has been reported by Yamamoto to catalyze the enantiose-
15
lective cyclization of unsaturated aldehydes. Very recently,
Renaud reported that Yamamoto’s Zn-BINOL complex was
an efficient catalyst for enantioselective Diels-Alder reaction
of N-alkoxyacrylamides with cyclopentadiene.16 However,
Table 1. Screening of BINOLate-zinc Catalysts for
Enantioselective hetero-Diels-Alder Reaction of Danishefsky’s
Diene 4 and Benzaldehyde 5aa
the employment of a stoichiometric amount of Zn-BINOL
catalyst is required to obtain acceptable enantioselectivity
and reactivity of the reaction. In the present letter, we report
our preliminary results on the highly enantioselective HDA
reaction of Danishefsky’s diene 4 with aldehydes 5 using a
catalytic amount of chiral diol ligand-based zinc Lewis acids.
The first trial by using L1/zinc complex as the catalyst
for the reaction of Danishefsky’s diene 4 and benzaldehyde
5a showed that the reaction proceeded smoothly to give
2-phenyl-2,3-dihydro-4H-pyran-4-one (6a) in good yield and
moderate enantioselectivity (entry 1 in Table 1). This result
prompted us to further improve the enantioselectivity of the
reaction by tuning the steric and electronic modifications on
the diol ligands. Therefore, a series of chiral diol ligands
including commercially available or easily prepared BINOL
derivatives (L2-L12) shown in Scheme 1 were submitted
(7) For BINOL-, H4-BINOL-, and H8-BINOL-Ti catalyzed asymmetric
HDA of Danishefsky’s diene with aldehydes in the presence or absence of
molecular sieves (MS), see: (a) Mikami, K.; Motoyama, Y.; Terada, M. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 1994, 116, 2812-2820. (b) Keck, G. E.; Li, X. Y.;
Krishnamurthy, D. J. Org. Chem. 1995, 60, 5998-5999. (c) Wang, B.;
Feng, X.; Cui, X.; Liu, H.; Jiang, Y. Chem. Commun. 2000, 1605-1606.
(
1
d) Long, J.; Hu, J.; Shen, X.; Ji, B.; Ding, K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002,
24, 10-11. (e) Yuan, Y.; Long, J.; Li, X.; Sun, J.; Ding, K. Chem. Eur.
J. 2002, 8, 5033-5042. (f) For BINOL-Zr catalyzed asymmetric HDA of
Danishefsky’s diene with aldehydes, see: Yamashita, Y.; Saito, S.; Ishitani,
H.; Kobayashi, S. Org. Lett. 2002, 4, 1221-1223.
to asymmetric catalysis. The details of the results were
summarized in Table 1, which clearly demonstrated that the
enantioselectivity and reactivity of the reaction were sig-
nificantly influenced by both the electronic effect and steric
hindrance of the substituents at 3,3′-positions of BINOL. The
serious steric hindrance of phenyl groups at 3,3′-positions
of BINOL was proved to be disadvantageous for the reaction
(8) (a) Schaus, S. E.; Branalt, J.; Jacobsen, E. N. J. Org. Chem. 1998,
6
3, 403-405. (b) Dossetter, A. G.; Jamison, T. F.; Jacobsen, E. N. Angew.
Chem., Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 2398-2400. (c) Li, L.-S.; Wu, Y.; Hu, Y.-J.;
Xia, L.-J.; Wu, Y.-L. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 1998, 9, 2271-2277.
(9) Doyle, M. P.; Phillips, I. M.; Hu, W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123,
5
366-5367.
(10) (a) Yao, S.; Johennsen, M.; Audrain, H.; Hazell, R. G.; Jorgensen,
K. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 8599-8605. (b) Jorgensen, K. A.;
Johennsen, M.; Yao, S.; Audrain, H.; Thorhauge, J. Acc. Chem. Res. 1999,
(entries 1 and 2 vs 11 and 12, respectively). Moreover, the
3
2, 605-613. (c) Dalko, P. I.; Moisan, L.; Cossy, J. Angew. Chem., Int.
Ed. 2002, 41, 625-628.
11) (a) Danishefsky, S. J.; Maring, C.; Bednarski, M. Tetrahedron Lett.
983, 24, 3451-3454. (b) Danishefsky, S. J.; Bednarski, M. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1983, 105, 6968-6969.
12) (a) Hanamoto, T.; Furuno, H.; Sugimoto, Y.; Inanaga, J. Synlett
absolute configuration of product was significantly influenced
by the substituents in the binaphthyl unit. The steric
hindrance of substituents could switch the asymmetric
induction from the formation of S product to R product
(
1
(
1
997, 79-80. (b) Qian, C.; Wang, L. Tetrahedron Lett. 2000, 41, 2203-
(entries 1-3 vs 4-12). The backbone effect of the binaphthyl
2
206.
moiety was not evident in the cases of L1 and L2 (entry 1
vs 2). Nevertheless, in the asymmetric induction of 3,3′-
substituted BINOL derivatives, partially reduced ligands L8
and L12 are inferior to their parent ligands L6 and L11 in
terms of both enantioselectivity and reactivity (entries 6 and
(
13) (a) Trost, B. M.; Ito, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 12003-
1
2
8
1
2004. (b) Trost, B. M.; Silcoff, E. R.; Ito, H. Org. Lett. 2001, 3, 2497-
500. (c) Trost, B. M.; Yeh, V. S. C. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002, 41,
61-863. (d) Trost, B. M.; Ito, H.; Silcoff, E. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001,
23, 3367-3368.
(14) (a) Yoshikawa, N.; Kumagai, N.; Matsunaga, S.; Moll, G.; Ohshima,
T.; Suzuki, T.; Shibasaki, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 2466-2467.
1
1 vs 8 and 12, respectively). We were pleased to find that
(
4
b) Kumagai, N.; Matsunaga, S.; Shibasaki, M. Org. Lett. 2001, 3, 4251-
254.
L6, (R)-3,3′-dibromo-1,1′-bi-2-naphthol (3,3′-Br -BINOL),
2
(15) Sakane, S.; Maruoka, K.; Yamamoto, H. Tetrahedron Lett. 1985,
was particularly efficient for the reaction, affording the
product in up to quantitative yield and 93% ee. Therefore,
2
6, 5536-5538.
(16) Corminboeuf, O.; Renaud, P. Org. Lett. 2002, 4, 1735-1738.
4350
Org. Lett., Vol. 4, No. 24, 2002