Tandem Polar/Radical Crossover Sequences
A R T I C L E S
Scheme 3. General Mechanism Relating the â-(Phosphatoxy)alkyl
Radical and Alkene Radical Cations
successful implementation of this general scheme in the
formation of a number of fused and bicyclic heterocyclic amines.
Results and Discussion
In the planning of radical chain reactions, knowledge of the
kinetics of the individual steps and of their competitors is
extremely advantageous.13 The same will evidently be true in
the design of radical ionic chain reactions, and, accordingly,
we open this discussion with a consideration of the relevant,
available data. The rate constants of immediate interest are those
concerning the (i) fragmentation of â-(phosphatoxy)alkyl radi-
cals to alkene radical cations,7,8,14 (ii) addition of nucleophiles
to alkene radical cations,7b,14c,15 and (iii) recombination within
contact ion pairs, that is, the competing rearrangement reac-
tions.7,8,16 The situation, however, is complex, with different
kinetic methods often yielding disparate results because of their
probing the radical cation at different stages of solvation.17
Nevertheless, it is evident from the available literature that
fragmentations are accelerated in more polar solvents and that
nucleophilic attack patterns reflect those of closed-shell systems.
Initial experiments with allyl alcohol as an intermolecular
nucleophile trapping a fragmentation generated â,â-dimethyl-
styrene radical cation/diphenyl phosphate anion pair revealed
that high concentrations of the nucleophile were required to out
compete recombination leading to the rearrangement prod-
uct.18,19 We therefore focused on the considerably more nu-
cleophilic allylamines20 and targeted intramolecular systems as
these typically permit the assembly of more complex systems.
In designing the desired sequences, we determined that a
suitable radical precursor compatible with the presence of a
nucleophile was required. The radical precursor must further-
more be consistent with, and preferentially stabilize, the adjacent
leaving group. In an earlier tandem system with a built-in alcohol
as a nucleophile, we overcame this problem by employing a
C-H bond as a radical precursor and by making double usage
of the oxygen, first as an alkoxyl radical to bring about 1,5-
hydrogen abstraction, thereby generating desired radical, and,
of a 3′-O-phosphate, following hydrogen atom abstraction from
the C4′ under conditions of ionizing radiation.6 In the intervening
years, much indirect evidence has been advanced in support of
the radical ionic fragmentation of radicals with good leaving
groups â- to the radical7 culminating in the direct observation
of certain radical cations by the time-resolved laser flash
photolysis technique in polar solvents.8,9 Strong kinetic evidence
has been advanced that supports the intermediacy of alkene
radical cations in the rearrangements of â-(phosphatoxy)alkyl8,10
and, probably, â-(acyloxy)alkyl radicals8,10d,11 even in nonpolar
media such as benzene. A model has been put forward to unify
all of the various rearrangement and fragmentation reactions of
â-(phosphatoxy)alkyl and related radicals in which the first step
is radical ionic fragmentation to an alkene radical cation/anion
contact ion pair (Scheme 3).8b,12 The subsequent evolution of
this contact ion pair to either fragmentation or rearrangement
products, or indeed back to the starting radical, is a function of
substituent and solvent which leaves considerable room for the
synthetic chemist to maneuver. Indeed, this model underpins
all of our current thinking in the area, including the design of
the systems presented below.
On the basis of the above analysis, we have designed a
number of systems in which a built-in allylamine traps an alkene
radical cation, generated by the fragmentation approach, with
the formation of a first ring. In the second leg of this tandem
polar/radical crossover sequence, a radical cyclization closes
the final ring. This is followed by hydrogen abstraction from a
stannane which completes the product formation and regenerates
a stannyl radical. The complete sequence may therefore be
termed a radical ionic chain reaction. We describe here the
(13) (a) Ingold, K. U.; Griller, D. Acc. Chem. Res. 1980, 13, 317. (b) Newcomb,
M. Tetrahedron 1993, 49, 1151. (c) Newcomb, M. In Radicals in Organic
Synthesis; Renaud, P., Sibi, M. P., Eds.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2001;
Vol. 1, p 317.
(14) (a) Koltzenburg, G.; Behrens, G.; Schulte-Frohlinde, D. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1982, 104, 7311. (b) Cozens, F. L.; O’Neill, M.; Bogdanova, R.; Schepp,
N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 10652. (c) Horner, J. H.; Taxil, E.;
Newcomb, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 5402.
(15) (a) Johnston, L. J.; Schepp, N. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 6564. (b)
Johnston, L. J.; Schepp, N. P. Pure Appl. Chem. 1995, 67, 71. (c) Johnston,
L. J.; Schepp, N. P. AdV. Electron-Transfer Chem. 1996, 5, 41.
(16) (a) Crich, D.; Jiao, X.-Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 6666. (b) Choi,
S.-Y.; Crich, D.; Horner, J. H.; Huang, X.; Newcomb, M.; Whitted, P. O.
Tetrahedron 1999, 59, 3317.
(17) For example, time-resolved LFP studies of alkene radical cations generated
according to Scheme 3 using a nanosecond laser only detect the diffusively
free radical cation and so are unable to provide data on the rates of formation
of contact ion pairs or of their trapping. This situation arises because
diffusion out of the contact ion pair is expected to be faster than the
nanosecond time scale of the instrument: Arnold, B. R.; Noukakis, D.;
Farid, S.; Goodman, J. L.; Gould, I. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 4399.
For a discussion, see ref 14c.
(6) (a) von Sonntag, C. The Chemical Basis of Radiation Biology; Taylor and
Francis: London, 1987. (b) von Sonntag, C.; Hagen, U.; Schon-Bopp, A.;
Schulte-Frohlinde, D. In AdVances in Radiation Biology; Lett, J. T., Adler,
H., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, 1981; Vol. 9, p 109.
(7) (a) Beckwith, A. L. J.; Crich, D.; Duggan, P. J.; Yao, Q. Chem. ReV. 1997,
97, 3273. (b) Gugger, A.; Batra, R.; Rzadek, P.; Rist, G.; Giese, B. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 8740.
(8) (a) Whitted, P. O.; Horner, J. H.; Newcomb, M.; Huang, X.; Crich, D.
Org. Lett. 1999, 1, 153. (b) Newcomb, M.; Horner, J. H.; Whitted, P. O.;
Crich, D.; Huang, X.; Yao, Q.; Zipse, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121,
10685.
(9) The highly delocalized alkene radical cation of 1,1-dimethoxyethene could
be observed directly by ESR spectroscopy following generation by a
fragmentation approach: Behrens, G.; Bothe, E.; Koltzenberg, G.; Schulte-
Frohlinde, D. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1980, 883.
(10) (a) Crich, D.; Yao, Q. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 1165. (b) Crich, D.;
Yao, Q.; Filzen, G. F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 11455. (c) Koch, A.;
Lamberth, C.; Wetterich, F.; Giese, B. J. Org. Chem. 1993, 58, 1083. (d)
Crich, D. In Radicals in Organic Synthesis; Renaud, P., Sibi, M., Eds.;
Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2001; Vol. 2, p 188.
(11) (a) Surzur, J.-M.; Teissier, P. C. R. Acad. Sci. Fr. Ser. C 1967, 264, 1981.
(b) Tanner, D. D.; Law, F. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1969, 91, 7535.
(12) A closely related scheme was also advanced earlier by Sprecher: Sprecher,
M. Chemtracts: Org. Chem. 1994, 7, 115.
(18) This is not surprising given that the bimolecular rate constant for the addition
of methanol to the â,â-dimethylstyrene radical cation is only 2 × 105 M-1
s-1 (at 20 °C in trifluoroethanol),15a whereas the unimolecular rate constant
for â-(phosphatoxy)alkyl rearrangement of the â-(diphenylphosphatoxy)-
â-phenyl-R,R-dimethyl radical, that is, the rearrangement proceeding via
the same contact ion pair, is 1.2 × 106 s-1 in benzene and 1.8 × 107 s-1
in acetonitrile (both at 20 °C).16b
(19) For the use of allyl alcohol as a probe for alkene radical cations, see: Giese,
B.; Beyrich-Graf, X.; Burger, J.; Kesselheim, C.; Senn, M.; Schafer, T.
Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1993, 32, 1742.
(20) The bimolecular rate constant for the addition of butylamine to the
p-methoxystyrene radical cation in acetonitrile at 20 °C is much faster at
2.1 × 109 M-1 s-1 15b
.
9
J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 125, NO. 26, 2003 7943