Ring Opening of cis-3,4-Bis(organosilyl)cyclobutenes
SCHEME 2. Ring-Opening Reaction of
3-Formylcyclobutene
SCHEME 4. Ring-Opening Reaction of 3-Silylcyclobutene
ing rotational direction. Thus, the stereochemical outcome of
the ring-opening reaction reflects the magnitude of rotational
preferences of the two substituents.
SCHEME 3. Ring-Opening Reaction of Unsymmetrical
cis-3,4-Disubstituted Cyclobutenes
We recently discovered the interesting preference of silyl
groups for inward rotation (Scheme 4).5-8 This preference of
silyl substituents can be understood on the basis of the Houk’s
theory by invoking the electron-accepting nature of silyl substit-
uents. Whereas the σ orbital of a Si-C linkage is energetically
high-lying enough to donate its electron density to nearby vacant
orbitals, the antibonding σ* orbital of a Si-C linkage is ener-
getically low-lying.9 In addition, the Si-C σ* orbital is polarized
toward the silicon end due to the difference in electronegativity.
Therefore, the Si-C σ* orbital is potentially a good electron
acceptor, accommodating electron density on the silicon end.
At the inward transition state, the energetically low-lying σ*
orbital on silicon is in the vicinity of the HOMO of the opening
cyclobutene skeleton, that is, the breaking C3-C4 σ orbital
which is distorted by conrotation. Thus, overlap can occur
between the two orbitals, providing stabilization to the inward
transition state through the electron delocalization.
an electron-accepting nature rotate preferentially inward; that
is, they move into a significantly more congested environment.3
For example, the ring-opening reaction of 3-formylcyclobutene
produces (Z)-penta-2,4-dienal stereoselectively via inward rota-
tion of the formyl group (Scheme 2).3a An orbital interaction
theory proposed by Rondan and Houk provides a clear explana-
tion for the contrasteric rotational behavior of electron-accepting
substituents.4 During the thermal ring-opening reaction, the σ
orbital connecting the 3- and 4-carbons of cyclobutene breaks
up in a conrotatory fashion and the distorted σ orbital becomes
the HOMO at the transition state. The electron density of the
HOMO is mostly concentrated between the 3- and 4-carbons.
Likewise, the σ* orbital of the C3-C4 linkage, which has a
node in the middle, is distorted by conrotation to become the
LUMO of the transition state. When a substituent at the
3-position rotates inward, it approaches the distorted C3-C4
linkage of the parent cyclobutene skeleton, and at the transition
state, it comes into the vicinity of the HOMO, which is
potentially a good electron donor. If the rotating substituent
possesses an energetically low-lying vacant orbital, it accepts
electron density from the HOMO. Such electron delocalization
stabilizes the inward transition state relative to the outward
transition state.
It is interesting to examine the substituent effects on the ring-
opening reaction of cis-3,4-disubstituted cyclobutenes (Scheme
3). Since both substituents rotate in the same direction under
thermal conditions according to the Woodward-Hoffmann
rules, one substituent has to rotate outward and the other has to
rotate inward. If the two different substituents in a cis arrange-
ment possess opposite preferences in torquoselectivity, their
preferences reinforce the torquoselectivity. On the other hand,
if the two substituents possess the same torquoselective prefer-
ences, either outward or inward, their preferences for rotational
direction have to mismatch and competition arises in determin-
Our communication5a was followed by two papers, wherein
the preference of inward rotation of silyl substituents was studied
from a theoretical point of view. Whereas the theoretical study
by Houk’s group supports our interpretation based on the
HOMO-σ* interaction,10 Inagaki and his co-workers offer the
explanation of geminal σ-bond participation.11 If an electroni-
cally biased substituent, either electron-withdrawing or electron-
donating, is introduced on silicon at the 3-position of a cyclo-
butene, opposite electronic influences are excepted for the sub-
stituent depending on which electronic interaction, HOMO-
σ* interaction or geminal σ-bond participation, dominates at
the transition state (vide infra). In order to obtain experimental
information about the origin of the contrasteric inward prefer-
ence of silyl substituents, we synthesized one symmetrical and
(5) (a) Murakami, M.; Miyamoto, Y.; Ito, Y. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.
2001, 40, 189. (b) Murakami, M.; Miyamoto, Y.; Ito, Y. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2001, 123, 6441. (c) Murakami, M.; Hasegawa, M. Angew. Chem.,
Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 4874.
(6) A similar or related effect of silyl substituents was observed in other
electrocyclic reactions. A ring-opening reaction of silyloxetene: (a) Shindo,
M.; Matsumoto, K.; Mori, S.; Shishido, K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124,
6840. (b) Mori, S.; Shindo, M. Org. Lett. 2004, 6, 3945. Nazarov
cyclization: (c) Denmark, S. E.; Wallace, M. A.; Walker, C. B., Jr. J. Org.
Chem. 1990, 55, 5543. (d) Smith, D. A.; Ulmer, C. W., II. J. Org. Chem.
1993, 58, 4118.
(7) For inward preference of tin and boron substituents, see: (a)
Murakami, M.; Hasegawa, M.; Igawa, H. J. Org. Chem. 2004, 69, 587. (b)
Murakami, M.; Usui, I.; Hasegawa, M.; Matsuda, T. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2005, 127, 1366.
(8) For an accelerating effect of (organosilyl)methyl substituents in the
ring opening of benzocyclobutenes, see: Matsuya, Y.; Ohsawa, N.; Nemoto,
H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 412.
(9) (a) Bock, H. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1989, 28, 1627. (b)
Giordan, J. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983, 105, 6544. (c) Giordan, J. C.; Moore,
J. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983, 105, 6541.
(10) (a) Lee, P. S.; Zhang, X.; Houk, K. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003,
125, 5072. (b) Shindo, M.; Sato, Y.; Shishido, K. J. Org. Chem. 2000, 65,
5443.
(11) (a) Yasui, M.; Naruse, Y.; Inagaki, S. J. Org. Chem. 2004, 69, 7246.
(b) Ikeda, H.; Kato, T.; Inagaki, S. Chem. Lett. 2001, 270.
(3) (a) Rudolf, K.; Spellmeyer, D. C.; Houk, K. N. J. Org. Chem. 1987,
52, 3708. (b) Piers, E.; Lu, Y.-F. J. Org. Chem. 1989, 54, 2267. (c) Dolbier,
W. R., Jr.; Gray, T. A.; Keaffaber, J. J.; Celewicz, L.; Koroniak, H. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1990, 112, 363. (d) Jefford, C. W.; Bernardinelli, G.; Wang,
Y.; Spellmeyer, D. C.; Buda, A.; Houk, K. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992,
114, 1157. (e) Niwayama, S.; Houk, K. N. Tetrahedron Lett. 1993, 34,
1251 and references therein.
(4) (a) Rondan, N. G.; Houk, K. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1985, 107, 2099.
(b) Kirmse, W.; Rondan, N. G.; Houk, K. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106,
7989.
J. Org. Chem, Vol. 72, No. 10, 2007 3765