334
P. Rummakko et al.
LETTER
Oxazolidinones 6a-d and camphor sultam 913 were oxi- alkylation reactions11 and to the results of Sibi et al. in
dized either enzymatically with HRP/H2O2 or chemically radical allylation reactions with the same type of auxilia-
with silver oxide (Scheme 2).7,15 Enzymatic oxidations ries.18
were performed in aqueous buffer containing acetone or
Attempts to use Lewis acid additives in phenol oxidations
to restrict the rotational freedom of N-acyl oxazolidinones
via chelative interactions failed. Addition of MgBr2 or Zn-
triflate to the oxidation with Ag2O of 6a prevented the re-
action completely. It seems that the use of Lewis acids to
control conformational rotamers via chelative interactions
is not possible in phenol oxidations.
dioxane as the co-solvent.16 Silver oxide oxidations were
performed in dry dichloromethane. After the dimerization
step the camphor sultam auxiliaries were removed by re-
duction with LiAlH4/THF12 and the oxazolidinones were
removed by reduction with LiBH4/THF.17 Table 1 gives
the results for the oxidations of chiral phenols 6a-d and 9.
In conclusion, these preliminary results demonstrate that
chiral auxiliaries provide significant levels of diastereo-
selection in bimolecular coupling reactions of phenoxyl
radicals and it is expected that this methodology could be
extended to various lignan structures thus providing a new
approach to the synthesis of valuable lignans.
Acknowledgement
Financial support for this work was provided by the Technology
Development Centre of Finland (TEKES) and The Academy of Fin-
land. We thank also the Italian Ministry for Scientific Research for
financial support.
Key a: Oxidation with Ag2O/CH2Cl2 in Argon or enzymatically with
HRP/H2O2, acetone or dioxane/buffer pH 3.5 b: Reduction with
LiAlH4 /THF, -20 oC or LiBH4/ THF, -20 oC, (1 equiv. H2O).
Scheme 2
References and notes
(1) Bolzacchini, E.; Brunow, G.; Meinardi, S.; Orlandi, M.;
Rindone, B.; Rummakko, P.; Setälä, H. Tetrahedron Lett.
1998, 39, 3291.
(2) Bogucki, D.E.; Charlton, J.L. Can. J. Chem. 1997, 75, 1783.
(3) Hirai, N.; Okamoto, M.; Udagawa, H.; Yamamuro, M.; Kato,
M.; Koshimizu, K. Biosci. Biotech. Biochem. 1994, 58, 1679.
(4) Davin, L.B.; Wang, H.B.; Crowell, A.L.; Bedgar, D.L.;
Martin, D.M.; Sarkanen, S.; Lewis, N.G. Science 1997, 275,
362.
(5) Giese, B. “Radicals in Organic Synthesis: Formation of Car-
bon-Carbon Bonds” Pergamon Press: Oxford (1986);
Jasperse, C.P.; Curran, D.P.; Fevig, T. Chem.Rev. 1991, 91,
1237.
(6) Reviews on stereochemistry in free radical reactions: Curran,
D.P.; Porter, N.A.; Giese, B. “ Stereochemistry of Radical Re-
actions; Concepts, Guidelines and Synthetic Applications,”
VCH: Weinheim, 1996; Kim, B.H.; Curran, D.P. Tetrahedron
1993, 49, 293; Smadja, W. Synlett 1994, 1; Porter, N.A.;
Giese, B.; Curran, D.P. Acc. Chem. Res. 1991, 24, 296.
(7) Chioccara, F.; Poli, S.; Rindone, B.; Pilati, T.; Brunow, G.;
Pietikäinen, P.; Setälä, H. Acta Chem. Scand. 1993, 47, 610.
(8) Ward, R.S. Nat. Prod. Rep. 1997, 14, 43.
(9) Miyashita, N.; Yoshikoshi, A.; Grieco, P.A. J. Org. Chem.
1977, 42, 3772.
(10) Ager, D.J.; Allen, D.R.; Schaad, D.R. Synthesis 1996, 1283.
(11) Evans, D.A.; Chapman, K.T.; Bisaha, J. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
The results show that among the auxiliaries used in oxida-
tions the camphor sultam 1 gives better results that the
corresponding oxazolidinones 2a-d. The reason for this is
probably the better rotational control of the camphor sul-
tam compared to 2-oxazolidinones.6 The temperature and
solvent had only minor effects on the observed stereo-
selectivity. Among the oxazolidinone auxiliaries the ster-
ically smaller phenyl oxazolidinone gave considerably
higher selectivities (e.e. 62%) compared to the corre-
sponding benzyl oxazolidinone (e.e. 21%). This observa-
tion is opposite to the results of Evans in Diels-Alder and
1988, 110, 1238.
(12) Oppolzer, W.; Chapuis, C.; Bernardinelli, G. Helv. Chim. Acta
1984, 67, 1397.
(13) Experimental data for phenol 6c and 9. Compound 6c 1H
NMR (200 MHz, CDCl3) d: 3.93 (s, 1H), 4.31 (dd, J=4.0, 8.8
Hz, 1H), 4.74 (t, J=8.8 Hz, 1H), 5.57 (dd, J=4.0, 8.8 Hz, 1H),
5.97 (s, 1H), 6.90 (d, J=8.1 Hz, 1H), 7.10 (s, 1H), 7.12 (d,
J=7.8 Hz, 1H), 7.32-7.39 (m, 5H), 7.71 (d, J=15.8 Hz, 1H),
7.80 (d, J=15.8 Hz, 1H). 13C NMR (75 MHz, CDCl3) d: 56.0,
57.9, 69.9, 109.5, 114.0, 114.6, 124.1, 125.9, 127.1, 128.6,
129.1, 139.1, 146.7, 146.9, 148.4, 153.8, 164.8. HREIMS cal-
Synlett 1999, No. 3, 333–335 ISSN 0936-5214 © Thieme Stuttgart · New York