Table 1. Ligand Screening and Reaction Optimizationa
Scheme 1
% ee (% yield)/counterion
substrate-tolerant catalysts for aldol additions of dienolsilanes
to pyruvate esters have remained elusive.
entry
ligand
T (°C)
OTf
Cl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A
B
-78
-78
-78
-78
-78
-78
-40
-20
0
74 (77)b
11 (70)b
76 (78)
91 (31)
40 (35)
90 (81)
86 (80)
20 (75)
44 (78)
90 (78)
94 (81)
92 (85)
The state-of-the-art in this area provides aldol product 3a
in a modest 74% ee using the commercially available tert-
butyl box ligand A (and 17% ee with ligand B).3 While many
structurally diverse bis(oxazoline) architectures have been
introduced in recent years,4-6 there exists a paucity of
reported variations in aryl substituents (i.e., C) of bis-
(oxazoline)s.7 In this regard, the electronic and steric tuning
of aryl rings in chiral ligands is a cornerstone of reaction
optimization, and given the gearing and high rotational
barriers imposed by ortho substituents we chose to focus on
their influence. However, at the onset of these investigations
it became immediately obvious that a lack of suitable aryl
glycinol precursors had thwarted advancements in this area.
We addressed this deficiency by preparing a family of
o-alkoxy-substituted aryl glycinols 48 and converting four
of these to their corresponding bis(oxazoline)s (Scheme 2).9,10
6a
6b
6c
6d
6a
6a
6a
39 (80)
11 (75)
a Reactions were done in THF (0.25 M), with 1.1 equiv of dienolsilane
relative to methyl pyruvate. Isolated yields. Enantiomeric excess was
determined by chiral HPLC. b These values are similar to those reported in
ref 3.
(up to 98% ee) observed to date in the addition of a
dienolsilane to pyruvate and glyoxylate esters.
The key results from reaction optimization are summarized
in Table 1. Our ideas about ligand design were supported
by the substantially better asymmetric induction observed
with aryl-substituted ligand 6a (76% ee, entry 3) than the
parent ligand B (11% ee, entry 2). The selectivity was further
improved to 90% ee by replacing the triflate counterion with
chloride.11,12 Other changes to the ligand, such as decreasing
the size of the aryl substituent at C(5) (entries 4 and 5) or
increasing the sterics of the alkoxy protecting group (entry
6) resulted in decreased selectivity. The optimized conditions
consist of running the reaction at -20 °C (compare entries
7-9) in THF with preformed catalysts.13
Scheme 2
(7) To the best of our knowledge, there is only a single instance of a
highly enantioselective (Diels-Alder) reaction catalyzed by a substituted
aryl (R-1-naphthyl) bis(oxazoline). Crosignani, S.; Desimoni, G.; Faita, G.;
Righetti, P. P. Tetrahedron 1998, 54, 15721-15730.
(8) Le, J. C-D.; Pagenkopf, B. L. J. Org. Chem. 2004, 69, 4177-4180.
(9) (a) Evans, D. A.; Peterson, G. S.; Johnson, J. S.; Barnes, D. M.;
Campos, K. R.; Woerpel, K. A. J. Org. Chem. 1998, 63, 4541-4544. (b)
Denmark, S. E.; Stavenger, R. A.; Faucher, A.-M.; Edwards, J. P. J. Org.
Chem. 1997, 62, 3375-3389.
Herein, we reveal that copper(II) complexes of bis(oxazoline)
ligands 6 provide the highest levels of asymmetric induction
(10) Selection of the o-alkoxy substituent was made with the expectation
(and realization) that a second ligand architecture 7, which can be described
as a novel bis(oxazoline) salen hybrid, is obtained essentially gratis by simple
deprotection. Catalytic asymmetric reactions with tetradentate ligands 7,
which we call “oxalens,” will be reported elsewhere.
(2) (a) Evans, D. A.; Kozlowski, M. C.; Burgey, C. S.; MacMillan, D.
W. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 7893-7894. (b) Evans, D. A.;
MacMillan, D. W. C.; Campos, K. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 10859-
10860. (c) Evans, D. A.; Burgey, C. S.; Kozlowski, M. C.; Tregay, S. W.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 686-699.
(3) van Lingen, H. L.; van de Mortel J. K. W.; Kekking, K. F. W.; van
Delft, F. L.; Songinke, T.; Rutjes, F. P. J. T. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2003,
317-324. Our results were similar; see Table 1, entries 1 and 2.
(4) Fritschi, H.; Leutenegger, U.; Pfaltz, A. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl.
1986, 25, 1005-1006.
(5) (a) Pfaltz, A. Acc. Chem. Res. 1993, 23, 339-345. (b) Jørgensen, K.
A.; Johannsen, M.; Yao, S.; Audrain, H.; Thorhauge, J. Acc. Chem. Res.
1999, 32, 605-613. (c) Johnson, J. S.; Evans, D. A. Acc. Chem. Res. 2000,
33, 325-335.
(6) (a) Ghosh, A. K.; Mathivanan P.; Cappiello, J. Tetrahedron:
Asymmetry 1998, 9, 1-45. (b) Rechavi, D.; Lemaire, M. Chem. ReV. 2002,
102, 3467-3494. (c) Desimoni, G.; Faita, G.; Quadrelli, P. Chem. ReV.
2003, 103, 3119-3154. (d) McManus, H. A.; Guiry, P. J. Chem. ReV. 2004,
104, 4151-4202.
(11) Reaction with A‚CuCl2 gave 3a in 92% ee, but only 31% yield.
This catalyst system was inactiVe with all the substrates listed in Table 2
except for 1a.
(12) (a) Evans, D. A.; Murry, J. A.; von Matt, P.; Norcross, R. D.; Miller,
S. D. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1995, 34, 798-800. (b) O’Mahony, D.
J. R.; Belanger, D. B.; Livinghouse, T. Synlett 1998, 443-445. (c) For a
review, see: Fagnou, K.; Lautens, M. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002, 41,
26-47.
4098
Org. Lett., Vol. 6, No. 22, 2004