Catalyst and pressure dependent reductive cyclizations for the diastereoselective synthesis of hexahydropyrrolo[1,2-a]quinoline-5-carboxylic esters

Journal of Heterocyclic Chemistry

Volumn 43, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1505-1511

  Bunce, Richard A ^a   Schammerhorn, James E ^a   Slaughter, LeGrande M ^a  

^a OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

(2 NITROPHENYL)ACETATE; 1,2,3,3A,4,5 HEXAHYDROPYRROLO[1,2 A]QUINOLINE 5 CARBOXYLIC ESTER DERIVATIVE; 2 BROMOMETHYL 1,5 HEXADIENE DERIVATIVE; ALKADIENE; CARBONYL DERIVATIVE; CARBOXYLIC ACID DERIVATIVE; HEXAHYDROPYRROLO[1,2 A]QUINOLINE 5 CARBOXYLIC ESTER DERIVATIVE; HYDROXYLAMINE; NITROPHENOL;

ARTICLE; BINDING COMPETITION; CATALYSIS; CYCLIZATION; DEACYLATION; DIASTEREOISOMER; GEOMETRY; HYDROGENATION; OZONOLYSIS; REDUCTION KINETICS; RING CLOSING METATHESIS; STEREOCHEMISTRY; SYNTHESIS;

EID: 33845409605     PISSN: 0022152X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jhet.5570430613     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Undergraduate Research Participant, 2004-2006.
2. R. A. Bunce, D. M. Herron, L. B. Johnson and S. V. Kotturi. J. Org. Chem., 66, 2822 (2001).
3. [3a] The pyrrolidine ring is estimated to have 6.5 kcal/mole of strain energy relative to piperidine, see K. B. Wiberg, D. Y. Najaki, and K. M. Morgan, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 115, 3527 (1993);
4. [b] J. D. Cox, Tetrahedron, 19, 1175 (1963).
5. [4a] Y. Ito, E. Nakajo, M. Nakatsuka and T. Saegusa, Tetrahedron Lett., 24, 2881 (1983);
6. [b] R. Fujimoto, Y. Kishi and J. F. Blount, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 102, 7154 (1980).
7. A second synthesis proceeded through the same hexahydropyrrolo[1,2-a] quinoline intermediate, see W. H. Pearson and W. Fang, J. Org. Chem., 65, 7158 (2000).
8. A. I. Meyers and G. Milot, J. Org. Chem., 58, 6538 (1993).
9. [7a] For cyclization promoted by nickel(0); R. Omar-Amrani, A. Thomas, E. Brenner, R. Schneider and Y. Fort, Org. Lett., 5, 2311 (2003);
10. [b] For cyclization promoted by palladium(0): J. P. Wolfe, R. A. Rennels and S. L. Buchwald, Tetrahedron, 52, 7525 (1996).
11. B. M. Trost and Y. Shi, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 115, 9421 (1993).
12. M. Makosza and A. Tyrala, Synth. Commun., 16, 419 (1986).
13. T. Hudlicky, B. C. Ranu, S. M. Naqvi and A. Srnak, J. Org. Chem., 50, 123 (1985).
14. The modest mass balances (ca. 70%) for the reductive cyclizations result from loss of material during chromatography.
15. Decarbonylation could also occur before the initial ring closure.
16. [13a] P. N. Rylander, Catalytic Hydrogenation Over Platinum Metals; Academic Press: New York, 1967; pp 20-21 and 400;
17. [b] J. Tsuji in "Organic Synthesis via Metal Carbonyls," I. Wender and P. Pino, Eds.; Wiley-Interscience: New York, 1977; pp 595-654;
18. M.-A. Pearsall, A. M. Rosan, J. S. Conrad, C. A. Hendrickson, A. L. Pacchia and D. J. Schantz, J. Chem. Educ., 72, A29 (1995).
19. For a mechanistic discussion of this process, see J. Tsuji and K. Ohno, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 90, 94 (1968).
20. Poisoning of the catalyst surface by the tetrahydroquinoline products may play a role in deactivating the platinum catalysts, see ref 8, pp 16-17, 318 and 385.
21. 2 = 0.0957 (all data). CCDC 290046 contains the supplementary crystallographic data for 9. These data can be obtained free of charge from the CCDC at www.cede.cam.ac.uk/data_request/cif.
22. [17a] T. L. Gilchrist, Heterocyclic Chemistry; Longman: New York, 1985; pp 45-48;
23. [b] E. L. Eliel, S. L. Wilen and L. N. Mander, Stereochemistry of Organic Compounds; Wiley: New York, 1994; pp 749-752;
24. [c] M. B. Smith and J. March, March's Advanced Organic Chemistry; Wiley: New York, 2001; pp 176-177;
25. [d] F. A. Carey and R. J. Sundberg, Advanced Organic Chemistry, Part A: Structure and Mechanisms; Kluwer Academic/Plenum: New York, 2000; pp 151-156.
26. D. Neuhaus and M. P. Williamson, The Nuclear Overhauser Effect in Structural and Conformational Analysis; VCH: New York, 1989; pp. 253-306.
27. Molecular mechanics (UFF) and density functional theory (DFT) calculations on optimized structures of the equatorial methyl and axial methyl isomers did not indicate a clear enthalpic preference for either isomer. UFF calculations [A. K. Rappé, C. J. Casewit, K. S. Colwell, W. A. Goddard, III and W. M. Skiff, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 114, 10024 (1992)] favored equatorial methyl by 1.47 kcal/mole, while DFT calculations favored axial methyl by 2.61 kcal/mole.
28. DFT calculations were performed using the GAUSSIAN 03 package [M. J. Frisch, et al., Gaussian 03, Gaussian, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA (2004)] at the B3LYP/6-31G** level of theory with full vibrational analysis to derive the thermochemical results.
29. 3 and OH groups, see ref 17d, p 140.
30. W. C. Still, M. Kahn and A. Mitra, J. Org. Chem., 43, 2923 (1978).