Novel syntheses of (E)- and (Z)-volkendousin, cytotoxic steroids from the plant Melia volkensii

European Journal of Organic Chemistry

Volumn , Issue 18, 2000, Pages 3247-3252

  Di Filippo, Marcello ^a   Fezza, Filomena ^a   Izzo, Irene ^a   De Riccardis, Francesco ^a   Sodano, Guido ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SALERNO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Melia volkensii; Natural products; Steroids; Toxicology; Volkendousin

Indexed keywords

(E) 3B,4B METHYLETHYLIDENEBIS(OXY)PREGNA 5,17(20) DIEN 16 ONE; (E) VOLKENDOUSIN; (Z) 3B,4B METHYLETHYLIDENEBIS(OXY)PREGNA 5,17(20) DIEN 16 ONE; (Z) VOLKENDOUSIN; CYTOTOXIC AGENT; STEROID; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ANTINEOPLASTIC ACTIVITY; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CYTOTOXICITY; DRUG SYNTHESIS;

EID: 0033799323     PISSN: 1434193X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/1099-0690(200009)2000:18<3247::AID-EJOC3247>3.0.CO;2-U     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. L. L. Rogers, L. Zeng, J. L. McLaughlin, J. Org. Chem. 1998, 63, 3781-3785.
2. K. K. Purushothaman, A. Sarada, A. Saraswathy, Can. J. Chem. 1987, 65, 150-153.
3. B. B. Snider, B. Shi, Tetrahedron 1999, 55, 14823-14828.
4. [4a] V. A. Petrow, O. Rosenheim, W. W. Starling, J. Chem. Soc. 1943, 135-139.
5. J. R. Hanson, P. B. Reese, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans. 1 1985, 647-649.
6. [5a] M. Mousseron-Canet, C. Chavis, A. Guida, Bull. Soc. Chim. Fr. 1971, 627-631.
7. M. H. Rabinowitz, Tetrahedron Lett. 1991, 32, 6081-6084.
8. [6a] I. V. Micovic, M. D. Ivanovic, D. M. Piatac, Synthesis 1990, 591-592.
9. R. Tavares, T. Randoux, J.-C. Braekman, D. Daloze, Tetrahedron 1993, 49, 5079-5090.
10. [7a] P. S. Wharton, D. H. Bohlen, J. Org. Chem. 1961, 26, 3615-3616.
11. M. Koreeda, Y. Tanaka, A. Schwartz, J. Org. Chem. 1980, 45, 1172-1174.
12. The base sensitivity of substrate 7 could be ascribed to acetyl "neighboring group participation", which should facilitate the C-3 and/or C-4 deacetylation.
13. [9a] R., H. Schlessinger, G. R. Bebernitz, P. Lin, A. J. Poss, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1985, 107, 1777-1778.
14. S. L. Schreiber, C. Santini, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106, 4038-4039.
15. J. P. Marino, J. C. Jaén, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1982, 104, 3165-3172.
16. P. A. Grieco, M. Nishizawa, T. Oguri, S. D. Burke, N. Marinovic, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1977, 99, 5773-5779.
17. J. Herscovici, K. Antonakis, J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1980, 561-562.
18. P. L. Julian, E. W. Meyer, W. J. Karpel, I. R. Waller, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1950, 72, 5145-5147.
19. Assignments were performed on the basis of ref.[7b] An incorrect (opposite) assignment is reported in: F. J. Brown, C. Djer-assi, J. Org. Chem. 1980, 45, 807-817.
20. [3]
21. 2O (S. Deng, B. Yu, Y. Hui, J. Org. Chem. 1999, 64, 202-208) resulted either in the absence of reactivity or in the formation of unidentified side products.
22. 2O (S. Deng, B. Yu, Y. Hui, J. Org. Chem. 1999, 64, 202-208) resulted either in the absence of reactivity or in the formation of unidentified side products.
23. 2O (S. Deng, B. Yu, Y. Hui, J. Org. Chem. 1999, 64, 202-208) resulted either in the absence of reactivity or in the formation of unidentified side products.
24. It is important to note that 16-dehydropregnenolone can easily be obtained from diosgenin (Marker's degradation); thus, the only real difference between the two synthetic approaches is the 4β-acetoxylation step: The first approach starts with the 4β-acetoxylation of the diosgenin, while the second postpones it until after the side chain degradation.
25. [1.3]