Journal of the American Chemical Society
Article
the dimer [Ni(μ-Br)(IPr)]2 as (pre)catalyst instead of Ni(II)
/
IPr under otherwise identical conditions, product 2 was
obtained with the same yield (89%).
In the absence of Mn, but otherwise unaltered reaction
conditions with 12 mol % Ni(I) dimer, a combined yield of
12% of product 2 and its desilylated form 2a is generated
(see Figure 2B, details in SI), which indicates that one cycle
per nickel dimer was undergone and that the role of Mn is
likely primarily to regenerate the Ni(I) dimer. To examine this
further, we analyzed the resulting Ni species that is formed in
the reaction under Ni(I) dimer catalysis in the absence of Mn
(Figure 2B) by crystallization of the resulting reaction
mixture. X-ray crystallographic analysis indicated that two
Ni(II) species had formed: the dimeric [Ni(μ-Br)(Br)(IPr)]2
(purple crystals; ∼50%) and monomeric [NiBr3(IPr)][IPrH]
(turquoise crystals; ∼50%) (Figure 2C). However, the latter
monomeric Ni(II) salt potentially forms from fragmentation of
the Ni(II) dimer in solution. By analogy, [FeCl3(SIPr)]-
[SIPrH] salts have been shown to form from [Fe(μ-
Cl)(Cl)(SIPr)]2.54 We further discovered that the subsequent
subjection of Mn (3 equiv) to this mixture of Ni(II) species in
THF gives rise to the formation of the Ni(I) dimer [Ni(μ-
Br)(IPr)]2, as judged by 1H NMR analysis (Figure 2C).
These data indicate that the Ni(I) dimer is a key species in
this transformation. The role of Mn is to regenerate the Ni(I)
dimer after each cycle.
Research in the field of dinuclear metal complexes of
oxidation state I with palladium has shown that the precise
catalytic role and mechanistic involvement of such dinuclear
metal complexes is highly dependent on the type of
transformation, the reaction conditions, and especially the
additives that are present.55 In this context, we previously
showed that a Ni(I) dimer can give rise to Ni(I) metalloradical
reactivity with olefins.45 However, our previous work also
indicated that ketones wouldif not blocked by a Lewis
acidinhibit such radical reactivity.45 As such, the radical
species may also be converted to an alternative species, if
suitable reagents are present in the mixture. In this context,
the alkyl bromide likely funnels the “inhibited” Ni(I)
metalloradical to a [Ni(II)-H],9,47−49 as illustrated in Figure
2D. In line with this proposal, the employment of fully
deuterated iPrBr gave rise to deuterium incorporation at the
terminal site, which is consistent with the initial addition of a
[Ni(II)-D] species (see SI for details). Ultimately, upon chain
walking, a stabilized η3-bound enolate is formed.
Figure 1. (A) Base-mediated silyl enol ether formations; (B) metal-
mediated silyl enol ether formation; (C, D) silyl enol ethers via
isomerization and remote functionalization; (E) this work: remote
functionalization of ketones.
previously been shown to be suited for this endeavor,9,47−49
and we set out to explore suitable conditions.
To our delight, we identified that a catalytic amount of
NiBr2(dme) along with IPr (1,3-bis(2,6-diisopropylphenyl)-
1,3-dihydro-2H-imidazol-2-ylidene) ligand, iPrBr, and Mn
powder allowed for the selective functionalization of ketone
1 with Et3SiCl to yield 2 (Figures 2 and 3).
The omission of either Mn, Et3SiCl, or Ni(II)/IPr from the
reaction mixture left the starting ketone 1 untouched. The
i
employment of PhMe2SiH instead of Et3SiCl and PrBr gave
rise to a net reductive silylation of ketone without olefin
migration.
Our computational studies57,58 suggest that the η3-
coordination is likely the origin of positional selectivity and
stereoselectivity, as it fixes the enol geometry and impedes
further chain walking (see Figure 2D). After silylation the
formed Ni(II) is reduced with Mn to (re)form the Ni(I) dimer.
With the mechanism identified, we subsequently explored
the scope of the transformation (Figure 3) using conditions
that allow using commercially available catalyst components,
i.e., those that start from Ni(II), and that efficiently generate
the Ni(I) dimer in situ after prestirring.
We reacted our model substrate 1 with different
chlorosilane sources, which gave the corresponding silyl
enol ethers (−OSiMe3 (3), −OSi(iPr)Me2 (4)) in good
yields and excellent Z-selectivities, indicating that different
silyl chloride sources are equally efficient in the trans-
formation. With this in mind, we subsequently evaluated the
functional group tolerance using Et3SiCl. We studied various
Given nickel’s propensity to form dinuclear Ni(I) complexes
with IPr ligands,50−52 we investigated the likely speciation of
the Ni(II) precatalyst under these reductive conditions.
Indeed, we observed that the subjection of Mn and IPr to
a solution of NiBr2(dme) in THF resulted in the formation
of Ni(I) dimer [Ni(μ-Br)(IPr)]2 as the major product within
15 min at 35 °C. Our crystallization of the mixture resulted
in ∼91% of [Ni(μ-Br)(IPr)]2 (green crystals) along with
minor amounts of NiBr2(IPr)2 (red crystals; ∼9%) (see
Figure 2A).53 In line with these observations and suggesting
that the initial reduction to Ni(I) is mechanistically critical, we
found that an initial premixing of NiBr2(dme), IPr, and Mn
in THF for 15 min prior to the addition of the substrate and
remaining reagents led to optimal conversion to the products.
For example, 2 was formed in 89% yield and high Z-
selectivity (Z:E 96:4, shown in Figure 3), while it formed in
only 60% yield without premixing. Moreover, when we used
8376
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021, 143, 8375−8380