dioxaspirohexane 1 represented a versatile and novel template
for the construction of diverse sphingoid bases, as illustrated
in Figure 1.10 In this Letter, the utility of 1 is demonstrated
Scheme 1
entry to aminodiol sphingoid bases (see Figure 1, path a).
The ketones 2 produced by such reactions would need only
stereoselective reduction and deprotection to provide dihydro-
sphingosines. To illustrate this, we prepared D-erythro-
dihydrosphingosine, as shown in Scheme 1. Our first goal
was to ascertain the appropriate organometallic reagent to
effect the conversion of 1 to 7. Not surprisingly, reaction of
1 with either organolithium or Grignard reagents led to
complex mixtures, since the initial ketonic products appeared
to be at least as reactive as 1. Organocuprates are reported
to be more effective than organomagnesium or organolithium
reagents in opening oxiranes.13,14 Reaction of 1 with the
mixed higher order thienylcuprate 1015 gave 11 in 24% yield.
When the mixed higher order alkyl cuprate 12 was used,16
11 was isolated in 43% yield. Gratifyingly, when mixed alkyl
Figure 1. General strategy for sphingoid base synthesis from 1.
by its conversion to D-erythro-dihydrosphingosine and D-
xylo-phytosphingosine.
Our route to dioxaspirohexane 1 is shown in Scheme 1.
We have previously described the preparation of this
compound.9 Thus, â-lactone 4 was secured from the protected
serine under Mitsunobu conditions, as described by Ved-
eras.11 Methylenation provided 5. Oxidation with dimethyl-
dioxirane (DMDO) was quantitative and clean, and 112 was
used without further purification.
cuprate 6 was employed, ketone 7 was isolated in 65% yield
(Scheme 1). Stereoselective reduction of 7 with lithium tris-
(tert-butoxy)aluminum hydride17 provided solely the erythro-
diastereomer 8 in excellent yield, and treatment with TFA
gave D-erythro-dihydrosphingosine. This was converted to
the corresponding known triacetate 9 to confirm its identity.
We envisaged that both sphingosines and phytosphingo-
sines could be procured from a protected aldehyde, such as
We felt that ring-opening of 1 by an appropriate organo-
metallic reagent represented a particularly straightforward
(9) Ndakala, A. J.; Howell, A. R. J. Org. Chem. 1998, 63, 6098-6099.
(10) Approaches to sphingosines (Koskinen, P. M.; Koskinen, A. M. P.
Synthesis 1998, 1075-1091. Curfman, D.; Liotta, D. Methods Enzymol.
2000, 311, 391-440) and phytosphingosines (Howell, A. R.; Ndakala, A.
J. Curr. Org. Chem., in press) have been recently reviewed. For recent
syntheses of dihydrosphingosines, see: (a) Hertweck, C.; Sebek, P.; Svatos,
A. Synlett 2001, 1965-1967. (b) Fernandes, R. A.; Kumar, P. Eur. J. Org.
Chem. 2000, 3447-3449. (c) Azuma, H.; Tamagaki, S.; Ogino, K. J. Org.
Chem. 2000, 65, 3538-3541. (d) Fernandes, R. A.; Kumar, P. Tetrahe-
dron: Asymmetry 1999, 10, 4797-4802. (e) Villard, R.; Fotiadu, F.; Buono,
G. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 1998, 9, 607-611. (f) Hoffman, R. V.; Tao,
J. J. Org. Chem. 1998, 63, 3979-3985.
(12) Compound 1 was isolated as a mixture of diastereomers (95/5). The
identity of the major diastereomer is not known. Evidence (see ref 9)
suggests that diastereoselectivity is largely sterically controlled. It is
noteworthy that the diastereomeric ratio is inconsequential for the subsequent
transformations of 1 in the applications described in this Letter.
(13) Lipshutz, B. H. Synthesis 1987, 325-341.
(14) Posner, G. H. Org. React. 1975, 22, 253-400.
(15) Lipshutz, B. H.; Koerner, M.; Parker, D. A. Tetrahedron Lett. 1987,
28, 945-948.
(16) Lipshutz, B. H.; Kozlowski, J. A.; Wilhelm, R. S. J. Org. Chem.
1984, 49, 3943-3949.
(17) Hoffman, R. V.; Maslouh, N.; Cervantes-Lee, F. J. Org. Chem. 2002,
67, 1045-1056.
(11) Pansare, S. V.; Arnold, L. D.; Vederas, J. C. Org. Synth. 1992, 70,
10-17.
1720
Org. Lett., Vol. 4, No. 10, 2002