160
R. F. Guignard
LETTER
References
O
O
MeO
MeO
(1) Sun, N.; Chang, C.; Cassady, J. M. Phytochemistry 1987, 26,
3051.
(2) Geran, R. I.; Greenberg, N. H.; MacDonald, M. M.;
Schumacher, A. M.; Abbott, B. J. Cancer Chemother. 1972,
3, 1.
NaOH
+
22
2
H
EtOH
r.t., 1 h
89%
3
4
H
OH
OH
1:0.7
20b
20a
(3) (a) Hernandez-Romero, Y.; Rojas, J. I.; Castillo, R.; Rojas,
A.; Mata, R. J. Nat. Prod. 2004, 67, 160. (b) Tezuka, Y.;
Morikawa, K.; Li, F.; Auw, L.; Awale, S.; Nobukawa, T.;
Kadota, S. J. Nat. Prod. 2011, 74, 102. (c) Park, B. M.;
Hong, S. S.; Lee, C.; Lee, M. S.; Kang, S. J.; Shin, Y. S.;
Jung, J. K.; Hong, J. T.; Kim, Y.; Lee, M. K.; Hwang, B. Y.
Arch. Pharm. Res. 2010, 33, 381. (d) Messiano, G. B.; Silva,
T.; Nascimento, I. R.; Lopes, L. M. X. Phytochemistry 2009,
70, 590.
(4) (a) Haworth, R. D. J. Chem. Soc. 1932, 1125. (b) Esteban,
G.; Lopez-Sanchez, M.; Martinez, M. E.; Plumet, J.
Tetrahedron 1998, 54, 197. (c) Caro, Y.; Masaguer, C. F.;
Ravina, E. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2003, 14, 381. (d) Cui,
D. M.; Kawamura, M.; Shimada, S.; Hayashi, T.; Tanaka, M.
Tetrahedron Lett. 2003, 44, 4007.
(5) (a) Heiba, E. I.; Dessau, R. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1972, 94,
2888. (b) Russel, G. A.; Kulkarni, S. V.; Khanna, R. K. J.
Org. Chem. 1990, 55, 1080. (c) Snider, B. B.; Kwon, T. J.
Org. Chem. 1990, 55, 4786. (d) Russell, G. A.; Chen, P.;
Kim, B. H.; Rajaratnam, R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119,
8795.
(6) (a) Liard, A.; Quiclet-Sire, B.; Zard, S. Z. Tetrahedron Lett.
1997, 38, 1759. (b) Cordero-Vargas, A.; Pérez-Martin, I.;
Quiclet-Sire, B.; Zard, S. Z. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2004, 2,
3018. (c) Petit, L.; Zard, S. Z. Chem. Commun. 2010, 46,
5148. (d) Cordero-Vargas, A.; Quiclet-Sire, B.; Zard, S. Z.
Org. Lett. 2003, 5, 3717.
Scheme 10
Unfortunately, neither of these two compounds had spec-
tra that matched those reported for flossonol (Table 2).
It appears that the structure proposed by Cassady et al.
should be revised, unless an error was introduced in re-
cording the NMR spectra or in transcribing the chemical
shifts. Nevertheless, the strategy we have developed to
access this family of compounds is flexible and efficient.
Table 2 Comparison, in ppm, of the Chemical Shifts
Flossonola
Compound 20ab Compound 20bb
H2
H4
H5
H9
3.17
4.33
6.77
1.46
2.59
4.97
7.42
1.29
3.10
4.94
7.21
1.27
a As given by Cassady et al.,1 measured with 470 MHz NMR instru-
ment in CDCl3 using TMS as internal standard.
b As measured with 400 MHz NMR instrument in CDCl3 using TMS
as internal standard.
(7) Pretsch, E.; Clerc, T.; Seibl, J.; Simon, W. Tabellen zur
Strukturaufklärung organischer Verbindungen mit
spektroskopischen Methoden; Springer-Verlag: Berlin,
1986.
Supporting Information for this article is available online at
m
iotSrat
ungIifoop
r
t
Synlett 2013, 24, 157–160
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York