An et al.
JOCArticle
liberation of a number of biological stimulants.1,2d,h,3 Previous
investigations on pHP and pMP compounds observed that the
photochemistry of these two PRPGs is highly sensitive to sol-
vent properties. The photodeprotection reaction of pHP caged
compounds (eqs 1 and 2) occurs as the primary process in aque-
ous or largely aqueous solvents but does not take place noti-
ceably in neat organic solvents such as acetonitrile (CH3-
CN).1,2d,f-h,3b,4 Our previous mechanistic studies utilizing
direct time-resolved spectroscopic methods and indirect steady
state quenching methods have presented explicit and consistent
evidence indicating a direct triplet cleavage pathway for pHP
photodeprotection.5 Ultrafast experiments on a series of pHP
caged phosphates and carboxylates (eq 2) in a H2O/CH3CN
(1:1, v/v) solvent have found a stepwise water-assisted triplet
deprotection-rearrangement pathway with the deprotection rate
depending on the lability of the leaving group and ranging from
∼7 ꢀ 109 s-1 for HPPP (X = OPO(OPh)2) to ∼2 ꢀ 108 s-1 for
HPH (X = OCO(CH2)5CH3).5
reduction (2) and rearrangement (3) byproducts. The reduction
accompanied pMP photorelease parallels the photodeprotec-
tion reaction reported for nonsubstituted phenacyl esters and
electron-withdrawing substituted p-phenacyl chlorides.2a
A
laser flash photolysis (LFP) study by Falvey and co-workers
found that such reactions of the nonsubstituted phenacyl
PRPG arises from a very fast hydrogen abstraction (rate of
∼9 ꢀ 106 M-1 s-1) of the phenacyl triplet from the surrounding
solvent.7 The prevalence of the pMP reduction product (2) in
solvents with better hydrogen-donating capacity as well as
the relevant solvent isotope effects implies a primary role of
the analogous hydrogen abstraction and associated reaction
(denoted as “photoreduction” hereafter) in accounting for the
observed pMP photodeprotection in these solvents.
In contrast to the knowledge determined for the pMP photo-
reduction, little is known about the nature of the major photo-
chemical steps and key environmental factors accounting for the
more biologically important pMP rearrangement reaction. It is
relevant to note that a photochemistry study of MPEP shows its
quantum efficiency in methanol is about only half of that of its
pHP counterpart HPEP;6a in addition, pMP acetate was found
to have low reactivity in a H2O/CH3CN (1:1, v/v) solvent, in
sharp contrast to the efficient photorelease reaction of the corres-
ponding HPA observed under the same experimental condi-
tions.1,2d,f-h,3b,4 As the pHP and pMP cages apparently have
similar configurations, the substantially different photochemis-
try and reactivity of the corresponding phototriggers may
suggest a crucial effect associated with replacing the hydroxy
group in pHP by the methoxy group in pMP. Up to now, the
relevant photophysics and photochemistry of pMP have re-
mained little understood, and the underlying cause of this substi-
tution effect has not been investigated in great detail to the best
of our knowledge. Such information is, however, important in
terms of understanding the mechanism of pMP deprotection as
well as helping to clarify some uncertainty in the pHP rearrange-
ment reaction. The pHP versus pMP substitution effect and the
complex solvent and leaving group sensitive pMP reactivity
toward the deprotection and the competitive hydrogen absorp-
tion is an interesting example of the widely known substituent
and solvent dependent photoreactivity of the general family of
aromatic carbonyl compounds. In this sense, pMP compounds
offer a good exemplar to explore this ubiquitous but not fully
understood substituent and solvent dependent photoreactivity
phenomenon in phenacyl type aromatic carbonyl compounds.
As an extension of our previous work on various pHP photo-
triggers,5 we have conducted a combined femtosecond time-
resolved fluorescence (fs-TRF), femtosecond transient absorp-
tion (fs-TA), and picosecond and nanosecond time-resolved
Raman (ps-, ns-TR3) study on two synthesized pMP com-
pounds, MPEP and MPPP, in a range of solvents including
neat CH3CN, H2O/CH3CN (1:1, v/v), CF3CH2OH, and CF3-
CHOHCF3 with the aim of helping to address the issues men-
tioned in the preceding paragraph. DFT calculations were
performed to help map the reaction pathways and locate tran-
sient states and reaction barriers for the pMP deprotection reac-
tion in water-containing solvents. These experimental and com-
putational results taken together suggest a mechanism where
solvation of the leaving group initiates a triplet liberation and
rearrangement pathway for the pMP photodeprotection. The
data provide explicit dynamic information and a mechanistic
Unlike the relatively simple solvent dependence and clean-
ness of the product distribution displayed by the pHP photo-
triggers, photodeprotection of pMP caged compounds exhibits
a more complicated solvent dependence and results in a more
complex product distribution with a relatively low efficiency for
deprotection.2a-d,f,4,6 For example, it was reported that the
photolysis of pMP dihydrogen phosphate (1b), pMP diethyl
phosphate (MPEP, 1c), and pMP diphenyl phosphate (MPPP,
1d) in the hydrogen-donating solvent dioxane leads to depro-
tection along with the reduction product p-methoxyacetophe-
none (2) as the sole ketone byproduct.2b,c Different from this,
photodeprotection of MPEP (1c)6a,b and pMP chloride (1a)2a
in the less hydrogen-donating solvents of methanol, ethanol, or
tert-butyl alcohol produces the corresponding rearranged es-
ters p-methoxyphenylacetates (3) as the major byproduct and a
minor amount of 2. These observations suggest a solvent
dependent dual reactivity of photoexcited pMP in giving two
competing deprotection pathways that lead to, respectively, the
(3) (a) Gee, K. R.; Kueper, L. W.; Barnes, J.; Dudley, G.; Givens, R. S. J.
Org. Chem. 1996, 61, 1228–1233. (b) Conrad, P. G.; Givens, R. S.; Weber,
J. F. W.; Kandler, K. Org. Lett. 2000, 2, 1545–1547.
(4) Brousmiche, D. W.; Wan, P. J. Photochem. Photobiol., A 2000, 130,
113–118.
(5) (a) Ma, C. S.; Kwok, W. M.; Chan, W. S.; Zuo, P.; Kan, J. T. W.; Toy,
P. H.; Phillips, D. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 1463–1472. (b) Ma, C. S.;
Kwok, W. M.; Chan, W. S.; Du, Y.; Kan, J. T. W.; Toy, P. H.; Phillips, D. L.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 2558–2570.
(6) (a) Givens, R. S.; Athey, P. S.; Matuszewski, B.; Kueper, L. W.; Xue,
J. Y.; Fister, T. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 6001–6012. (b) Givens, R. S.;
Kueper, L. W. Chem. Rev. 1993, 93, 55–66. (c) Sheehan, J. C.; Umezawa, K.
J. Org. Chem. 1973, 38, 3771–3774.
(7) Banerjee, A.; Falvey, D. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 2965–2966.
5838 J. Org. Chem. Vol. 75, No. 17, 2010