Scheme 1. Organocatalytic Synthesis of R-Amino-γ-lactone 11
solution and Boc N-protection cleanly afforded the desired
amino ester 10. Refluxing 10 in 6 M HCl for 24 h then
produced the expectedγ-lactone 11. Further derivatization
with Marfey’s reagent, and analysis with naturally derived
material, indicated 3 to be (2S,3R).
Figure 1. Structures of Marfey’s reagent, amino acid, and fatty
acid components of the natural product including the two
nonproteinogenic amino acids 3 and 4.
Due to the practical limitations and inefficiencies of
reported routes to selected diastereomers of the amino
acid 4,9 we designed a general strategy to provide all four
diastereomers of 4 via a stereoselective dihydroxylation of
a cis or trans olefin (cf. 15).10 The specific methodology
developed to obtain the naturally occurring isomer in 1 is
shown in Scheme 2. Thus the propargylic PMB ether 12
was activated with methyl chloroformate 13 to generate
1411 for a carefully controlled Michael addition of Me2-
CuLi to afford the Z-olefin 1512 exclusively. Sharpless
asymmetric dihydroxylation of 15 then gave the diol 16
in 82% ee.13 Cyclic sulfate formation to 17 (using SOCl2
and then RuCl3ꢀNaIO4 oxidation)14 followed by regiose-
lective azide opening and acidic hydrolysis afforded the
azido alcohol 18.
24 h, and the hydrolyzed amino acid mixture was deriva-
tized with either UV-active CbzCl or Marfey’s reagent.4
The lipid portion 5 did not survive the 6 M HCl treatment,
and attemptstohydrolyzethe acidunder milder conditions
were unsuccessful. However, the aspartic acid (2) in the
natural product was recovered and readily assigned as the
L-isomer (S). This was achieved by comparison of the
HPLC retention time and MS of the Marfey’s derivatized
hydrolysis products with authentic standards of L- and D-
aspartic acid (see Supporting Information).
Our initial analysis of the LC-MS data of the hydrolysis
mixture failed to identifiy derivatives of 3. However, NMR
and ESI-MS analysis of a Cbz N-protected isolate indi-
cated that the carboxylic acid 3 had cyclized to a γ-lactone
during hydrolysis. The lactone 11 was thus isolated after
basifying the acidic aqueous phase and extracting with
CHCl3. This conveniently allowed a trans relative stereo-
chemistry to be assigned to the isolated lactone 11 by 1H
NMR and NOE experiments (1JHR/β 12 Hz).5 A Marfey’s
derivative was then formed from naturally isolated 11.
To determine the absolute stereochemistry of 11 and
provide further evidence for the cyclization process, an
expedient synthetic route was designed (Scheme 1). Thus,
the L-proline catalyzed Mannich reaction6 between butan-
2-one (6) and the imine 7 generated the syn-adduct 8 in
99% ee. Although Wittig-type reactions failed, presum-
ably due to the sterics of R-methylation, standard Tebbe
treatment7 of the keto-ester 8 produced the olefin 9 chemo-
selectively in 45% yield.
After extensive studies to convert 18 to 20, we found that
the tertiary alcohol of 18 first needed TES protection
before oxidation of the PMB-protected alcohol. However,
the PMB deprotection step also needed care and DDQ
oxidative removal to 19 required buffered pH 7.5.15 In
both cases, undesired lactone formation could be cir-
cumvented, and the best oxidation sequence for 19 was
16
achieved by using TEMPO combined with PhI(OAc)2
(9) Wehbe, J.; Kassem, T.; Rolland, V.; Rolland, M.; Tabcheh, M.;
Roumestant, M. L.; Martinez, J. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2003, 1, 1938–
1942.
(10) Stereodivergent synthesis of all diastereomers of 16 will be
reported elsewhere.
(11) Takemura, A.; Fujiwara, K.; Shimawaki, K.; Murai, A.; Kawai,
H.; Suzuki, T. Tetrahedron 2005, 61, 7392–7419.
(12) Leonard, M. S.; Carroll, P. J.; Joullie, M. M. J. Org. Chem. 2004,
69, 2526–2531.
Next, deprotection of the amino p-methoxyphenyl
(PMP)groupwasfound problematic, butreverseaddition8
of compound 9 to a ceric ammonium nitrate (CAN)
(13) Absolute stereochemistry of 16 was confirmed by reduction and
PMB cleavage to its known tetraol: Moen, A. R.; Ruud, K.; Anthonsen,
T. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2007, 2007, 1262–1266.
(4) Marfey, P. Carlsberg Res. Commun. 1984, 49, 591–596.
(5) Jaime, C.; Segura, C.; Dinares, I.; Font, J. J. Org. Chem. 1993, 58,
154–158.
(14) Shao, H.; Goodman, M. J. Org. Chem. 1996, 61, 2582–2583.
(15) Ley, S. V.; Tackett, M. N.; Maddess, M. L.; Anderson, J. C.;
Brennan, P. E.; Cappi, M. W.; Heer, J. P.; Helgen, C.; Kori, M.;
Kouklovsky, C.; Marsden, S. P.; Norman, J.; Osborn, D. P.; Palomero,
M. A.; Pavey, J. B. J.; Pinel, C.; Robinson, L. A.; Schnaubelt, J.; Scott,
J. S.; Spilling, C. D.; Watanabe, H.; Wesson, K. E.; Willis, M. C.
ꢀ
(6) Cοrdova, A.; Notz, W.; Zhong, G.; Betancort, J. M.; Barbas,
~
C. F., III. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 1842–1843.
(7) Tebbe, F. N.; Parshall, G. W.; Reddy, G. S. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1978, 100, 3611–3613.
Chem.;Eur. J. 2009, 15, 2874–2914.
(8) Overman, L. E.; Owen, C. E.; Pavan, M. M.; Richards, C. J. Org.
Lett. 2003, 5, 1809–1812.
(16) De Mico, A.; Margarita, R.; Parlanti, L.; Vescovi, A.; Piancatelli,
G. J. Org. Chem. 1997, 62, 6974–6977.
Org. Lett., Vol. 14, No. 6, 2012
1561