of the furan with bromobenzene or 3-bromoanisole using
Method A (entries 9 and 7) resulted in a complex mixture
of products from which no product, or starting aryl bromide,
could be isolated.7 Arylation of the furan with 3-bromo-
anisole using Method B was slightly more successful, giving
the 5-arylated product 8f in 15% yield (entry 8). Interestingly,
Ohta4a reported the need for electron-withdrawing groups on
the aryl halide in the palladium-catalyzed arylation of the
parent furan.
Table 3. Thiophene Arylations
entry
Ar 6a , 6g
methoda
product (yield)
Second, it is clear that Method A [toluene, Pd(PPh3)4]
consistently afforded the 2-aryl adduct in high selectivity,
while Method B (NMP, Pd/C) yielded a less selective
reaction favoring the 5-aryl adduct.
1
2
3
(6a ) 3-NO2C6H4
(6a ) 3-NO2C6H4
(6a ) 3-NO2C6H4
A
B
C
14a (67%)
15a (51%)
14a (15%)
14g (52%)
4
(6g) C6H5
A
A possible explanation for the reversal of selectivity on
going from Method A to Method B is a change in the reaction
mechanism (Scheme 2).8 The nonpolar solvent and phosphine
ligands present in Method A are expected to stabilize the
σ-bonded Pd(II) species favoring the Heck-type R,â-insertion
reaction proximal to the electron-withdrawing group, there-
fore affording the Heck-type intermediate 9, which leads to
the 2-aryl product 7 after â-elimination. Conversely, the polar
solvent and the absence of stabilizing phosphine ligands are
likely to promote the ionization of the Pd-X σ-bond to form
an electrophilic Pd(II) species. This species would be
a Method A: Pd(PPh3)4, KOAc, toluene, 110 °C. Method B: Pd/C,
KOAc, NMP, 110 °C. Method C: Pd2(dba)3, KOAc, NMP, 110 °C.
and reductive elimination. Analogous cationic mechanisms
have been used to explain the regioselectivity of the
palladium-catalyzed arylation of azoles with aryl halides9 as
well as the intramolecular Heck coupling of a vinyl triflate
with a benzofuran.10 Further evidence of the electrophilic
character of this reaction is the known susceptibility of the
5-position of 3-methylfuroate to electrophilic substitution,
for example, bromination.11
To examine the generality of this reaction further, we
proceeded to study the palladium-catalyzed arylation of the
corresponding thiophene. The results of the arylation of
methyl-3-thiophenecarboxylate are shown in Table 3. The
same reactivity trends as the furan case were observed. The
nonpolar solvent and phosphine-bound palladium (Method
A) afforded the 2-aryl thiophene 14 in high selectivity
(entries 1 and 4). While the polar solvent and ligandless
palladium catalyst afforded predominantly the 5-aryl adduct
15, it should be noted that the use of Pd/C as the source of
“ligandless palladium” (Method B) was not successful in the
thiophene cases, presumably due to poisoning of the het-
erogeneous catalyst. However, this problem was overcome
by switching to the “phosphine-less” homogeneous catalyst
Pd2(dba)3 (Method C, see Table 3, entry 3). Another
difference observed with the thiophene substrate is the higher
reactivity of the thiophene over that of the furan to arylation
with aryl bromides lacking electron-withdrawing groups.
Where the attempted arylation of the furan with bromoben-
zene with Method A was unsuccessful and failed to give
any detectable desired product (Table 2, entry 9), the
analogous reaction with the thiophene afforded the 2-phenyl
adduct 14g in 52% yield (Table 3, entry 4).
Scheme 2
To demonstrate the synthetic utility of the furan arylation
described above, we applied the chemistry to the synthesis
of the furo[3,2-c]quinolinone 16 as shown in Scheme 3. The
furoquinolinone ring system is common in nature, particularly
in alkaloids derived from Rutaceae species.12 These alkaloids
expected to react preferentially at the more electron-rich
5-position of the furan giving the cationic intermediate 11,
thus favoring the 5-aryl product 8 after proton abstraction
(7) Use of the corresponding aryl iodides or aryl triflates did not lead to
any improvement in these reactions, suggesting that the oxidative addition
is not the rate-limiting step.
(8) For reviews of the mechanism of the Heck reaction, see: (a) Crisp,
G. T. Chem. Soc. ReV. 1998, 27, 427. (b) Amatore, C.; Jutand, A. Acc.
Chem. Res. 2000, 33, 314.
(9) Pivsa-Art, S.; Tetsuya, S.; Kawamura, Y.; Miura, M.; Nomura, M.
Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 1998, 71, 467.
(10) Hughes, C. C.; Trauner, D. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 1569.
(11) Sornay, R.; Meunier, J. M.; Fournari, P. Bull. Soc. Chim. Fr. 1971,
990.
Org. Lett., Vol. 5, No. 3, 2003
303