 or in toluene at 85 °C). Pleasingly, the desired
(12) See the Supporting Information for references regarding the
preparation of compound 8.
(13) Parker, K. A.; Fokas, D. J. Org. Chem. 1994, 59, 3933–3938.
(14) Intermediate 9 was always used within 1À2 h from its prepara-
tion, without any purification, and was stored in the dark.
(15) Data were collected at low temperature [Cosier, J.; Glazer, A. M.
J. Appl. Crystallogr. 1986, 19, 105] using an Enraf-Nonius KCCD
diffractometer [Otwinowski, Z.; Minor, W. Processing of X-ray Dif-
fraction Data Collected in Oscillation Mode Methods Enzymol; Carter,
C. W., Sweet, R. M., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, 1997; p 276]. The
crystal structures of 14 and 25 were solved using SIR92 [Altomare, A.;
Cascarano, G.; Giacovazzo, C.; Guagliardi, A.; Burla, M. C.; Polidori,
G. Camalli, M. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 1994, 27, 435] and refined using the
CRYSTALS software suite [Betteridge, P. W.; Carruthers, J. R.;
Cooper, R. I.; Prout, K.; Watkin, D. J. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2003, 36,
1487], and H atoms were treated in the usual manner [Cooper, R. I.;
Thompson, A. L.; Watkin, D. J. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2010, 43, 1100] as
per the Supporting Information (CIF). Crystallographic data (excluding
structure factors) for 14 and 25 have been deposited with the Cambridge
Crystallographic Data Centre (CCDC 838995 and 838996), and copies
data_request/cif.
(17) For an example of enol ether RCM in natural product total
€
synthesis, see: Oliver, S. F.; Hogenauer, K.; Simic, O.; Antonello, A.;
Smith, M. D.; Ley, S. V. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 5996–6000.
For representative examples of cyclic enol ether synthesis through olefin
metathesis reactions, see: (a) Fujimura, O.; Fu, G. C.; Grubbs, R. H.
J. Org. Chem. 1994, 59, 4029–4031. (b) Sturino, C. F.; Wong, J. C. Y.
Tetrahedron Lett. 1998, 39, 9623–9626. (c) Clark, J. S.; Kettle, J. G.
Tetrahedron 1999, 55, 8231–8248. (d) Rainier, J. D.; Allwein, S. P.; Cox,
J. M. J. Org. Chem. 2001, 66, 1380–1386. (e) Liu, L.; Postema, M. H. D.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 8602–8603. (f) Sutton, A. E.; Seigal, B. A.;
Finnegan, D. F.; Snapper, M. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 13390–
13391. (g) Hekking, K. F. W.; van Delft, F. L.; Rutjes, F. P. J. T.
Tetrahedron 2003, 59, 6751–6758. (h) Lee, A.-L.; Malcolmson, S. J.;
Puglisi, A.; Schrock, R. R.; Hoveyda, A. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128,
5153–5157.
(16) Martın Castro, A. M. Chem. Rev. 2004, 104, 2939–3002 and
´
references cited therein.
5134
Org. Lett., Vol. 13, No. 19, 2011