One-pot reactions accelerate the synthesis of active pharmaceutical ingredients

Article abstract of DOI:10.1002/anie.201100059

All in one: A one-pot synthesis of the dipeptidylpeptidase IV selective inhibitor ABT-341 (see structure) by using an "uninterrupted sequence of reactions" has been developed. This strategy broadens the spectrum of one-pot reactions and is poised to speed up the synthesis of medicinally relevant drug compounds. (Figure Presented)

Full text of DOI:10.1002/anie.201100059

DOI: 10.1002/anie.201100059
One-Pot Reactions
One-Pot Reactions Accelerate the Synthesis of Active
Pharmaceutical Ingredients**
Carine Vaxelaire, Philipp Winter, and Mathias Christmann*
drug synthesis · sustainable chemistry ·
one-pot reactions · organocatalysis
T
he word “Eintopf” (lit. Engl. one pot) is used generically in
the German language to describe a simplistic technique of
cooking all the ingredients of a meal in a single pot. It has also
found its way into the chemical language as “one-pot
reaction” or “one-pot process”, in particular to emphasize
that a sequence of chemical transformations is run in a single
flask. Similar to the cook in the kitchen, synthetic chemists
strive to save time and resources by avoiding purifications
between individual steps within a multistep synthesis, thus
minimizing the transfer of material between vessels.[1] In the
strategic planning stage, several concepts are introduced so
that alternative synthetic routes can be validated. Thus, the
comparison of easy-to-measure parameters serves as a yard-
stick to identify the most economic approach. In atom
economy,[2] the efficiency quotient of the simple reaction
A + B!C + D is derived from the molecular weight of the
desired product C divided by the combined molecular weight
of the reactants (A + B). For 100% atom efficiency, D must
be non-existent, that is, all the atoms in A and B end up in the
product C. Such “ideal” reactions include the Diels–Alder
reaction and catalytic hydrogenations, whereas the Gabriel
synthesis (phthalimide used as the synthetic equivalent of
ammonia) and Hantzsch ester hydrogenations (with dihydro-
pyridines used as dihydrogen equivalents) are examples of
reactions with lower atom efficiency. The quality and quantity
of the synthetic steps (step economy[3]) as well as the changes
in the oxidation state (redox economy[4]) have been suggested
as decisive parameters for a comparative analysis of the
multistep syntheses. Clarke et al. recently added pot econo-
my[5] to the above list, with the ultimate aim “to complete an
entire multi-step, multi-reaction synthesis in a single pot”.
Now, this ambitious goal has been achieved by the Hayashi
research group in their one-pot total synthesis of the
dipeptidylpeptidase IV (DPP4) selective inhibitor ABT-341
(Scheme 1). Before discussing the synthesis, it is important to
outline the development of the enabling methodology. It is
Scheme 1. A cyclohexene derivative 1 from Enders’ triple cascade,
(ꢀ)-oseltamivir (Tamiflu), and ABT-341.
well understood that domino reactions[6] and multicomponent
reactions[7] are the silver bullets for the rapid construction of
complex molecular scaffolds in an economic fashion, with
built-in step and pot economy. In this direction, organo-
catalysis[8] has opened up new vistas by allowing the merger of
different modes of activation under the typically mild reaction
conditions. The triple cascade of Enders et al.[9] was an early
example which unleashed the full potential of organocatalytic
domino reactions. The cyclohexene derivatives obtained by
Enders et al. (for example, 1) bear a remarkable resemblance
to the carbocyclic core of (ꢀ)-oseltamivir (Tamiflu)[10] and
ABT-341 (Scheme 1).
In a classical one-pot reaction, all the reagents are added
sequentially to the reaction flask, followed by work-up and
purification. Hayashi and co-workers have disclosed a strat-
egy called an “uninterrupted sequence of reactions”. In
contrast to the classical one-pot reaction or telescoped
synthesis,[11] where the number of different operations (ex-
tractions, distillations) is minimized, the removal of volatiles
from the reaction vessel by distillation is explicitly allowed.
An initial application, in their pursuit to minimize the transfer
of material between flasks, was the development of an
organocatalytic synthesis of (ꢀ)-oseltamivir. The first pub-
lished synthesis,[12] which consisted of three one-pot reactions,
was later shortened to two consecutive one-pot processes
(Scheme 2).[13] In the design of an uninterrupted sequence of
reactions it is advantageous to use low-boiling solvents, which
are easily removed under high vacuum, and reagents that are
[*] Dr. C. Vaxelaire, P. Winter, Prof. M. Christmann
Technische Universitꢀt Dortmund
Otto-Hahn-Strasse 6, 44227 Dortmund (Germany)
Fax: (+49)231-755-5363
E-mail: mathias.christmann@tu-dortmund.de
[**] We thank the Fonds der Chemischen Industrie for financial support
(Dozentenstipendium to M.C. and Chemiefonds-Stipendium to
P.W.).
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 3605 – 3607
ꢀ 2011 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
3605

Highlights
Scheme 2. Synthesis of (ꢀ)-oseltamivir by Hayashi and co-workers.
TMS=trimethylsilyl, Tol=tolyl.
Scheme 3. One-pot synthesis of ABT-341 in an “uninterrupted se-
quence of reactions” by Hayashi and co-workers. TBTU=O-(benzotria-
zol-1-yl)-N,N,N’,N’-tetramethyluronium tetrafluoroborate.
themselves volatile or form volatile by-products. The evap-
oration under high vacuum also prevents accumulation of
reactive waste. Moreover, high-yielding and selective steps
are a requirement for the success of this strategy. The first
one-pot sequence of oseltamivir commenced with an organo-
catalytic Michael addition of aldehyde 2 to nitroalkene 3,
carried out in the presence of the Jørgensen–Hayashi catalyst
(1 mol%), which proceeded with excellent stereoselectivity
(97% ee). A domino transformation with vinylphosphonate 5
(a Michael reaction and an intramolecular Horner–Wads-
worth–Emmons (HWE) reaction), followed by a conjugate
addition of toluenethiol and epimerization yielded the highly
functionalized cyclohexane 6. At this stage, the only chroma-
tographic separation of the synthesis was performed. The
second “one-pot” process was initiated by cleavage of the tert-
butyl ester (with TFA) and subsequent conversion of the
product into an acyl azide. A Curtius rearrangement at room
temperature, reduction of the nitro group, and potassium
carbonate induced retro-Michael reaction took place during
the second one-pot operation. Finally, acid/base extraction
provided pure (ꢀ)-oseltamivir.
synthesis of Tamiflu described above, the synthesis of ABT-
341 commenced with an organocatalytic Michael addition of
acetaldehyde to the nitroalkene 7, followed by the addition of
the resulting nitroalkane 8 to the vinylphosphonate 9 and a
HWE ring closure. After a base-promoted epimerization
(10!11), the tert-butyl ester 11 was cleaved (with TFA), and
the resulting carboxylic acid 12 was subjected to a TBTU-
mediated amide formation with amine 13. The coupling was
performed in THF instead of DMF because of its better
volatility. Reduction of the nitro group of 14 with Zn/AcOH
and purification by chromatography afforded the target
compound in a one-pot operation.
Clarke et al. also made an attempt to combine pot, atom,
and step economies (PASE) into a unified concept.[5] A few
relevant parameters were calculated to compare the efficien-
cy of the concept of an “uninterrupted sequence of reactions”
with the stepwise synthesis (Table 1). The mass intensity[5]
(defined as the total mass used divided by the mass of the
product) and the volume of solvents used provide useful data
that help to highlight the resource- and time-economic
As a further refinement of his concept, Hayashi and co-
workers recently disclosed the one-pot synthesis of ABT-341,
a DPP4-selective inhibitor (Scheme 3).[14] Similar to the
3606 www.angewandte.org
ꢀ 2011 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 3605 – 3607

[2] B. M. Trost, Science 1991, 254, 1471 – 1477.
Table 1: Comparison of stepwise (A) versus one-pot synthesis (B).
[3] a) P. A. Wender, V. A. Verma, T. J. Paxton, T. H. Pillow, Acc.
Chem. Res. 2008, 41, 40 – 49; b) T. Newhouse, P. S. Baran, R. W.
Hoffmann, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009, 38, 3010 – 3021; c) T. Gaich,
P. S. Baran, J. Org. Chem. 2010, 75, 4657 – 4673.
[4] N. Z. Burns, P. S. Baran, R. W. Hoffmann, Angew. Chem. 2009,
121, 2896 – 2910; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 2854 – 2867.
[5] P. A. Clarke, S. Santos, W. H. C. Martin, Green Chem. 2007, 9,
438 – 440.
(ꢀ)-Oseltamivir
ABT-341
Metric
A
B
A
B
mass intensity[a]
pots
241.2
9
56.4
2
90.5
53.7
1
6
73
yield [%]
49
60
63
solvent[b]
319
18.5
180.6
54.5
[a] In ggꢀ1. [b] In mLmmolꢀ1
.
[6] L. F. Tietze, G. Brasche, K. Gericke, Domino Reactions in
Organic Synthesis, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2006.
[7] J. Zhu, H. Bienaymꢁ, Multicomponent Reactions, Wiley-VCH,
Weinheim, 2005.
aspects of this process. Unfortunately, no general tendency
could be observed when comparing the overall yields.
[8] a) A. Berkessel, H. Grꢂger, Asymmetric Organocatalysis: From
Biomimetic Concepts to Applications in Asymmetric Synthesis,
Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2005; for applications of organocatal-
ysis in target-oriented synthesis, see b) E. Marquꢁs-Lꢃpez, R. P.
Herrera, M. Christmann, Nat. Prod. Rep. 2010, 27, 1138 – 1167.
[9] a) D. Enders, M. R. M. Hꢄttl, C. Grondal, G. Raabe, Nature
2006, 441, 861 – 863; b) C. Grondal, M. Jeanty, D. Enders, Nat.
Chem. 2010, 2, 167 – 178.
In conclusion, it appears conceivable that one-pot reac-
tions in combination with organocatalysis will join the
restricted circle of techniques that chemists can apply for
the accelerated synthesis of biologically active molecular
scaffolds. In addition, from a medicinal chemistꢀs point of
view, one-pot reactions are attractive for the synthesis of
analogues by permutation of the reactants. It is to be seen if
this approach is robust enough for the (automated) synthesis
of a focused library of an active pharmaceutical ingredient,
thereby rendering this method complementary to other
approaches such as flow chemistry and solid-phase synthesis.
[10] J. Magano, Chem. Rev. 2009, 109, 4398 – 4438.
[11] For a recent example, see A. J. DelMonte, Y. Fan, K. P. Girard,
G. S. Jones, R. E. Waltermire, V. Rosso, X. Wang, Org. Process
Res. Dev. 2011, 15, 64 – 72.
[12] H. Ishikawa, T. Suzuki, Y. Hayashi, Angew. Chem. 2009, 121,
1330 – 1333; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 1304 – 1307.
[13] H. Ishikawa, T. Suzuki, H. Orita, T. Uchimaru, Y. Hayashi,
Chem. Eur. J. 2010, 16, 12616 – 12626.
Received: January 4, 2011
Published online: March 4, 2011
[14] H. Ishikawa, M. Honma, Y. Hayashi, Angew. Chem. 2011, 123,
2876 – 2879; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 2824 – 2827.
[1] For insightful discussion, see A. M. Walji, D. W. C. MacMillan,
Synlett 2007, 1477 – 1489.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 3605 – 3607
ꢀ 2011 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.angewandte.org 3607