partners in the manner portrayed by 13 (Scheme 5). While
it is more sterically demanding than the alternative formula-
enoate and also minimizes steric interactions. Unlike the
chemistry shown in Scheme 5 where the stereochemistry at
the pro C10 carbon is opposite to that needed to access the
natural products, the coupling between 10 and 6 leads to
the desired stereochemical outcome at the pro C8, C9, and
C10 carbons.9
Scheme 5
The preceding examples (Schemes 5 and 6) illustrate that
it is possible to obtain either stereochemical outcome at C10
simply by making the appropriate choice of substituents
appended to the coupling partners. That obtained in the case
of ketonitrile 10 is the outcome needed for natural product
synthesis. In the discussion that follows, we focus attention
upon 15, however, since the nitrile proved difficult to
manipulate in subsequent transformations.10 Furthermore, our
goal at this point was to determine whether the methodology
portrayed in Scheme 2 could be used to gain access to the
basic skeleton of the natural products.
In preparation for cyclization leading to the formation of
the pro C5-C6 bond and the assembly of the seven-
membered ring, we treated 15 with sodium methoxide in
methanol/THF. This led to removal of the benzoate, epimer-
ization R to the methyl ester, and lactonization, affording 5
in an 85% yield. Conversion of 5 to the iodide using I2, PPh3,
and imidazole in THF provided iodo lactone 18 in yields of
90% (Scheme 7).
tions 14a and b, the former maximizes the opportunity for
complexation between samarium and each of the oxophilic
sites located on both of the reacting partners.
Scheme 7
Interestingly, when the oxophilic benzoyloxyethyl side
chain of 11 is replaced by a cyanomethyl substituent (see
10), the stereochemical outcome at the pro-C10 carbon is
reVersed (Scheme 6). This is consistent with a picture where
Scheme 6
The best method for reductive cyclization of 18 used
samarium diiodide. The initial reaction was clean but required
5-7 h to reach completion and occurred with variable yields
(43-68%). Upon the addition of catalytic nickel(II) iodide,
the reaction reached completion within 1 h and yields
improved to 82-88%.11 A single isomer was isolated and
established to be the hemiketal 4; the presence of the
(7) (a) Molander, G. A.; Harris, C. R. Chem. ReV. 1996, 96, 307. (b)
Krief, A.; Laval, A.-M. Chem. ReV. 1999, 99, 745. (c) Fukuzawa, S.;
Nakanishi, A.; Fujinami, T.; Sakai, Shizuyoshi, S. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin
Trans. 1 1988, 1669. (d) Fukuzawa, S.; Seki, K.; Tasuzawa, M.; Mutoh,
K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 1482. (e) Fukuzawa, S.; Iida, M.;
Nakanishi, A.; Fujinami, T.; Sakai, Shizuyoshi, S. J. Chem. Soc., Chem.
Commun. 1987, 920. (f) Fukuzawa, S.; Nakanishi, A.; Fujinami, T.; Sakai,
Shizuyoshi, S. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1986, 624.
(8) Smith, A. B., III.; Branca, S. J.; Pilla, N. N.; Guaciaro, M. A. J.
Org. Chem. 1982, 47, 1855.
(9) Yields for this transformation ranged from 68 to 74%. The major
product, consistently isolated in a 56% yield, was compound 17. The
remainder of the mass consisted of a mixture of open hydroxy ester and
lactonized forms.
(10) Selective manipulation of the nitrile in the presence of the lactone
proved problematic. Thus, while the use of 1 equiv of DIBAL did result in
the formation of the desired lactol, further reductions proved unselective.
Acid or base hydrolysis procedures also proved problematic and require
further investigation before they can be used reliably.
the coupling partners, in this case 6 and 10, approach one
another in the sterically least demanding manner. Since
coordination of samarium to the nitrile is not expected to
occur, the trajectory portrayed by 16 allows optimal interac-
tion between the samarium ketyl and the ester unit of the
Org. Lett., Vol. 2, No. 18, 2000
2875