Best results were obtained with 30% THF in Et2O, which
provided diol 14 in 91% yield with 88:12 er.
In all examples studied, (S)-14 was the major product
formed.12 This may be explained by considering the model
shown in Figure 1. This model incorporates an alkyllithium
Table 1. Effect of Alkyllithium on Selectivity
entry
RLi
equiv
yield (%)
er (S:R)
1
2
3
4
5
n-BuLi
n-BuLi
n-BuLi
s-BuLi
t-BuLi
2
1
4
2
2
85
56
90
56
21
80:20
66:34
80:20
72:28
73:27
Although 2 equiv of n-BuLi was usually used in these
experiments, it should be noted that only 1 equiv is required
for complete transmetalation. This was ascertained by
experiments using 1 equiv of n-BuLi in which all of the
alkoxystannane was consumed and >90% yields of Bu4Sn
were isolated. However, transmetalations did not always
proceed to completion when only 1 equiv of n-BuLi was
used; in these cases, no 1-phenylpentanol (i.e., PhCHO +
n-BuLi product) was detected, suggesting that adventitious
moisture was sometimes a problem. Thus excess n-BuLi was
used initially primarily for practical reasons.
Figure 1. Possible approaches of PhCHO.
and THF/THP molecule such that the aldehyde approaches
from the bottom face of the chiral auxiliary. The preferred
orientation of the aldehyde would then be expected, for steric
reasons, to be as shown in 15 [leading to (S)-14] as opposed
to 16 [which leads to (R)-14]. While we have no spectro-
scopic evidence for this model, it is consistent with the
known propensity of alkyllithiums to form aggregates13 as
well as the absolute configuration of 14 observed and the
effects of alkyllithiums and solvents/additives observed.
Also, while there have been speculations that pentacoor-
dinate stannylate (“ate”) complexes might be responsible for
the chemistry of organolithiums derived from Sn-Li ex-
change,14 our results suggest that is not the case here.
Stannylates have been detected spectroscopically in THF-
HMPA14 but were not observed when alkoxystannanes and
alkyllithiums were admixed in THF.15 Nonetheless, it is still
possible that they are short-lived intermediates in the
generation of R-alkoxyorganolithiums or are involved in
reactions of these species. In our case, since the same
stannylate would be formed from either 1 or 2 equiv of
n-BuLi, one would not expect to observe different selectivi-
ties. Since the amount of n-BuLi does affect the selectivity,
a discreet ate complex is not indicated. The present model
is a simple way to explain the results observed. However,
more complex scenarios involving aggregates of stannylates
and alkyllithiums cannot be discounted completely.
Other solvents and additives were also studied (Table 2).
Table 2. Effect of Solvents and Additives on Selectivity
entry
solvent
yield (%)
er (S:R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
THF
Et2O
DME
85
49
97
59
91
28
52
26
18
19
24
80:20
63:37
69:31
87:13
88:12
78:22
85:15
53:47
72:28
89:11
91:9
15% THF/Et2O
30% THF/Et2O
0.9% THF/Et2O
15% THF/TBME
15% Et3N/Et2O
15% TMEDA/Et2O
15% THP/Et2O
30% THP/Et2O
In summary, it has been demonstrated for the first time
that a chiral auxiliary directed stereoselective addition of an
R-heteroatom methyl carbanion to aldehydes along with the
subsequent recovery of the chiral auxiliary and enantiomeri-
10
11
Solvents less polar (Et2O) and more polar (DME) than THF
both gave significantly lower selectivities. However, use of
15% THF in either Et2O or TBME resulted in higher
selectivity over that observed in neat THF. These results
suggest that THF plays an important coordinative role with
the organolithiums involved in these reactions. Indeed, the
amount of THF used had a dramatic influence on the
selectivity observed. The use of tetrahydropyran (THP) gave
similar selectivities (but lower yields due to incomplete
transmetalation) to that observed with THF, but other
additives (Et3N, TMEDA) gave much lower selectivities.
(12) Determined by comparison of retention times on a chiral HPLC
column (Chiralcel OD) using authentic commercial samples.
(13) (a) Fraenkel, G.; Henrichs, M.; Hewitt, J. M.; Su, B. M.; Geckle,
M. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1980, 102, 3345-3350. (b) Seebach, D.; Ha¨ssig,
R.; Gabriel, J. HelV. Chim. Acta 1983, 66, 308-337. (c) Fraenkel, G.;
Henrichs, M.; Hewitt, M.; Su, B. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106, 255-
256. (d) McGarrity, J. F.; Ogle, C. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1985, 107, 1805-
1810. (e) McGarrity, J. F.; Ogle, C. A.; Brich, Z.; Loosli, H.-R. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1985, 107, 1810-1815. (f) Williard, P. G.; Sun, C. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1997, 119, 11693-11694.
(14) Reich, H. J.; Phillips, N. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1986, 108, 2102-
2103.
(15) Sawyer, J. S.; Kucerovy, A.; Macdonald, T. L.; McGarvey, G. J. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110, 842-853.
Org. Lett., Vol. 3, No. 18, 2001
2905