The stereochemistry of the products was assigned by
analogy to 7 and 13 in which the relative stereochemistry
was determined by chemical correlation (vide infra).
The product stereochemistry is consistent with the Michael
acceptor attacking the Re face of the lithium enolate and is
in agreement with the stereochemical outcome of the enolate
alkylation reactions of 1.5 Moreover, the configurational
assignment of the products is compatible with a synclinal
approach model6 (Figure 3).7
standard hydrogenolysis conditions afforded the open form
glutamide which cyclized on heating to the pyroglutamic acid
derivative 19 (Scheme 1).8
Scheme 1. Manipulation of 13 to Pyroglutamide 19
Reductive N-Boc protection of the nitro group following
our previous conditions9 allowed access to the differentially
protected â-aryl-R,γ-diamino acid derivatives 20-22 (Scheme
2).
Scheme 2. Reductive Manipulation of Michael Adducts 5-7
Figure 3. Stereochemical model to rationalize the outcome in the
Michael addition reactions and single-crystal X-ray structure of 7.
In summary, camTHP*-desymmetrized glycinamide build-
ing block 1 undergoes efficient and highly diastereoselective
lithium enolate Michael additions to nitro olefins, R,â-
unsaturated ketones, esters, and lactones. Subsequent ma-
nipulation of these Michael adducts gives stereochemically
defined polyfunctional R-amino acid derivatives in high
yields. Further utility and synthetic applications of this
chemistry will be reported in due course.
To confirm the relative stereochemistry of the adducts 10-
17 it was necessary to convert a representative example to a
cyclic product for NMR analysis. Hence, removal of the
camTHP* protecting group was achieved by dissolution of
the Michael adduct 13 in aqueous TFA for 6 h to give the
corresponding Cbz-protected â-substituted glutamic acid
derivative 18 in 61% yield. Subjection of this product to
Acknowledgment. We thank Vernalis plc for a student-
ship (to R.A.J.H.), Pfizer Global Research and Development
(UK) for a summer scholarship (to P.B.), the National Mass
Spectrometry Service at Swansea for HRMS, Dr. John E.
Davies for the X-ray structure determination, and Prof.
Steven V. Ley for continued and valued support.
(4) (a) For a highly diastereoselective but racemic synthesis, see:
Soloshonok, V. A.; Cai, C.; Hruby, V. J.; Van Meervelt, L.; Yamazaki, T.
J. Org. Chem. 2000, 65, 6688. For asymmetric examples, see: (b) Busch,
K.; Groth, U. M.; Ku¨hnle, W.; Scho¨llkopf, U. Tetrahedron 1992, 48, 5607.
(c) Scho¨llkopf, U.; Ku¨hnle, W.; Egert, E.; Dyrbusch, M. Angew. Chem.,
Int. Ed. Engl. 1987, 26, 480. (d) Pettig, D.; Scho¨llkopf, U.; Synthesis 1988,
173. For an example using an achiral glycine anion and chiral electrophiles,
see: (e) Soloshonok, V. A.; Ueki, H.; Tiwari, R.; Cai, C.; Hruby, V. J. J.
Org. Chem. 2004, 69, 4984 and references therein.
(5) Dixon, D. J.; Horan, R. A. J.; Monck, N. J. T. Org. Lett. 2004, 6,
4423.
(6) Although an open transition-state model cannot be ruled out:
Smitrovich, J. H.; DiMichele, L.; Qu, C.; Boice, G. N.; Nelson, T. D.;
Huffman, M. A.; Murry, J. J. Org. Chem. 2004, 69, 1903.
Supporting Information Available: Experimental pro-
cedures, 1H and 13C NMR spectra, and high-resolution mass
spectra for compounds 5-22. This material is available free
OL048568Q
(7) For some excellent works on the steric course of enolate Michael
addition reactions, see: (a) Suzuki, K.; Seebach, D. Liebigs Ann. Chem.
1992, 51. (b) Oare, D. A.; Henderson, M. A.; Sanner, M. A.; Heathcock,
C. H. J. Org. Chem. 1990, 55, 132. (c) Oare, D. A.; Heathcock, C. H. J.
Org. Chem. 1990, 55, 157.
(8) The relative stereochemistry of 19 is supported by NOE (see the
Supporting Information).
(9) Adderley, N. J.; Buchanan, D. J.; Dixon, D. J.; Laine´, D. I. Angew.
Chem., Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 4241.
Org. Lett., Vol. 6, No. 24, 2004
4429