Scheme 1
Scheme 2
at C(7). The key intermediate 4 would be derived from the
known imide 5, prepared in a one-pot operation from (S)-
malic acid.3 We describe the reduction of this plan to practice.
The known imide 5 was first converted into the ethoxy
aminal 6 by regioselective hydride reduction to give the
ethoxy aminal 6. Although 6 could be reacted with various
vinyl organometallic reagents, the yield of the desired adduct
was low, so we investigated other leaving groups. Inspired
by the work of Ley,10 we converted 6 into the sulfone 7 by
reaction with freshly prepared benzenesulfinic acid; the
quality of this reagent was essential to the success of the
reaction. When 7 was allowed to react with vinylmagnesium
bromide in the presence of ZnCl2 followed by workup with
concentrated sulfuric acid, a separable mixture (ca. 4:1) of
epimeric vinyl pyrrolidinones was obtained from which the
desired 8 was isolated in 65% yield. It then remained to
introduce the allyl group by stereoselective alkylation of 8.
Indeed, when a homogeneous solution of the dianion of 8
was treated with allyl bromide, the desired product 9 was
formed as a single diastereomer in 71% yield, thereby setting
the stage for the key RCM reaction.
experiment where the TMS ether 12 was found to cyclize
smoothly in the presence of 10 to give 13 (Scheme 3). It is
perhaps instructive to consider a possible cause for the lack
of the observed reactivity of 9 toward 10, even though such
reasoning is presently speculative. On the basis of steric
considerations, 10 would likely react preferentially with the
less hindered allylic carbon-carbon double bond of 9. If
the proximal hydroxy group then coordinated with the
ruthenium ion as in 14, the complex could then be locked in
a conformation that would be unreactive toward further
metathesis because of the relative orientation of the carbene
and the pendant vinyl group.
Although this synthesis of 13 provided an effective
solution to the problem associated with the lack of reactivity
Initial experiments to effect the RCM of 9 using the first
generation Grubbs catalyst 1011 under a variety of conditions
were unsuccessful. This result was rather surprising because
10 has been shown to be tolerant to the presence of free
hydroxyl groups, although there are scattered reports of
problems with this catalyst.12 That the hydroxyl group was
indeed the source of the problem was confirmed in a separate
Scheme 3
(9) For some leading references, see: (a) Martin, S. F.; Liao, Y.; Wong,
Y.; Rein, T. Tetrahedron Lett. 1994, 35, 691-694. (b) Martin, S. F.; Chen,
H.-J.; Courtney, A. K.; Liao, Y.; Pa¨tzel, M.; Ramser, M. N.; Wagman, A.
S. Tetrahedron 1996, 52, 7251-7264. (c) Fellows, I. M.; Kaelin, D. E.;
Martin, S. F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 10781-10787. (d) Lee, K. L.;
Goh, J. B.; Martin, S. F. Tetrahedron Lett. 2001, 42, 1635-1638. (e)
Humphrey, J. M.; Liao, Y.; Ali, A.; Rein, T.; Wong, Y.-L.; Chen, H.-J.;
Courtney, A. K.; Martin, S. F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 8584-8592.
(f) Deiters, A.; Martin, S. F. Org. Lett. 2002, 4, 3243-3245. (g) Neipp, C.
E.; Martin, S. F. Tetrahedron Lett. 2002, 43, 1779-1782.
(10) Brown, D. S.; Charreau, P.; Hansson, T.; Ley, S. V. Tetrahedron
1991, 47, 1311-3128.
3524
Org. Lett., Vol. 5, No. 19, 2003