References
-
1a Hajos ZG, and Parrish DR. inventors; German Patent DE 2102623.
-
1b
Hajos ZG.
Parrish DR.
J. Org. Chem.
1974,
39:
1615
-
1c
Eder U.
Sauer G.
Wiechert R.
Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl.
1971,
10:
496
-
1d
Notz W.
List B.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2000,
122:
7386
-
1e
List B.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2000,
122:
9336
-
1f
List B.
Lerner RA.
Barbas CF.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2000,
122:
2395
-
1g
List B.
Pojarliev P.
Castello C.
Org. Lett.
2001,
3:
573
-
1h
List B.
Pojarliev P.
Martin HJ.
Org. Lett.
2001,
3:
2423
-
1i
List B.
Tetrahedron
2002,
58:
5573
-
1j
List B.
Pojarliev P.
Biller WT.
Martin HJ.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2002,
124:
827
-
1k
Córdova A.
Notz W.
Zhong G.
Betancort JM.
Barbas CF.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2002,
124:
1842
-
1l
Córdova A.
Watanabe S.
Tanaka F.
Notz W.
Barbas CF.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2002,
124:
1866
-
1m
List B.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2002,
124:
5656
-
1n
Kumaragurubaran N.
Juhl K.
Zhuang W.
Bøgevig A.
Jørgensen KA.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2002,
124:
6254
-
1o
Northrup AB.
MacMillan DWC.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2002,
124:
6798
-
1p
Chowdari NS.
Ramachary DB.
Barbas CF.
Org. Lett.
2003,
5:
1685
-
2a
Ahrendt KA.
Borths CJ.
MacMillan DWC.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2000,
122:
4243
-
2b
Jen WS.
Wiener JJ.
MacMillan DWC.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2000,
122:
9874
-
2c
Betancort JM.
Barbas CF.
Org. Lett.
2001,
3:
3737
-
2d
Northrup AB.
MacMillan DWC.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2002,
124:
2458
-
2e
Paras NA.
MacMillan DWC.
J. Am.Chem. Soc.
2002,
124:
7894
-
2f
Juhl K.
Jørgensen KA.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
2003,
42:
1498
-
For recent reviews on organocatalysis, see:
-
3a
Dalko PI.
Moisan L.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
2001,
40:
3726
-
3b
Jarvo ER.
Miller SJ.
Tetrahedron
2002,
58:
2481
- 4
Movassaghi M.
Jacobsen EN.
Science
2002,
298:
1904
-
5a
Sigman MS.
Jacobsen EN.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1998,
120:
4901
-
5b
Sigman MS.
Vachal P.
Jacobsen EN.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
2000,
39:
1279
-
5c
Vachal P.
Jacobsen EN.
Org. Lett.
2000,
2:
867
-
5d
Su JT.
Vachal P.
Jacobsen EN.
Adv. Synth. Catal.
2001,
343:
197
-
5e
Vachal P.
Jacobsen EN.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2002,
124:
10012
- 6
Wenzel AG.
Jacobsen EN.
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2002,
124:
12964
-
For discussions of the advantages of C2-symmetry in asymmetric catalysts, see:
-
14a
Whitesell JK.
Chem. Rev.
1989,
89:
1581
-
14b
Kagan HB. In
Comprehensive Asymmetric Catalysis
Vol. 1:
Jacobsen EN.
Pfaltz A.
Yamamoto H.
Springer;
New York:
1999.
Chap. 2.
- 17
Yoon TP.
Jacobsen EN.
Science
2003,
299:
1691
- 18 The recent report on the use of TADDOL as a Diels-Alder catalyst appears to represent another, very promising, for example see: Huang Y.
Unni AK.
Thadani AN.
Rawal VH.
Nature (London)
2003,
424:
146
7 Kinetic studies carried out on both reactions are consistent with imine pre-association to catalyst followed by nucleophile addition to the catalyst-imine complex (ref.
[5e]
and Wenzel, A. G., unpublished results).
8 The standard screening conditions are depicted in Scheme
[1]
. Benzaldimines were chosen as substrates for each reaction to maximize structural and electronic similarity. While aliphatic N-alkyl imines have been successfully employed in the Strecker reaction, aliphatic N-Boc aldimines have not been investigated in the Mannich reaction because no useful method has been identified for their synthesis.
9 Although negligible improvement in the Strecker reaction was observed with the N-allyl benzaldimine substrate screened in this study, pronounced improvement has been observed in cases of problematic substrates. (See ref.
[5e]
)
10 In general, conversion was found to correlate with enantioselectivity, with the more selective catalysts also proving to be the most reactive.
11 For a comprehensive description of the effect of varying the R3 substituent on the enantioselectivity of the Strecker reaction, see ref.
[5a]
12 An optimization library performed during early-phase methodological development for the Mannich reaction revealed that variation of the R3 substituent of the salicylaldimine (R3 = t-Bu, Me, H, OTIPS, t-BuO, OMe, OCO-t-Bu, Br, Cl) has no effect on enantioselectivity or conversion (ref.
[6]
).
13 The Strecker reactions were carried out at lower catalyst loadings and more dilute conditions {[20] = 0.98 mM in the Strecker vs. 42 mM in the Mannich}, thereby obviating the need for a solvent switch with sparingly soluble 20.
15 Analogs of 24 derived from less sterically demanding amino acids (e.g. valine, alanine) also performed poorly as catalysts for the Mannich reaction. Catalyst 24 proved almost completely unreactive in the Strecker reaction.
16 The model Strecker reaction was catalyzed by 26 in 40% ee with the opposite sense of stereoinduction relative to 1.