B. A. Burkett, C. L. L. Chai / Tetrahedron Letters 42 (2001) 2239–2242
2241
Table 2. Summary of stereochemical outcomes with manipulations of substituents on methylidene piperazinediones
Desired outcome
Proximal N-substituent
Distal N-substituent
Remote a-carbon substituent for best facial selectivity
High exo selectivity
High endo selectivity
H
Ac
Ac
Ac
\ Me (e.g. iPr)
Me
Me, to 8.6:1 in R=isopropyl, to 7:1, in R=CH2Ar.
The major isomer in the latter two cases were deter-
mined by NOE studies and X-ray crystallography to be
that resulting from Re addition to the olefin (i.e. anti to
the remote a-carbon substituent). These studies suggest
that high facial discrimination of the two faces of the
olefin can be effected by the choice of a remote a-car-
bon substituent larger than a methyl group.
Thus in the presence of a distal N-Ac group (to fulfil
the reactivity requirement), the manipulations required
for the best control of exo/endo and facial selectivity
are summarised in Table 2.
Figure 1. AM1 calculated ground-state structure of 1b.
As the methods for cleavage of piperazine-2,5-diones to
the constituent a-amino acids are well established,12–15
the studies described here enable the utilisation of one
type of cyclic dehydroalanine template to provide
access to all the stereoisomers of the biologically active
ꢀ13:1), with facial selectivity only slightly in favour of
the approach of cyclopentadiene syn to the remote
a-Me substituent (i.e. Si addition) as determined by
X-ray crystallography of the deacetylated derivative. In
contrast, cycloaddition of 1b occurred with complete
facial selectivity to favour Si addition but the exo/endo
selectivity is severely compromised. This supports previ-
ous observations that the presence of the proximal N-H
group strongly enhances exo/endo selectivity.9 The
extremely high Si facial selectivity observed for methyl-
idene piperazine-2,5-dione 1b may be rationalised by
comparing the ground-state structures of the methyl-
idene piperazine-2,5-diones 1a and b. Molecular mod-
elling studies‡ suggest that piperazine-2,5-dione 1b
adopts a more boat-like conformation as compared to
1a, presumably in order to reduce 1,3-allylic strain. This
in turn results in greater shielding of the Re face of the
olefin to attack by cyclopentadiene. Thus the steric
shielding by the proximal N-Ac group (1,3-relationship)
is greater than that due to the presence of the remote
a-methyl substituent (1,5-relationship) and Si face
attack is favoured (Fig. 1). The role of N-substituents
in influencing the stereochemical outcomes of reactions
in heterocyclic systems is well documented11 and has
recently been exploited in piperazine-2,5-dione chiral
relay systems.12,13
norbornyl amino acids.16 For example, the use of
D-
amino acids as the directing groups in methylidene
piperazine-2,5-diones will lead to cycloadducts with the
opposite configuration to that when the
are used.
L-amino acids
From our studies here, it is apparent that methylidene
piperazine-2,5-diones have several advantages over
existing cyclic dehydroalanine templates. In particular,
a feature of the piperazine-2,5-dione systems is that the
exo/endo and facial selectivity can be easily manipu-
lated by appropriate choice of N- and remote a-carbon
substituents.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Australian Research Council for financial
support, and Pacific Dunlop for the award of a research
scholarship (B.A.B.).
Comparisons of the Diels–Alder reactions of methyl-
idene piperazine-2,5-diones 1a, 2a and 3a with cyclo-
pentadiene show that for a constant proximal and distal
N-H and N-Ac groups respectively, high exo/endo
selectivities are obtained (typically >8:1). In addition,
with increasing bulk of the remote a-carbon sub-
stituent, facial selectivity improves from 1.7:1 in R=
References
1. Pyne, S. G.; Safaei-G, J.; Hockless, D. C. R.; Skelton, B.
W.; Sobolev, A. N.; White, A. H. Tetrahedron 1994, 50,
641.
2. Sankhavasi, W.; Kohmoto, S.; Yamamoto, M.; Nishio,
T.; Iida, I.; Yamada, K. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 1992, 65,
935.
3. Cativiela, C.; D´ıaz-de-Villegas, M. D.; Avenoza, A.; Pere-
grina, J. M. Tetrahedron 1993, 49, 10987.
4. Chinchilla, R.; Falvello, L. R.; Galindo, N.; Na´jera, C.
Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 1999, 10, 821.
‡ Molecular modeling calculations were carried out with Spartan SG1
Ver. 5.0.1© Wavefunction, Inc., using AM1 parameters. We note
that care must be exercised in the over-interpretation of molecular
modeling studies due to the Curtin–Hammett principle.