shortened ester-containing cis-bicyclo[4.4.0]decenone 4c
(Figure 2). An obvious disconnection of 4c would be into
Other than the mentioned enones, enone 11c and its less
hindered analogues 11a and b (Scheme 1, bottom) self-
Scheme 1
.
Anionic Diels-Alder Reaction (or Michael-Michael
Addition)
Figure 2. Two retrosynthetic analyses of isoacanthodoral (1).
silyldienol ether 7c and dienophile 6. This would allow for
a cis-selective cyclohexanone annulation either by an anionic
Diels-Alder reaction of the corresponding lithium dienolate
5c or by an equivalent sequence of two Michael additions.
Alternatively, we envisioned that the cis-bicyclo-
[4.4.0]decenone 4c results from three components and two
Michael additions, i.e., from a novel domino process.4 In its
course, the enolate of ester 8, the previously mentioned R,ꢀ-
unsaturated ester 6, and vinylmagnesium bromide (9) would
combine in a series of steps, which could probably be
performed as a one-pot operation.
Anionic Diels-Alder reactions, i.e., [4 + 2]-additions of
oxyanion-substituted dienes (“dienolates”) to dienophiles do
not represent widely used approaches to cyclohexanones.5
Their best known variants employ cyclohexenones6 or alk-
3-en-2-ones with an electron-withdrawing 1-substituent
(“Nazarov reagents”7)8 as dienolate precursors, combined
with a base (LDA6 and cesium carbonate,8 respectively).
condensed during attempted dienolate generation by depro-
tonation. This problem was avoided when we transformed
these compounds into silyldienol ethers 7a-c (11-27%
yield, not optimized9) and treated the latter with methyl-
lithium for releasing the corresponding dienolates. Dienophile
6 was prepared from m-toluic acid (10) in three steps10 and
73% overall yield (Scheme 1, top).
The anionic Diels-Alder reaction (or synthetically equiva-
lent sequence of two Michael additions) worked best for the
dienolate (5a) with the fewest 1-substituents: following this
pathway, silyldienol ether 7a rendered cis-bicyclo-
[4.4.0]decenone 4a in 67% yield. Annulation yields were
limited to 39-53% and 18%, however, when the sterically
more hindered silyldienol ethers 7b or 7c were employed.
Faced with the latter result and aggravating purification and
yield problems during the preparation of enone 11c (cf.
Supporting Information), we abandoned this route toward 1
as unexpedient.
A better working approach to the bicyclo[4.4.0]decenone
4c was established by the cis-selective cyclohexanone
annulation shown in Scheme 2. It is a five-step, one-pot
process, novel (to the best of our knowledge), and entails
the following course of events: A Michael addition (1) of
the 8-derived lithium enolate to the cyclohexadienoate 6
delivers the methyl ester enolate 12. The latter undergoes
O-acylation intramolecularly (2) so that the ketene acylal
13 is formed. The addition of vinylmagnesium bromide (3)
generates hemiacylal 14, which ring-opens (4) upon warming
and delivers the enone-substituted ester enolate 15, which
in turn ring-closes by an intramolecular Michael addition
(5).
(4) (a) Tietze, L. F.; Brasche, G.; Gericke, K. M. Domino Reactions in
Organic Synthesis; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2006. (b) Nicolaou, K. C.;
Edmonds, D. J.; Bulger, P. G. Angew. Chem. 2006, 118, 7292–7344.
Nicolaou, K. C.; Edmonds, D. J.; Bulger, P. G. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.
2006, 45, 7134–7186. (c) Nicolaou, K. C.; Montagnon, T.; Snyder, S. A.
Chem. Commun. 2003, 551–564.
(5) Reviews about Diels-Alder reactions: (a) Marsault, E.; Toro, A.;
Nowak, P.; Deslongchamps, P. Tetrahedron 2001, 57, 4243–4260. (b) Corey,
E. J. Angew. Chem. 2002, 114, 1724–1741. Corey, E. J. Angew. Chem.,
Int. Ed. Engl. 2002, 41, 1650–1667. (c) Nicolaou, K. C.; Snyder, S. A.;
Montagnon, T.; Vassilikogiannakis, G. Angew. Chem. 2002, 114, 1742–
1773. Nicolaou, K. C.; Snyder, S. A.; Montagnon, T.; Vassilikogiannakis,
G. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 2002, 41, 1668–1698. (d) Takao, K.;
Munakata, R.; Tadano, K. Chem. ReV. 2005, 105, 4779–4807. (e) Ess, D. H.;
Jones, G. O.; Houk, K. N. AdV. Synth. Catal. 2006, 348, 2337–2361. (f)
Wessig, P.; Mueller, G. Chem. ReV. 2008, 108, 2051–2063. (g) Reymond,
S.; Cossy, J. Chem. ReV. 2008, 108, 5359–5406.
(6) First report: (a) Lee, R. A. Tetrahedron Lett. 1973, 3333–3336.
Representative applications: (b) Spitzner, D.; Engler, A. Organic Syntheses;
Wiley: New York, 1993; Collect. Vol. 8, pp 219-222, and references cited
therein.
(7) Nazarov, I. N.; Zavyalov, S. I. Zh. Obshch. Khim. 1953, 23, 1703–
1705. Nazarov, I. N.; Zavyalov, S. I. Russ. J. Org. Chem. 1953, 23, 1793–
1794. Nazarov, I. N.; Zavyalov, S. I. Chem. Abstr. 1954, 48, 13667h.
(8) First report: (a) Lavalle´e, J.-F.; Deslongchamps, P. Tetrahedron Lett.
1988, 29, 5117–5118. (b) Lead reference for subsequent studies: Chen, L.;
Deslongchamps, P. Can. J. Chem. 2005, 83, 728–740. Erratum: Chen, L.;
Deslongchamps, P. Can. J. Chem. 2005, 83, 2144.
(9) The considerable volatility of silyldienolethers 7a-c and their
sensitivity toward hydrolysis may account in part for the low yields preparing
them.
(10) Kaliappan, K.; Subba Rao, G. S. R. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans.
1 1997, 3387–3392.
Org. Lett., Vol. 11, No. 21, 2009
4843