the desired alcohol 5 in good yield and excellent ee
1
to the desired benzoisochromanes 6bꢀi with equal or
better diastereoselectivity than the model n-butyraldehyde
reaction (6a) with one exception, isopropionaldehyde
(leading to 6g). Yields with the aliphatic set were also
comparable to the model reaction (g80%), with one
exception, vinylacetaldehyde (leading to 6f), possibly due
to aldehyde decomposition. For the aromatic aldehydes
examined, the reaction afforded the desired products 6jꢀl
with comparative yields (g86%) but varied diastereoselec-
tivity with dramatic improvements in R-selectivity ob-
served upon aromatic ring substitution. Nevertheless,
unlike most aliphatic counterparts, all the aromatic dia-
stereomers were readily resolved via standard silica gel
chromatography.
0
(
>99.5%).
With the core reaction established, we next explored
optimization of the oxa-PictetꢀSpengler reaction by first
assessing the potential of the Lewis acid to favor the
production of the R- or β-configured product. Among
1
2
the Lewis acids tested, 50 mol % Cu(OTf) offered the
2
best yield and R-diastereoselectivity (Table 1, entries 2ꢀ7;
1
1
see also Table S1 in Supporting Information). Further
investigation of solvents and reaction time in the context of
the Cu(OTf) reaction revealed a slight improvement in
2
yield and dr ratio with overnight stirring in dichloro-
methane (Table 1, entries 8ꢀ10). In contrast, FeCl was
3
the only Lewis acid to favor the production β-configured
product (2:1 β/R; Table 1, entry 13, and Supporting
Information) and this poor diastereoselectivity could not
be improved upon via further optimization (solvents,
temperature, and/or variant aldehyde source; data not
shown).
Table 2. Optimization of the Oxa-PictetꢀSpengler Reaction
a
with Trimethyl Orthoformate
a
Scheme 2. Scope of the R-Reaction with Varying R Group
Lewis
acids
temp
time
(h)
conversion
b,c
entry
solvent
(°C)
(%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
FeCl
BF
3
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
1
40(31)
20
3
3
OEt
2
0
1
Fe(OTf)
AlCl
SnCl
EtAlCl
Et AlCl
3
0
2
23
3
0
1
<10
4
0
1
45(33)
60(51)
2
0
1
d
<10
2
0
2
EtAlCl
EtAlCl
EtAlCl
EtAlCl
2
2
2
2
ꢀ40
ꢀ20
ꢀ20
ꢀ20
16
16
16
16
45(36)
80(70)
74(62)
78(65)
10
DCE
CH Cl
e
11
2
2
a
Reaction was performed with 0.2 mmol of 5, 0.24 mmol of trimethyl
orthoformate, and 100 mol % Lewis acid at 0 °C with 1 h of stirring.
Conversion was determined by HPLC analysis. The data in the
b
c
parentheses are the isolated yields after column chromatography. dr
d
ratio was determined by the proton NMR of crude products. Forma-
e
tion of the side product 11 in 60% yield. 2 mmol of 5 were loaded.
As previously indicated, FeCl was the only Lewis acid
3
a
Reaction was performed with 0.2 mmol of 5, 0.4 mmol of aldehyde,
to favor the production β-configured product (2:1 β/R;
Table 1, entry 13 and Supporting Information). Thus,
focus was next shifted to developing an orthogonal route
to bias the production β-configured products. Considering
that the oxocarbenium formed either by the oxidation of
isochroman or by the reduction ofisochroman acetalcould
and 50 mol % Cu(OTf) at 0 °C and allowed the temp raise to room temp
2
b
with overnight stirring. Isolated yields after column chromatography;
dr ratio (R/β) was determined by the proton NMR of crude products.
Using the optimized conditions for R-configured ben-
zoisochromane synthesis developed in Table 1, we next
explored the scope of aldehyde substrates in the context of
this reaction (Scheme 2). The aliphatic aldehydes tested led
1
3
be intercepted by a range of nucleophiles, we envi-
sioned the rigid lactone ring located on the si face of the
(
10) Enantioselectivities were determined by HPLC analysis [chiral
IC column (Daciel Chemical Ind. Ltd.) 25.0 mm ꢁ 4.6 mm, 80/20
hexane/iPrOH, 0.6 mL/min, UV 254 nm, tmajor = 39.2 min, tminor
1.8 min]. The observed ee value is consistent with the data reported in
ref 9a.
11) The epimers can be slightly isolated on a preparative reversed-
phase HPLC (Column: Supelco C18, 25 cm ꢁ 21.2 mm, 10 μm; eluent:
gradient 35%ꢀ50% CH CN in water; rate: 10 mL/min; t = 58.2 min,
= 62.3 min; loading amount: 5 mg).
(12) (a) Crimmins, M. T.; Kirincich, S. J.; Wells, A. J.; Choy, A. L.
Synth. Commun. 1998, 28, 3675. (b) Airiau, E.; Spangenberg, T.; Girard,
N.; Breit, B.; Mann, A. Org. Lett. 2010, 12, 528.
(13) (a) Elmore, S. W.; Coghlan, M. J.; Anderson, D. D.; Pratt, J. K.;
Green, B. E.; Wang, A. X.; Stashko, M. A.; Lin, C. W.; Tyree, C. M.;
Miner, J. N.; Jacobson, P. B.; Wilcox, D. M.; Lane, B. C. J. Med. Chem.
2001, 44, 4481. (b) Zhang, Y.; Li, C.-J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2006, 45,
1949. For a review: (c) Li, C.-J. Acc. Chem. Res. 2009, 42, 335.
=
4
(
3
β
t
R
Org. Lett., Vol. XX, No. XX, XXXX
C