structures.6 Pleasingly, others have since utilized our ap-
proach in the synthesis of a range of related lycoranes.7 As
a further extension of our work, we decided to explore the
use of conjugated cyanosulfones 2 as an initial Michael
acceptor. We hypothesized that addition of nitro com-
pound 1 to such a substrate would reveal a catalyst-bound
C-nucleophile for a subsequent and final asymmetric
ring-closing Michael addition. We further hypothesized
that catalyst activation would occur in the same way as we
have previously proposed,5a,6 whereby one of the thiourea
nitrogens would activate the electrophile and the other, in
tandem with the nitrogen of the protonated amine, would
activate the nucleophile (Figure 1).8 The resulting sul-
fones are synthetically useful compounds and can be
further modified in a number of ways.9 Our initial system
for screening started with the simple nitro compound 1
and the conjugated cyanosulfone 2a. Using a range of
bifunctional thiourea catalysts,10 we were gratified to see
that the expected transformation occurred (Table 1, en-
tries 1À6), and it was determined that catalyst 8 gave the
most promising overall results in terms of balance be-
tween yield, diastereoselectivity, and enantioselectivity
(entry 5). Using this catalyst, we found that changing
the solvent had a profound effect on enantioselectivity
(entries 7À12), and among those tested, diethyl ether was
found to give optimal results. Decreasing the temperature
(entries 13À15), however, had a detrimental effect on the
enantioselectivity, and surprisingly, catalyst loading ap-
peared to have little influence on the overall outcome of
the process (entries 16À19).
Table 1. Optimization of the Domino Reaction
Figure 1. Domino reaction with conjugated cyanosulfones: con-
cept and proposed transition state.
(4) For selected reviews, see: (a) Walji, A. M.; MacMillan, D. W. C.
€
Synlett 2007, 1477. (b) Enders, D.; Grondal, C.; Huttl, M. R. M. Angew.
Chem., Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 1570. (c) Dondoni, A.; Massi, A. Angew. Chem.,
Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 4638. (d) MacMillan, D. W. C. Nature 2008, 455, 304.
(e) Nielsen, M.; Worgull, D.; Zweifel, T.; Gschwend, B.; Bertelsen, S.;
Jørgensen, K. A. Chem. Commun. 2011, 47, 632. (f) Cobb, A. J. A. In
Enantioselective Organocatalyzed Reactions II; Mahrwald, R., Ed.;
Springer-Verlag: Weinheim, 2011; Chapter 1. (g) Grondal, C.; Jeanty, M.;
Enders, D. Nat. Chem. 2010, 2, 167. For recent examples, see: (h)
Albertshofer, K.; Anderson, K. E.; Barbas, C. F., III. Org. Lett. 2012,
5968. (i) Wan, J.-P.; Loh, C. C. J.; Pan, F.; Enders, D. Chem. Commun.
2012, 48, 10049. (j) Rubush, D. M.; Morges, M. A.; Rose, B. J.; Thamm,
D. H.; Rovis, T. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 13554. (k) Dong, X.-Q.;
Fang, X.; Tao, H.-Y.; Zhou, X.; Wang, C.-J. Chem. Commun. 2012,
7238. (l) Barber, D. M.; Sanganee, H. J.; Dixon, D. J. Org. Lett. 2012, 14,
5290. (m) Xie, X.; Peng, C.; He, G.; Leng, H. J.; Wang, B. A.; Huang, W.;
Han, B. Chem. Commun. 2012, 48, 10487. (n) Coulthard, G.; Erb, W.;
Aggarwal, V. K. Nature 2012, 489, 278. (o) Roy, S.; Chen, K. Org. Lett.
2012, 14, 2496. (p) Albertshofer, K.; Tan, B.; Barbas, C. F., III. Org.
Lett. 2012, 14, 1834.
(5) (a) Nodes, W. J.; Nutt, D. R.; Chippindale, A. M.; Cobb, A. J. A.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 16016. (b) Nodes, W. J.; Rajkumar, S.;
Shankland, K.; Cobb, A. J. A. Synlett 2010, 3011. For alternative
methods to synthesise the substrates described in ref 5a, see: (c) Guo,
L.; Chi, Y. G.; Almeida, A. M.; Guzei, A.; Parker, B. K.; Gellman, S. H.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 16018. (d) Xu, Y. J.; Lin, L. Q.; Kanai, M.;
Matsunaga, S.; Shibasaki, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 5791.
(6) Rajkumar, S.; Shankland, K.; Brown, G. D.; Cobb, A. J. A.
Chem. Sci. 2012, 3, 584.
entry catalyst (mol %) solvent temp, °C % yielda drb eec,d (%)
1e
2e
3e
4
4 (10)
5 (10)
6 (10)
7 (10)
8 (10)
9 (10)
8 (10)
8 (10)
8 (10)
8 (10)
8 (10)
8 (10)
8 (10)
8 (10)
8 (10)
8 (1)
CH2Cl2
CH2Cl2
CH2Cl2
CH2Cl2
CH2Cl2
CH2Cl2
DCE
20
20
97
99
94
97
99
97
99
94
98
92
94
87
64
66
61
42
92
92
97
10:3
4:1
46
57
46
65
68
69
72
78
78
70
55
38
68
68
70
77
78
78
77
20
2.7:1
25:4
25:4
11:2
25:4
25:4
25:6
25:4
5:1
20
5
20
6
20
7
20
8
Et2O
20
9
PhMe
THF
20
10
11
12
13f
14f
15f
16
17
18
19
20
MeCN
MeOH
CH2Cl2
Et2O
20
20
25:4
25:9
25:9
25:6
25:7
5:1
À40
À40
À40
20
PhMe
Et2O
8 (5)
Et2O
20
(7) Wang, Y.; Luo, Y.-C.; Zhang, H.-B.; Xu, P.-F. Org. Biomol.
Chem. 2012, 10, 8211.
(8) A computational study by Wang and co-workers has added
credence to this argument. See: Zhu, J.-L.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, C.; Zheng,
A.-M.; Wang, W. J. Org. Chem. 2012, 77, 9813.
8 (20)
8 (30)
Et2O
20
25:4
25:3
Et2O
20
a Based on isolated product. b Determined by 1H NMR spectros-
copy. The minor diastereosiomer was found to be the (1R)-epimer.
c Determined by HPLC using a chiral stationary phase. d Absolute
configuration determined by Cu-source X-ray crystallography of 3j
and ascribed by analogy. e ent-3a was produced. f Reaction stopped after
7.5 days.
(9) (a) Simpkins, N. S. In Sulphones in Organic Synthesis
(Tetrahedron Organic Chemistry Series; Pergamon Press: Oxford, 1993;
Vol. 10. For reviews on the use of sulfones in organocatalysis, see: (b)
~
Nielsen, M.; Jacobsen, C. B.; Holub, N.; Paixao, M. W.; Jørgensen,
K. A. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 2668. (c) Alba, A.-N. R.;
ꢀ
Companyo, X.; Rios, R. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2010, 39, 2018.
Org. Lett., Vol. 15, No. 6, 2013
1387