Scheme 1. Retrosynthetic Analysis
Table 1. Counter Metal Ion Effects on Epoxy Nitrile Coupling
metal ion
Na+, K+
bases (2 equiv)
productsa
NaNH2, NaHMDS, NaOtBu,
NaH, KHMDS, KOtBu
n-BuLi, LiHMDS, LDA
3b/7b only
Li+
Major: 5b/8b;
Minor: 3b/7b
8b only
Mg2+
i-PrMgCl, NaHMDS/MgBr2
a All reactions were carried out at -15 °C to room temperature in the
presence of 2 equiv of bases in THF. Isolation of 5b depends on the aging
period. For further discussion on lithium’s aggregates, see more in the text.
of the lithium alkoxide was slow and provided a mixture of
3b, 7b, and 8b;6 (3) the use of sodium or potassium bases
gave solely cyclopropanes in 96% ee, which indicated that
reaction was occurring via attack at C3 of epichlorohydrin
because reaction at C1 would generate the opposite enanti-
omer via ent-6b.
result, we decided to carry out a systematic investigation on
this transformation to gain mechanistic insight and ultimately
to arrive at an optimized, scaleable protocol. Scheme 2
Scheme 2. Pathways to (+)- or (-)-cis/trans-Cyclopropanes
and (()-Cyclobutanes
Further studies revealed that the mode of addition played
a pivotal role to achieve a clean cyclopropanation: the best
conditions involved addition of 1.3 equiv of NaHMDS to a
solution of 4b and (+)-epichlorohydrin at -20 to -15 °C
which afforded 3b/7b (cis/trans ) 85:15) in 95% assay yield
(96% ee).7 Surprisingly, utilizing similar conditions for 4a
(Ar ) p-MePh) proVided the product 3a in only 75% ee.
This striking result encouraged us to further explore the
relationship between the nucleophilicity of arylacetonitrile
anions and the regioselectivity (C1 vs C3 attack on epichlo-
rohydrin) which is reflected in the er of 3 (Figure 1).
Focusing first on the effect of nucleophilicity on enanti-
oselectivity, analysis of Figure 1 provides clear insight that
the more basic carbanion reacts with epichlorohydrin less
selectively7b (C1 vs C3 attack). This trend could reflect subtle
electronic effects on hard/soft selectivity, ion-pairing effects,
and/or changes in solvation of the carbanion with the shifting
of electron density from the nitrile to the aromatic ring with
more electron-withdrawing groups present. As further out-
lined below, this effect is a combination of a solvation/ion-
pairing phenomenon and an electronic effect.
With lithium bases, chlorohydrin 5 is a discrete intermedi-
ate and conversion to epoxide 6 is slow (Table 1). In fact,
the Li-O bond in the aggregates8 is sufficiently strong9 that
lithium alkoxide 5 is unreactiVe at -25 °C.7 Charging an
additional equivalent of NaHMDS to the above reaction
mixture led to cyclobutanes 8/9 (major) at <-15 °C, due to
depicts the challenges for this transformation: (1) to suppress
the competitive C1 attack pathway to form the enantiomer
of 6 (ent-6) and therefore to afford 3 in high ee; (2) to block
formation of cyclobutane 8 via SNi ring closure of 5; (3) to
gain the cis/trans control (3 vs 7) of the SNi epoxide opening
of 6. Herein, we report our understanding of the epoxy nitrile
coupling at each stage, which results in an expedient, atom-
economical, asymmetric synthesis of 1-aryl-3-azabicyclo-
[3.1.0]hexanes.
In an attempt to decouple these factors, the metal coun-
terion effects were first probed utilizing substrate 4b (Ar )
3,4-Cl2Ph) and epichlorohydrin as summarized in Table 1.
Surprisingly, the reaction pathway can be dramatically altered
by the choice of counter metal ion: (1) Mg2+ counterions
provided the achiral, cis/trans-cyclobutanes 8 presumably
through the intermediacy of 5b;5 (2) lithium bases provided
the chlorohydrin 5b at -15 °C; however, subsequent reaction
(5) For an example of magnesium halides as Lewis acids to open epoxide,
see: Corbel, B.; Durst, T. J. Org. Chem. 1976, 41, 3648.
(6) For other examples of using lithium bases, also see: (a) Jeffery, J.
E.; Kerrigan, F.; Miller, T. K.; Smith, G. J.; Tometzki, G. B. J. Chem.
Soc., Perkin Trans. 1 1996, 2583. (b) Kusumoto, T.; Nakayama, A.; Sato,
K.; Hiyama, T.; Takehara, S.; Osawa, M.; Nakamura, K. Chem. Lett. 1992,
2047.
(7) (a) (+)-Epichlorohydrin was 98% ee. (b) See Supporting Information.
(8) For a recent review, see: Fleming, F. F.; Shook, B. C. Tetrahedron
2002, 58, 1. For leading references, see: (a) Reich, H. J.; Biddle, M. M.;
Edmonston, R. J. J. Org. Chem. 2005, 70, 3375. (b) Carlier, P. R.; Lo, C.
W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 12819 and references therein.
(9) If the reaction mixture was quenched in aqueous MeCN, 5 was
converted to 6 as promoted by OH- generated from water quenching.
3886
Org. Lett., Vol. 8, No. 17, 2006