hydroxyphenylalanine derivatives. The corresponding erythro
diastereomers could be obtained by oxidation of the threo
adducts to the corresponding ketones, followed by reduction
by a suitable hydride, a procedure usually used to access
the not directly obtainable erythro â-adducts.
(2S)-O-Acetyl-N-phthaloyltyrosine methyl ester (2) was
treated with N-bromosuccinimide to afford the corresponding
3-bromo derivatives 3a and 3b (Scheme 1) in 97% yield
(1:1 mixture of diastereoisomers).
Scheme 1. Easton’s Method8
Figure 1. Callipeltin A (1)
The new structure of callipeltin A, together with its
stereochemical ambiguities and its intriguing biological
activity, has prompted considerable interest from the syn-
thetic community.6 To accomplish the total synthesis as well
as the structural determination of callipeltin A, all four
stereoisomers of â-OMeTyr are needed in large quantities.
Recently, two syntheses of all stereoisomers of â-OMeTyr
have appeared in the literature.7 They both feature a strategy
based on the nucleophilic addition of arylmetal reagents to
serine aldehyde equivalents followed by methylation.
In this paper we report a short, inexpensive, efficient
synthesis of all four stereoisomers of â-OMeTyr from
tyrosine methyl ester, using a modification of the method
developed by Easton and Hutton several years ago.8 Besides
providing adequate amounts of the above amino acid unit
for the planned total synthesis, the availability of all four
diastereoisomers of â-OMeTyr enabled us to unambiguously
assign the absolute configuration of the corresponding residue
in callipeltin A, through oxidative procedure and Marfey’s
analysis.
Treatment of bromides with silver nitrate in aqueous
acetone overnight gave the â-hydroxyl derivatives 4a,b
(6:1 mixture of diastereoisomers).
To obtain the corresponding â-methoxytyrosine derivative,
the synthesis then required the methylation of the 3-hydroxyl
group of 4a. We tested several reported methods, but we
only obtained decomposition of the starting material or
unsatisfactory transformation.11
This failure prompted us to explore an alternative access
to â-methoxy tyrosine derivatives 5a,b, which involves the
use of methanol in the place of water as a nucleophile for
the substitution displacement of the bromide atom.
The factors determining the stereoselectivity of the hy-
drolysis of â-bromoarylalanine derivatives were investi-
gated.12 So far, no details on the stereochemical course of
the methanolysis of the bromotyrosine derivatives have been
reported. To gain more insight, we tested several solvolysis
conditions by varying the solvent and the catalyst (Table 1).
In the presence of AgOTf, we observed the concomitant
removal of the O-acetyl protecting group. In all tested
conditions, a modest level of stereoselectivity was observed,
inferring a SN1 character with the absence of neighboring
group participation. Hutton12 reports the formation of threo
and erythro adducts 4a and 4b, respectively, in a 6:1 ratio
when the hydrolysis was performed with silver nitrate in
aqueous acetone. On the same substrate, in comparable
conditions (entry 1), methanolysis afforded a 6:4 ratio of
threo and erythro adducts. Better stereoselectivity was
observed with silver nitrate in MeOH/acetone (entries 2-4),
whereas the use of silver triflate reduced the selectivity of
the solvolysis reactions, giving invariably a 1:1 ratio (entries
Easton’s method, used for the synthesis of the (2S,3R)-
â-hydroxytyrosine residue in vancomycin9 and, recently, for
the synthesis of the (2S,3R)-â-methoxyphenylalanine residue
in cyclomarin,10 provides selective formation of threo-
(6) For the synthesis of the nonproteinogenic units in callipeltin A, see:
(a) Liang, B.; Carroll, P. J.; Joullie, M. M. Org. Lett. 2000, 2, 4157-4160.
(b) Okamoto, N.; Hara, O.; Makino, K.; Hamada, Y. Tetrahedron:
Asymmetry 2001, 12, 1353-1358. (c) Acevedo, C. M.; Kogut, E. F.; Lipton,
M. A. Tetrahedron 2001, 57, 6353-6359. (d) Chandrasekhar, S.; Ram-
achandar, T.; Rao, B. V. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2001, 12, 2315-2321.
(e) Guerlavais, V.; Carroll, P. J.; Joullie, M. M Tetrahedron: Asymmetry
2002, 13, 675-680. (f) Thoen, J. C.; Morales-Ramos, A. I.; Lipton, M. A.
Org. Lett. 2002, 4, 4455-4458. (g) Zampella, A.; Sorgente, M.; D’Auria,
M. V. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2002, 13, 681-685. (h) Zampella, A.;
D’Auria, M. V. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2002, 13, 1237-1239. (i) Ravi,
K. A.; Venkateswara, R. B. Tetrahedron Lett. 2003, 44, 5645-5647.
(j) Turk, J. A.; Visbal, G. S.; Lipton, M. A. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 68, 7841-
7844.
(7) (a) Okamoto, N.; Hara, O.; Makino, K.; Hamada, Y. J. Org. Chem.
2002, 67, 9210-9215. (b) Hansen, D. B.; Wan, X.; Carrol, P. J.; Joullie,
M. M. J. Org. Chem. 2005, 70, 3120-3126.
(8) Easton, C. J.; Hutton, C. A.; Roselt, P. D.; Tiekink, E. R. T.
Tetrahedron 1994, 50, 7327-7340.
(11) During the preparation of this manuscript, a paper (ref 7b) appeared
reporting the same difficulty in methylating a protected 3-hydroxy-tyrosine
derivative.
(9) Rama Rao, A. V.; Chakraborty, T. K.; Laxma Reddy, K.; Srinivasa
Rao, A. Tetrahedron Lett. 1994, 35, 5043-5046.
(10) Wen, S.-J.; Yao, Z.-J. Org. Lett. 2004, 6, 2721-2724.
(12) Hutton, C. A. Tetrahedron Lett. 1997, 38, 5899-5902.
3586
Org. Lett., Vol. 7, No. 16, 2005