Scheme 2. Reductive Hydrolysis, Amino Acid, and Amino
Alcohol Generation
Figure 2. (Z)- and (E)-N,O-ketene acetal reaction intermediates.
oxygen. Presumably, the thermodynamically more stable
intermediate 9 is the predominant configuration.13 It should
be noted that we tried to quench intermediate 9 using several
saturated alcohols. However, this N,O-ketene acetal inter-
mediate was unstable and hydrolyzed easily even in neutral
aqueous solution.
The hydrolysis of these rearranged amides was tricky
because of the presence of a terminal double bond and
the N-Cbz protecting group. There are many amide bond
hydrolysis methods reported.14 However, basic condi-
tions cleaved the Cbz group and caused epimerization. Strong
acidic conditions also removed the Cbz group and led
to partial hydrolysis of the terminal double bond. A re-
duction-hydrolysis approach was convenient in this case,
and among many reducing agents, lithium trimethoxyalu-
minum hydride15 and sodium aluminum hydride16 worked
well.
dized simultaneously to the carboxylic acid. Several amino
alcohols were obtained from further reduction of the amino
aldehydes that were isolated at low temperature by extraction
(Scheme 2). Little epimerization was observed during the
workup process. The diastereomerically pure amino alcohols
were obtained after flash column chromatography purifica-
tion.
Epimerization was observed during workup because
amino aldehydes are notorious for racemerization under
either basic or acidic conditions.17 The presence of a
â-substituent and a γ-double bond makes the R-proton
even more labile. The side reaction was initiated upon
aldehyde generation during the hydrolysis of the re-
duced complex. To minimize epimerization, we devel-
oped in situ modified Lindgren oxidation18 at low temper-
ature (Scheme 2). In this way, the aldehyde was oxi-
(6) Kazmaier, U. J. Org. Chem. 1996, 61, 3694.
Figure 3. 1H NMR spectra of 12-5 from different oxidation
approaches. Left: in situ oxidation. Right: oxidation after workup.
(7) (a) Gu, X.; Scott, C.; Ying, J.; Tang, X.; Hruby, V. J. Tetrahedron
Lett. 2003, 44, 5863. (b) Gu, X.; Ndungu, J. M.; Qiu, W.; Ying, J.; Carducci,
M. D.; Wooden, H.; Hruby, V. J. Tetrahedron 2004, 60, 8233.
(8) (a) Coates, B.; Montgomery, D.; Sterenson, P. J. Tetrahedron Lett.
1991, 32, 4199. (b) Coats, B.; Montgomery, D.; Sterenson, P. J. Tetrahedron
Lett. 1994, 50, 4025.
The lack of epimerization using the modified reduc-
tive hydrolysis and aldehyde oxidation was demon-
(9) Bergmeier, S. C. Tetrahedron 2000, 56, 2561.
(10) (a) He, S.; Kozmin, S. A.; Rawal, V. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000,
122, 190. (b) Qian, X.; Moris-Varas, F.; Fitzgerald, M. C.; Wong, C. Bioorg.
Med. Chem. 1996, 4, 2055.
(11) Resendes, R.; Nelson, J. M.; Fischer, A.; Jakle, F.; Bartole, A.;
Lough, A. J.; Manners, I. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 2116.
(12) Wipf, P. In ComprehensiVe Organic Synthesis; Trost, B. M.,
Fleming, I., Eds.; Pergamon: Oxford, NY, 1991; Vol. 5, p 827 and
references therein.
(13) (a) Welch, J. T.; Eswarakrishman, S. J. Org. Chem. 1985, 50, 5909.
(b) Bartlett, P.; Hahne, W. F. J. Org. Chem. 1979, 44, 882. (c) Ziegler, F.
E. Acc. Chem. Res. 1977, 10, 227.
(14) (a) Groves, J. T.; Dias, R. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1979, 101, 1033.
(b) Hub, D. H.; Jeong, J. S.; Lee, H. B.; Ryu, H.; Kim, Y. G. Tetrahedron
2002, 58, 9925. (c) Gassmart, P. C.; Hodgson, P. K. G.; Balchunis, R. J. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 1976, 98, 1275. (d) Moghaddam, F. M.; Ghaffarzadeh, M.
Synth. Commun. 2001, 31, 317.
(15) Brown, H. C.; Weissman, P. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1965, 87, 5614.
(16) Zakharkin, L. I.; Maslin, D. N.; Gavriljinko, V. V. Tetrahedron 1969,
25, 5555.
(17) (a) Ito, J. J.; Golebiowshi, A. Chem. ReV. 1989, 89, 149. (b) Rittle,
K. E.; Homnick, C. F.; Ponticelle, G. S.; Evans, B. E. J. Org. Chem. 1982,
47, 3016.
Figure 4. Rotational interexchange study of 12-5 by NOE.
(18) Kraus, G. A.; Bruce Roth, B. J. Org. Chem. 1980, 45, 4825.
Org. Lett., Vol. 8, No. 19, 2006
4217