oxidation of the lithium enolate (LiHMDS, THF, -78 °C)
of 15 using (+)-[(8,8-dichlorocamphoryl)sulfonyl]oxaziridine,12
constituting a matched pair, subsequent silyl protection gave
rise to 17 (78%) with remarkable increase in the diastereo-
selectivity (17:1). The next step required a stereoselective
introduction of the methyl group into C8. This was smoothly
accomplished by the tandem Grignard reaction-reduction
procedure developed earlier in these laboratories.13 Thus,
when 17 was allowed to react with methylmagnesium
bromide followed by NaBH3CN in acidic medium (AcOH),
reduction of the intermediary iminium ion 18 proceeded with
steric and stereoelectronic controls to afford 19 as a single
diastereomer (82% overall yield from 17). Reductive cleav-
age of the N-O bond of 19 (Zn, AcOH) followed by
N-benzoylation of the resulting amino alcohol gave 20, which
was converted to the S-methyl dithiocarbonate 21 and
subjected to a four-step sequence of reactions, involving
deoxygenation with tributyltin hydride,14 acidic removal of
the methoxymethyl group, hydrogenolysis of the benzyl
group, and Swern oxidation, to provide the keto aldehyde
22 (66% overall yield from 21). Intramolecular aldol reaction
conditions (KOH, MeOH, 0 °C) led to the desired product
23 but in very low yield (10%) accompanied by complex
side reactions. However, the use of a catalytic amount of
piperidine and acetic acid in refluxing benzene resulted in a
clear reaction to form 23 in much improved yield (87%) as
a single diastereomer. After several failed attempts at
dehydration of the aldehyde 23, 23 was converted to the ester
24 (PDC, then CH2N2), which smoothly underwent dehydra-
tion with SOCl2 and Et3N to form the octahydroquinoline
25 (84%).
27 to 26 can be interpreted in terms of more thermodynami-
cally stable 26A, in which the methoxycarbonyl group orients
axial to avoid an allylic strain.
With compound 26 in hand, it was converted to the amino
alcohol 28 (87%) through silylation followed by LiAlH4
reduction of the methoxycarbonyl and N-benzoyl groups
(Scheme 4). Catalytic hydrogenation of 28 (5 atm H2, Pd-
Scheme 4a
Exposure of 25 to Bu4NF at room temperature caused
cleavage of the TBDPS ether and epimerization at the labile
C5 stereocenter under the reaction conditions to give a 2:1
chromatographically separable mixture of the 5â- and the
5R-esters 26 and 27 in favor of 26 in 87% total yield (Scheme
3). The 5R-isomer 27 with undesired C5 chirality could be
a Reagents and conditions: (a) TBDMSCl, imidazole, DMF; (b)
LiAlH4, THF, reflux; (c) (i) H2 (5 atm), Pd-C, THF; (ii) (Boc)2O,
CH2Cl2; (d) (COCl)2, DMSO, Et3N, CH2Cl2, -78 f 0 °C; (e) CHI3,
CrCl2, THF; (f) (E)-1-hexenyldihydroxyborane, Pd(PPh3)4 (5 mol
%), 2 M aqueous KOH, THF, 50 °C; (g) Bu4NF, THF, then
CF3CO2H, CH2Cl2.
Scheme 3
C, THF) resulted in exclusive formation of the decahydro-
quinoline 29 with the cis ring juncture in 85% yield after
N-Boc protection. The stereochemical outcome in this case
implies hydroxyl-directed hydrogenation15 wherein the sub-
strate is bound to the catalyst surface on the same side as
(9) Naruse, M.; Aoyagi, S.; Kibayashi, C. Tetrahedron Lett. 1994, 35,
595-598. See also refs 5b and 5c.
(10) Reviews: (a) Davis, F. A.; Sheppard, A. C. Tetrahedron 1989, 45,
5703-5742. (b) Davis, F. A.; Chen, B.-C. Chem. ReV. 1992, 92, 919-
934.
(11) Davis, F. A.; Stringer, O. D. J. Org. Chem. 1982, 47, 1774-1775.
(12) Davis, F. A.; Weismiller, M. C.; Murphy, C. K.; Reddy, R. T.; Chen,
B.-C. J. Org. Chem. 1992, 57, 7274-7285.
(13) (a) Iida, H.; Watanabe, Y.; Kibayashi, C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1985,
107, 5534-5535. (b) Watanabe, Y.; Iida, H. Kibayashi, C. J. Org. Chem.
1989, 54, 4088-4097. (c) Shishido, Y.; Kibayashi, C. J. Org. Chem. 1992,
57, 2876-2883. See also ref 5c.
converted to a 2:1 equilibrium mixture of 26 and 27 by
treatment under the same conditions (Bu4NF, THF, rt, 5 d);
in this manner, the conversion of 25 into required 26 could
be increased to 75% yield. The observed epimerization of
(14) Barton, D. H. R.; McCombie, S. W. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans.
1 1975, 1574-1585.
(15) For a comprehensive review on heteroatom-directed organic reaction,
see: Hoveyda, A. H.; Evans, D. A.; Fu, G. C. Chem. ReV. 1993, 93, 1307-
1370.
Org. Lett., Vol. 2, No. 19, 2000
2957