formation and handling of not only the activated sugar donor
but also of the resulting 2,6-dideoxy-4-dimethylaminopyra-
noside. Not surprisingly, there are few reports describing
direct glycosylation protocols for unprotected amino sugar
donors, especially for 2,6-dideoxy systems.5,6 Further chal-
lenges involve controlling the stereochemical outcome of the
glycosylation event to be R-selective in a sugar that lacks a
stereodirecting 2-substituent. Nevertheless, by extrapolating
the stereochemistry of kedarosamine to fuco-like 2-deoxy
systems that bear axially orientated 4-substituents, we
anticipated that high R-selectivity would be inherently
realized through substrate control.3-5,7
remained totally unreactive to these conditions or decom-
posed. It was therefore necessary to determine alternative
glycosylation conditions. Yet, despite a multitude of re-
agent systems that were explored for donors derived from
thioglycoside 2, which worked well on simple alcohols such
as i-Pr2CHOH to give 3, all efforts failed for the pro-
pargylic alcohol acceptor 4.9 Further efforts were plagued
with a combination of the instability of the glycosyl donors
derived from 2 (X ) SPh) and reagent incompatibility to
the free NMe2 group. Specifically, under standard Schmidt
conditions using DBU or K2CO3,10 the isolation of the
glycosyl trichloroacetimidate in pure form from 2 (X ) OH)
was unsuccessful and attempts to generate glycoside products
of 4 could not be achieved or investigated in a reliable and
systematic manner.
Our study began with the 2-deoxythioglycoside (2) of
L-kedarosamine.8 Encouraged by the successful R-selective
glycosylation of 2 (X ) SPh) with simple alcohols to give
glycosides such as 3 using AgPF6/2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-meth-
ylpyridine (DTBMP),5 we investigated the glycosylation of
the diyne alcohol 4 (Scheme 1). To our dismay, regardless
It became increasingly apparent that specific reagents and
isolation conditions had to be judiciously chosen for the case
at hand, especially since we favored the amino sugar (5) to
bear a TES-ether as an easily removable protective group
for the concluding stages to 1 (Scheme 2). First, we deter-
Scheme 1. Low Acceptor Reactivity of Diyne Fragment 4
Scheme 2. Reliable Route to Schmidt Donor 8a
of the protective groups employed, the secondary alcohol in
4 (e.g., R1 ) Piv, R2 ) H, TES, MOM; or R1 ) R2 ) CMe2)
(3) Reviews on 2-deoxyglycoside formation: (a) Marzabadi, C. H.;
Franck, R. W. Tetrahedron 2000, 56, 8385-8417. (b) Toshima, K.; Tatsuta,
K. Chem. ReV. 1993, 93, 1503-1531.
mined the best method to form the free sugar 6 from thio-
glycoside 5 and found AgNO3/2,6-lutidine in wet THF to
be aptly suited to the task, which allowed for a nonaqueous
isolation procedure.11 Next, we pursued the clean formation
and isolation of the Schmidt donor 8 from 6. Assessment of
the most desirable preparative conditions led to the notion
of using a polymer-supported base, which would necessitate
a simple filtration and evaporation step at workup. Indeed,
(4) For R-selective glycosylations using NH-protected kedarosamine
donors, see: Vuljanic, T.; Kihlberg, J.; Somfai, P. J. Org. Chem. 1998, 63,
279-286.
(5) For a general R-selective method for both sugars of kedarcidin using
AgPF6 activation of 2-deoxythioglycosides, see: Lear, M. J.; Yoshimura,
F.; Hirama, M. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2001, 40, 946-949.
(6) Glycosylation examples of sugar donors bearing unprotected amino-
groups in total synthesis settings: Tatsuta, K.; Kobayashi, Y.; Gunji, H.;
Masuda, H. Tetrahedron Lett. 1988, 29, 3975-3978. Paquette, L. A.;
Collado, I.; Purdie, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 2553-2562. Myers,
A. G.; Liang, J.; Hammond, M.; Harrington, P. M.; Wu, Y.; Kuo, E. Y. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 5319-5320. Toshima, K.; Maeda, Y.; Ouchi,
H.; Asai, A.; Matsumura, S. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2000, 10, 2163-
2165. Kolar, C.; Dehmel, K.; Knoedler, U.; Paal, M.; Hermentin, P.; Gerken,
M. J. Carbohydr. Chem. 1989, 8, 295-305.
(7) Instances of high R-selectivity with fuco-like 2-deoxypyranosyl
donors: (a) Roush, W. R.; Bennett, C. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122,
6124-6125. (b) Kolar, C.; Kneissl, G. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1990,
29, 809-811. (c) Schene, H.; Waldmann, H. Synthesis 1999, 1411-1422.
(d) Florent, J.-C.; Gaudel, G.; Monneret, C.; Hoffmann, D.; Kraemer, H.-
P. J. Med. Chem. 1993, 36, 1364-1368.
(9) Reagent systems explored include activation of 2 (X ) SPh) with
NIS, Selectfluor/BF3‚OEt2 (via glycosyl fluoride), PhSeCl/Mg(ClO4)2
(unpublished findings), AgOAc/DTBMP and TBSOTf activation of re-
sulting glycosyl acetate (unpublished work), Tf2O activation of derived
sulfoxide, and dehydrative glycosylations with 2 (X ) OH): Burkart, M.
D.; Zhang, Z.; Hung, S.-C.; Wong, C.-H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119,
11743-11746. Kim, S.-H.; Augeri, D.; Yang, D.; Kahne, D. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1994, 116, 1766-1775. Crich, D.; Sun, S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998,
120, 435-436. Garcia, B. A.; Gin, D. Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122,
4269-4279.
(8) 2 and 5 were prepared by thiolysis of protected, methyl L-
kedarosaminides: Lear, M. J.; Hirama, M. Tetrahedron Lett. 1999, 40,
4897-4900. Hanessian, S.; Guindon, Y. Carbohydr. Res. 1980, 86,
C3-C6.
(10) Schmidt, R. R.; Michel, J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1980, 19,
731-732. Schmidt, R. R. Pure Appl. Chem. 1989, 61, 1257-1270.
(11) Method adapted from conditions to deprotect methylthiomethyl
ethers: Corey, E. J.; Bock, M. G. Tetrahedron Lett. 1975, 3269-3270.
720
Org. Lett., Vol. 6, No. 5, 2004