the fully unprotected RG-I tetrasaccharide and its di-
methyl ester. Interestingly, the initial attempt to couple a
galactorhamnosyl disaccharide donor to the galactose of a
disaccharide acceptor failed due to a lack of reactivity,
forcing the authors to change the strategyand assemble the
RG-I tetrasaccharide through galactosylation instead of
rhamnosylation. The potential of this methodology for
iterative elongation of the oligosaccharide chain was de-
monstrated by preparation of a fully protected analog of
the native hexasaccharide, containing both galactose and
galacturonic acid residues.
Figure 1. Structure of the hexasaccharide fragment of RG-I.
hexamers, have been prepared by different approaches.
Someof thestrategiesused galacturonic acidasthestarting
material, while others favored the oxidation of galactose to
galacturonic acid at a late stage, i.e., pre- and postglyco-
sylationꢀoxidation strategies, respectively. Reimer and
co-workers4 reported the synthesis of a protected tetra-
saccharide containing galactose instead of galacturonic
acid as an intermediate for the preparation of RG-I
fragments. The protective group pattern was designed to
allow for further chain elongation and introduction of
branching. It was envisioned that the global deprotection
and oxidation of the primary hydroxyl groups of the
galactose units would furnish the native oligosaccharides.
In later work, the group synthesized the fully unprotected
methyl glycoside of an RG-I tetrasaccharide, both in the
methyl ester and the free carboxylic acid forms.5 In this
case, a similar protective group pattern was used, but
galacturonic acid was employed from the early stages. This
lowered the overall number of synthetic steps by avoiding
the late stage oxidation. Unfortunately, the key glycosyla-
tion reaction proved to be problematic and only low yields
of the protected tetrasaccharide product could be ob-
tained. Vogel and co-workers6 prepared a partially depro-
tected RG-I trisaccharide bearing a benzoyl group at C-4
of the rhamnose residue where galacturonic acid was used
as a starting material. Later, the same group reported the
synthesis of the fully unprotected propyl glycoside of an
RG-I tetrasaccharide, as well as synthesis of its protected
hexasaccharide fragment and protected tri- and tetrasac-
charides suitable for the assembly of the branched RG-I
fragments.7 The synthesis was based on a modular design
principle and used galacturonic acid as the starting materi-
al. Takeda and co-workers prepared8 the unprotected
propyl glycoside of an RG-I tetrasaccharide using a late-
stage oxidation approach. All the mentioned work em-
ployed the generation of glycosyl donors before each
glycosylation step. In a recent report by Davis and co-
workers,9 a latent-active approach was utilized and com-
bined with the late-stage oxidation strategy to synthesize
Retrosynthetic analysis of the target RG-I hexasaccha-
ride 1 is depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Retrosynthesis of the RG-I hexasaccharide 1.
Choosing between the two possible approaches10 for
synthesis of oligosaccharides containing uronic acids (that
is, oxidation prior to or after glycosylation), we adopted
the postglycosylation strategy, which we had previously
successfully employed11 in the synthesis of homogalactur-
onans. Although it requires additional protective group
manipulations, the nonoxidized carbohydrates are gener-
ally more reactive glycosyl donors than their oxidized
counterparts,12 where the reactivity is decreased by the
presence of the electron-withdrawing carboxyl groups.
Moreover, introduction of the carboxylic acid functional-
ity ata latestage of the synthesisreducesthe riskof possible
side reactions, such as epimerization to L-altruronic acid
and β-elimination leading to the formation of 4-deoxy-L-
threo-hex-4-enopyranuronic acid. According to this rea-
soning, we envisioned that the target hexasaccharide 1
could be obtained from the partially deprotected hexasac-
charide 2 by oxidation of the primary hydroxyl groups to
the carboxylic acids followed by a global deprotection.
ꢀ
(10) van den Bos, L. J.; Codee, J. D. C.; Litjens, R. E. J. N.;
Dinkelaar, J.; Overkleeft, H. S.; van der Marel, G. A. Eur. J. Org. Chem.
2007, 3963–3976.
(11) (a) Clausen, M. H.; Jørgensen, M. R.; Thorsen, J.; Madsen, R.
J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1 2001, 543–551. (b) Clausen, M. H.;
Madsen, R. Chem.;Eur. J. 2003, 9, 3821–3832.
(4) Rich, J. R.; Mcgavin, R. S.; Gardner, R.; Reimer, K. B. Tetra-
hedron: Asymmetry 1999, 10, 17–20.
(5) Reiffarth, D.; Reimer, K. B. Carbohydr. Res. 2008, 343, 179–188.
(6) Nolting, B.; Boye, H.; Vogel, C. J. Carbohydr. Chem. 2000, 19,
923–938.
ꢀ
(12) Codee, J. D. C.; Christina, A. E.; Walvoort, M. T. C.; Overkleeft,
(7) Nemati, N.; Karapetyan, G.; Nolting, B.; Endress, H.-U.; Vogel,
C. Carbohydr. Res. 2008, 343, 1730–1742.
(8) Maruyama, M.; Takeda, T.; Shimizu, N.; Hada, N.; Yamada, H.
H. S.; van der Marel, G. a. Top. Curr. Chem. 2011, 301, 253–289.
Walvoort, M. T. C.; de Witte, W.; van Dijk, J.; Dinkelaar, J.; Lodder,
ꢀ
G.; Overkleeft, H. S.; Codee, J. D. C.; van der Marel, G. A. Org. Lett.
Carbohydr. Res. 2000, 325, 83–92.
(9) Scanlan, E. M.; Mackeen, M. M.; Wormald, M. R.; Davis, B. G.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 7238–7239.
2011, 13, 4360–4363. de Jong, A.-R.; Hagen, B.; van der Ark, V.;
ꢀ
Overkleeft, H. S.; Codee, J. D. C.; Van der Marel, G. A. J. Org. Chem.
2012, 77, 108–25.
B
Org. Lett., Vol. XX, No. XX, XXXX