[3 + 2] Annulation of R,â-Unsaturated Acylsilanes
J . Org. Chem., Vol. 67, No. 6, 2002 1787
Ta ble 1.
Sch em e 2
ability of the â-substituent of the acryloylsilanes. In the
case of an anion-stabilizing substituent such as a phe-
nylthio group, the carbanion 17 (X ) SPh) generated by
Brook rearrangement immediately delocalizes to give an
intermediate 15. Consequently, the olefin geometry of 15
arising from (E)- and (Z)-1 can be the same if conforma-
tional interconversion occurs faster than cyclization. On
the other hand, in the case of a methyl group, which does
not have R-carbanion-stabilizing ability, carbanion 17
(X ) Me) attacks the â-carbonyl group before allylic
delocalization to give 7 via 16. If it is assumed that a
trimethylsilyl group has less ability to stabilize the
R-carbanion than does a phenylthio group, the results
with (â-(trimethylsilyl)acryloyl)silane 1 (X ) SiMe3) could
be explained as being due to the formation of vinylcyclo-
propanolate followed by oxyanion-accelerated vinylcyclo-
propane rearrangement13 to cyclopentenone (16 f 5) in
which (E)- and (Z)-16 can retain their geometries in 1
(X ) SiMe3) and possibly have different reactivities. This
hypothesis is based on the fact that 3, 4, and 5 were
recovered unchanged after treatment with LDA (1 equiv)
in THF at -80 to 0 °C, respectively, and the fact that
the reaction of 1 (X ) SPh) with lithium enolate 18 of
alkenyl methyl ketone produces [3 + 2] annulation
product 19 in sharp contrast with the reaction of 1 (X )
SiMe3) that affords cycloheptenone derivatives, 21, a [3
+ 4] annulation product (Scheme 4). Our previous study14
has established that the latter process proceeds via
anionic oxy-Cope rearrangement of divinylcyclopropano-
late 20.
yield (%)
R1
R2
Et
n-Pr
i-Pr
Et
11
12
13
10a
10a
10a
10b
10b
10b
Me
Me
Me
Ph
Ph
Ph
75
70
76
72
71
80
5
4
9
3
3
4
9
19
10
10
10
5
n-Pr
i-Pr
cantly enhance the synthetic versatility of the process
because of the ability of the silyl group to act as a
hydroxyl surrogate in combination with Fleming’s oxida-
tive desilylation protocol.7 The new route to (Z)-10a ,b
started from O-protected propargyl alcohol 8,8 which was
converted to 9a ,b by a 2-fold silylation followed by
deprotection. Transformation of 9a ,b into acryloylsilanes
10a ,b was carried out with hydroboration9 followed by
Swern oxidation.10
Having developed an efficient route to (Z)-10, we
optimized the reaction conditions for [3 + 2] annulation
using (Z)-10. The best results were obtained when the
reaction mixture was warmed to 0 °C. A trace amount of
diastereomeric cyclopentenol 12 was detected in addition
to 11, in contrast to the results obtained in our previous
study,2a in which 11a was formed exclusively (Table 1).
Also, unlike in our previous study in which (E)- and (Z)-
13 were obtained in various proportions, (E)-13 was
formed exclusively.
Although we also reexamined the reaction using (E)-
10a by elevating the reaction temperature to 0 °C, no
improvement in the yield of 11a and no formation of
cyclopentenol 12a were observed. The difference in the
product distribution of E and Z derivatives will be
discussed later.
A Mech a n istic P r op osa l for [3 + 2] An n u la tion .
In an earlier stage of this research, as a mechanism to
explain the reaction outcome outlined in Scheme 1, we
proposed the reaction mechanism illustrated in Scheme
3, which involves two competing pathways.11
It seemed that verification of the proposed mechanism
would require (1) comparison of relative R-carbanion-
stabilizing abilities of trimethylsilyl and phenylthio
groups, (2) verification of the stereochemical integrity of
the starting acryloylsilanes under the reaction conditions,
and (3) examination of whether the vinylcyclopropane-
cyclopentene rearrangement (16 f 5) proceeds at tem-
peratures below -30 °C.
(12) For reviews on the Brook rearrangement, see: (a) Brook, M.
A. Silicon in Organic, Organometallic, and Polymer Chemistry; J ohn
Wiley & Sons: 2000. (b) Brook, A. G.; Bassindale, A. R. In Rearrange-
ments in Ground and Excited States; de Mayo, P., Ed.; Academic
Press: New York, 1980; pp 149-221. (c) Brook, A. G. Acc. Chem. Res.
1974, 7, 77-84. For the use of the Brook rearrangement in tandem
bond formation strategies, see: (d) Moser, W. H. Tetrahedron 2001,
57, 2065-2084. Also, see: (e) Ricci, A.; Degl’Innocenti, A. Synthesis
1989, 647-660. (f) Bulman Page, P. C.; Klair, S. S.; Rosenthal, S.
Chem. Soc. Rev. 1990, 19, 147-195. (g) Qi, H.; Curran, D. P. In
Comprehensive Organic Functional Group Transformations, Katritzky,
A. R.; Meth-Cohn, O.; Rees, C. W.; Moody, C. J ., Eds.; Pergamon:
Oxford, 1995; pp 409-431. (h) Cirillo, P. F.; Panek, J . S. Org. Prep.
Proc. Int. 1992, 24, 553-582. (i) Patrocinio, A. F.; Moran, P. J . S. J .
Braz. Chem. Soc. 2001, 12, 7-31.
The first one, path a, involves delocalized allylic
carbanion intermediate 15 that is derived from the 1,2-
adduct 14 by way of Brook rearrangement.12 Path b
involves the cyclopropanolate intermediate 16 that is
generated by internal attack on the carbonyl group by
the carbanion derived by Brook rearrangement. We
considered that the reaction proceeds through either path
a or path b, depending on the R-carbanion-stabilizing
(13) (a) Denheiser, R. L.; Martinez-Davila, C.; Morin, J . M., J r. J .
Org. Chem. 1980, 45, 1340-1341. (b) Danheiser, R. L.; Martinez-
Davila, C.; Auchus, R. J .; Kadonaga, J . T. J . Am. Chem. Soc. 1981,
103, 2443-2446. For a carbanion-accelerated version, see: Danheiser,
R. L.; Bronson, J . J .; Okano, K. J . Am. Chem. Soc. 1985, 107, 4579-
4581.
(7) Fleming, I.; Henning, R. Parker, D. C.; Plaut, H. E.; Sanderson,
P. E. J . Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1 1995, 317-337.
(8) Hoff, S.; Brandsma, L.; Arens, J . F. Recl. Trav. Chim. Pays-Bas
1968, 87, 916. Also, see ref 6b.
(9) Denmark, S. E.; Herbert, B. J . Org. Chem. 2000, 65, 2887-2896.
(10) Mancuso, A. J .; Swern, D. Synthesis 1981, 165-185.
(11) Takeda, K. J . Synth. Org. Chem. J pn. 1997, 55, 774-784.
(14) Takeda, K.; Nakajima, A.; Takeda, M.; Okamoto, Y.; Sato, T.;
Yoshii, E.; Koizumi, T.; Shiro, M.J . Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 4947-
4959.