4.6 Article

Ring-Closing Metathesis of Sulfoximine-Substituted N-Tethered Trienes: Modular Asymmetric Synthesis of Medium-Ring Nitrogen Heterocycles

Journal

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
Volume 17, Issue 22, Pages 6187-6195

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.201003172

Keywords

heterocycles; ring-closing metathesis; ruthenium; sulfoximine

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [GK 440]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A synthesis of sulfoximine-substituted medium-ring nitrogen heterocycles (MRNHs) having a high degree of substitution has been developed. Its key steps are the modular asymmetric synthesis of sulfoximine-substituted N-tethered trienes and their Ru-catalyzed ring-closing metathesis (RCM) reaction. The highly substituted N-tethered trienes were obtained enantio- and diastereopure through 1) the diastereoselective aminoalkylation of sulfoximine-substituted allyltitanium complexes with N-tert-butylsulfonyliminoester, 2) N-allylation of homoallylic N-sulfonyl amines, 3) allylation, hydroxylalkylation, and formylation of alpha-lithioalkenylsulfoximines, and 4) allylation of alpha-formylalkenylsulfoximines. The Ru-catalyzed RCM reaction of the sulfoximine-substituted 1,7,10- and 1,7,12-trienes stereoselectively afforded the corresponding nine-, ten-, and eleven-membered MRNHs in good yields. An interesting difference in reactivity was noted in the case of a sulfoximine-substituted 1,7,10-triene and its corresponding 1,10-diene. While the triene readily underwent a RCM reaction, the diene reacted only in the presence of Ti(OiPr)(4) under formation of the corresponding MRNH. The feasibility of a removal of the sulfoximine auxiliary and the N-sulfonyl protecting group from the MRNHs were demonstrated through reduction and cleavage, respectively, of a nine-membered heterocycle, both of which proceeded readily and gave the corresponding cyclic alkene and amine, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available