Regio- and Stereoselectivity in the 1,3-Dipolar Cycloaddition Reactions of Isoquinolinium Ylides with Cyclopenta[a]acenaphthylen-8-ones

Abstract

A convenient regio- and diastereoselective synthesis of functionalized 5a,5b-dihydro-5H,13H-naphtho[1′′,8′′:4′,5′,6′]pentaleno[1′:3,4]pyrrolo[2,1-a]isoquinolin-5-ones via 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition reaction of 8H-cyclopenta[a]acenaphthylen-8-ones with carbonyl-stabilized isoquinolinium N-ylides, is described. Based on DFT calculations at b3lyp/6-311+g(d,p) level of theory, a nonconcerted mechanism is proposed to explain the regioselectivity of this reaction. The structure of a typical product was confirmed by X-ray crystallographic analysis.

Key words

regioselective synthesis - 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition - isoquinolinium ylide - cyclopentadienones - DFT calculations

Cyclopentadienone (1) represents an unusual system of crossed conjugated double bonds in a five-membered ring.[1] Cyclopentadienones are antiaromatic dienes having low HOMO–LUMO energy gaps.[2] Although 1 and nearly all of the simple cyclopentadienones that have been prepared are dimeric, tetraarylcyclopentadienones 2 and fused-ring cyclopentadienones, such as disubstituted 8H-cyclopent[a]acenaphthylen-8-ones (3 and 4), are monomeric (Figure [1]).[3] The factors that determine whether a monomer or a dimer is formed appear to be steric in nature. All of the monomeric cyclopentadienones are colored and many have been studied for the effect of substituents and fused rings on the ultraviolet and visible absorption.[4] The tetraaryl derivatives 2 are powerful dienes in a Diels–Alder reaction and have been used for the synthesis of highly arylated compounds.[5] With alkenes or alkynes the reaction can lead to the formation of bridged carbonyl compounds, which can lose carbon monoxide upon heating. The catalytic reactivity of iron cyclopentadienone complexes have been reported.[6] The synthesis, reactions, and physical properties of cyclopentadienones have been extensively reviewed.[3]

Figure 1 Cyclopentadienone and its monomeric derivatives

The cyclopentadienone system has been proved to be a privileged and peculiar dipolarophile. Thus, in the cycloaddition of tetrasubstituted cyclopentadienones with nitrile oxides, the 1,3-dipole attacks the ring C=C double bond,[7a] whereas with nitrile imines[7b] and nitrile ylides,[7c] the dipole attacks the carbonyl double bond (Scheme [1]). It was of interest, therefore, to study the cycloaddition of the ring-fused 7,9-bis(alkoxycabonyl)-8H-cyclopent[a]acenaphthylen-8-ones[8] with carbonyl-stabilized isoquinolinium ylides,[9] to examine the position of attack by this dipole and the regioselectivity of the cycloadducts. As shown in Scheme [1], the 1,3-dipole attacks the ethylene double bond of cyclopentadienone derivative to afford a heptacyclic adduct.

Scheme 1 Dipolar cycloaddition of fused cyclopentadienones with: a) diphenylnitrilimine, b) benzonitrile-4-nitrobenzylide, and carbonyl-stabilized isoquinolinium ylide.

Initially, the reaction between 7,9-bis(methoxycabonyl)-8H-cyclopent[a]acenaphthylen-8-one (4a) and 2-(2-oxo-2-phenylethyl)isoquinolin-2-ium bromide (7a), prepared in situ from isoquinoline (5) and phenacyl bromide (6a), was investigated in the presence of Et₃N. The reaction proceeded smoothly in MeCN at room temperature (25 °C) and afforded dimethyl 4-benzoyl-5-oxo-4H,12cH-naphtho[1′′,8′′:4′,5′,6′]pentaleno[1′:3,4]pyrrolo[2,1-a]isoquinoline-4a,6(5H)-dicarboxylate (8a) in 80% yield (Table [1]). In order to optimize the reaction conditions for the formation of 8a, the effects of solvent and temperature were studied. As shown in Table [1], H₂O, MeOH, DMF, MeCN, and CH₂Cl₂ were examined. Ultimately, MeCN was found to be the best solvent at 80 °C.

Table 1 Optimization of Reaction Conditions for the Formation of 8a^a

Entry	Solvent	Temp (°C)	Yield (%)b
1	H2O	60	trace
2	MeOH	60	15
3	CH2Cl2	25	50
4	DMF	25	20
5	MeCN	25	80
6	MeCN	80	86

^a Reaction conditions: 4a (1.0 mmol), 7a (1.0 mmol), Et₃N (1.0 mmol), solvent (6 mL), 2 h.

^b Yield of isolated product.

To determine the scope of this approach, a number of phenacyl bromides 6 were tested under the reaction conditions. As shown in Table [2], phenacyl bromides bearing electron-donating or electron-withdrawing substituents provided the functionalized pyrrolo[2,1-a]isoquinoline derivatives 8 in good yields (84–92%).[10]

Table 2 Synthesis of Fused Pyrrolo[2,1-a]isoquinolines 8 ^a

Entry	Z	Ar	Product 8	Yield (%)b
1	CO2Me	Ph	8a	86
2	CO2Et	Ph	8b	88
3	CO2Me	4-ClC6H4	8c	85
4	CO2Et	4-ClC6H4	8d	90
5	CO2Me	4-MeC6H4	8e	87
6	CO2Et	4-MeC6H4	8f	86
7	CO2Me	4-MeOC6H4	8g	92
8	CO2Et	4-MeOC6H4	8h	85
9	CO2Me	4-O2NC6H4	8i	90
10	CO2Et	4-O2NC6H4	8j	84

^a Reaction conditions: 4 (1 mmol), 7 (1 mmol), Et₃N (1 mmol), solvent (6 mL).

^b Isolated yield.

The structures of products 8a–j were elucidated by ¹H NMR, ¹³C NMR, IR, and mass spectral data. The ¹H NMR spectrum of 8a exhibited four sharp singlets for the methoxy (δ = 3.51 and 3.86 ppm) and methine (δ = 4.82 and 6.13 ppm) protons. The aromatic protons show characteristic multiplets (δ = 6.37–8.27 ppm) in the spectrum. The ¹³C NMR spectrum of 8a showed 34 signals in agreement with the proposed structure. The mass spectrum of 8a displayed the molecular ion peak at m/z = 567. The NMR spectra of compounds 8b–j were similar to those of 8a, except for the substituents, respectively.

Clear evidence for the structure of 8e was obtained from single-crystal X-ray analysis.[11] The ORTEP diagram of 8e is shown in Figure [2]. There are eight molecules of 8e in the unit cell, which are arranged in a centrosymmetric manner. The structure obtained from the crystallographic data, and those of 8a–d and 8f–j were assumed to be analogous on account of their similar NMR spectra.

Figure 2 X-ray crystal structure of compound 8e

The ¹³C NMR spectra of compounds 8a–j showed five signals above δ = 160 ppm. Two of these signals which appear between δ = 160–170 ppm are assigned to the ester C=O groups, and two of the remaining peaks appearing above δ = 190 ppm are attributed to the ketone carbonyl groups. In order to assign the last signal appearing above δ = 190 ppm, we turned to DFT calculations at the b3lyp/6-311+g(d,p) level of theory.[12] Thus, the NMR calculations performed to estimate the chemical shifts of the five ¹³C signals in compound 8e that appear above δ = 160 ppm are shown in Figure [3].

Figure 3 Comparison of the experimental (and theoretical) values of ¹³C NMR chemical shifts (in ppm) for the five low-field signals (between δ = 160–200 ppm) observed in the ¹³C NMR spectrum of compound 8e

The frontier molecular orbital diagram for carbonyl-stabilized isoquinolinium ylide 10 and cyclopentadienone 4 is shown in Figure [4]. The HOMO–LUMO energy levels are given in eV. According to this diagram, the dipolar cycloaddition reaction between 4 and 10 is controlled by the orbital energy of isoquinolinium ylides.[13]

Figure 4 Frontier orbital diagram for isoquinolinium ylides 10 (left) and cyclopentadienone 4 (right). The HOMO–LUMO energy levels are given in eV.

DFT has been accepted by chemists as a reliable approach for computation of molecular structures and energies of chemical systems.[14] To estimate the molecular reactivities of 4 and 10, the values of global chemical reactivity descriptors such as electronic chemical potentials (μ),[15] chemical hardness (η),[16] and electrophilicity (ω)[17] for reactants 4 and 10 are calculated by this method. As shown in Table [3], the chemical hardness for the reactants is almost the same, but the electronic chemical potential value of 10 is higher than that of 4. Therefore, charge transfer is expected to take place from isoquinolinium ylide 10 to 4. Also, the comparison of the nucleophilicity and the electrophilicity of the reactants showed that the dipolar species 10 would act as the nucleophile in this cycloaddition reaction.

Table 3 Frontier MO Energies and Reactivity Descriptors for Reactants 4 and 10 Calculated at the b3lyp/6-311+G(d,p) Level of Theory^a

Comp	E HOMO	E LUMO	μ	η	N	ω
10	–5.20	–2.42	–3.80	1.395	4.24	5.19
4	–6.32	–3.54	–4.93	1.390	3.17	8.74

^a All energetics are given in eV.

A DFT diagram for mechanistic rationalization of the regioselective nonconcerted formation of product 8 is given in Figure [5]. It is presumed that initially the reaction of isoquinoline (5) and phenacyl bromide (6a) generates the isoquinolinium salt (7), which is converted into the isoquinolinium ylide (10) by Et₃N. A nonconcerted regioselective addition reaction occurs between the electron deficient C2–C3 π bond of cyclopentadienone and the isoquinolinium ylide to afford the zwitterionic intermediate 11. This intermediate is converted into the heptacyclic pyrrolo[2,1-a]isoquinoline 8.

Figure 5 DFT diagram for mechanistic rationalization of the regioselective nonconcerted formation of product 8. Relative energies (ΔE) for cycloaddition reaction are calculated according to reactants whose E = –1932.777495 Hartree at b3lyp/6-311+G(d,p) level of theory.

In summary, we have developed a regio- and diastereoselective synthesis of functionalized 5a,5b-dihydro-5H,13H-naphtho[1′′,8′′:4′,5′,6′]pentaleno[1′:3,4]pyrrolo[2,1-a]-isoquinolin-5-ones via 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of 7,9-bis(alkoxycabonyl)-8H-cyclopent[a]acenaphthylen-8-ones with carbonyl-stabilized isoquinolinium ylides, derived from isoquinoline and phenacyl bromides in the presence of Et₃N in MeCN. Based on DFT calculations at b3lyp/6-311+g(d,p) level of theory, a nonconcerted mechanism is proposed to explain the selectivity of this reaction. The methodology reported here may serve as a convenient strategy to create a wide range of functionalized heptacyclic pyrrolo[2,1-a]isoquinoline derivatives.

• References and Notes

• 1 Chapman OL, McIntosh CL. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1971; 770
• 2 Pal R, Mukherjee S, Chandrasekhar S, Guru RT. N. J. Phys. Chem. A 2014; 118: 3479
• 3 Ogliaruso MA, Romanelli MG, Becker EI. Chem. Rev. 1965; 65: 261
• 4 Potter RG, Hughes TS. J. Org. Chem. 2008; 73: 2995
• 5 White DM. J. Org. Chem. 1974; 39: 1951
• 6 Quintard A, Rodriguez J. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014; 53: 4044
• 7a Argyropoulos NG, Alexandrou NE. J. Heterocycl. Chem. 1979; 16: 731
• 7b Tsatsaroni EG, Argyropoulos NG, Alexandrou NE, Houndas A, Terzis A. J. Heterocycl. Chem. 1984; 21: 701
• 7c Tsatsaroni EG, Argyropoulos NG, Alexandrou NE, Houndas A, Terzis A. J. Heterocycl. Chem. 1984; 21: 1405
• 8a Shi R.-G, Sun J, Yan C.-G. ACS Omega 2017; 2: 7820
• 8b An J, Yang QQ, Wang Q, Xiao WJ. Tetrahedron Lett. 2013; 54: 3834
• 8c Fernández N, Carrillo L, Vicario JL, Badia D, Reyes E. Chem. Commun. 2011; 47: 12313
• 8d Ruano JL. G, Fraile A, Martin MR, Gonzalez G, Fajardo C, Martin-Castro AM. J. Org. Chem. 2011; 76: 3296
• 8e Peng W, Zhu S. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1 2001; 3204
• 9a Allen CF. H, Van Allan JA. J. Org. Chem. 1952; 17: 845
• 9b Craig JT, Robins MD. W. Aust. J. Chem. 1968; 21: 2237
• 10 Typical Procedure for the Preparation of 8To a stirred mixture of N-substituted isoquinolinium salts 7 (1.0 mmol) and Et₃N (1.1 mmol) in MeCN (6.0 mL) was added cyclopentadienone 4 (1 mmol),^9a and the resulting mixture was stirred at 80 °C for 3 h. After completion of the reaction (TLC monitoring), the mixture was filtered, and the precipitate was washed with cold MeCN and n-hexane to afford the products 8a–j.Dimethyl 4-Benzoyl-5-oxo-4H,12cH-naphtho-[1′′,8′′:4′,5′,6′]-pentaleno[1′:3,4]pyrrolo[2,1-a]isoquinoline-4a,6(5H)-dicarboxylate (8a)Orange crystals; yield 0.487 g (86%); mp 224–225 °C. IR (KBr): 3061, 2976, 1742, 1730, 1680, 1608, 1020 cm^–1. ¹H NMR: δ = 3.51 (s, 3 H), 3.86 (s, 3 H), 4.82 (d, J = 7.3 Hz, 1 H), 4.93 (s, 1 H), 5.26 (d, J = 7.3 Hz, 1 H), 6.07 (t, J = 7.3 Hz, 1 H), 6.13 (s, 1 H), 6.37 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1 H), 6.75 (d, J = 7.3 Hz, 1 H), 6.83 (t, J = 7.3 Hz, 1 H), 7.50 (t, J = 7.0 Hz, 1 H), 7.56 (t, J = 7.0 Hz, 1 H), 7.62 (d, J = 7.0 Hz, 2 H), 7.78 (d, J = 7.0 Hz, 1 H), 7.84 (t, J = 8.0 Hz, 1 H), 8.00 (t, J = 8.0 Hz, 2 H), 8.15 (d, J = 8.0 Hz, 2 H), 8.27 (d, J = 7.0 Hz, 1 H). ¹³C NMR: δ = 52.0 (MeO), 52.6 (MeO), 71.7 (CH), 73.1 (C), 73.7 (CH), 75.0 (C), 103.0 (CH), 121.7 (CH), 123.4 (C) 124.3 (CH), 124.5 (2 CH), 124.8 (C), 125.7 (CH), 126.1 (CH), 127.9 (CH), 128.2 (CH), 128.8 (2 CH), 129.0 (CH), 129.1 (CH), 129.2 (CH), 130.6 (C), 130.7 (C), 131.0 (CH), 132.2 (C), 133.8 (CH), 135.3 (C), 135.4 (CH), 139.1 (C), 141.9 (C), 161.5 (C = O), 165.7 (C = O), 190.0 (C), 193.7 (C = O), 198.2 (C = O). MS (EI, 70 eV): m/z (%) = 567 (4) [M⁺], 437 (50), 338 (31), 301 (54), 279 (36), 244 (45), 203 (18), 187 (27), 105 (100). Anal. Calcd for C₃₆H₂₅NO₆ (567.60): C, 76.18; H, 4.44; N, 2.47. Found: C, 75.88; H, 4.46; N, 2.46.
• 11 X-ray Crystal-Structure Determination of 8eCCDC 1969492 contains the supplementary crystallographic data for this paper (structure 8e). The data can be obtained free of charge from The Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre via www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/getstructures.
• 12a CalculationsAll calculations in this paper were carried out with Gaussian 09 package^12a by using the DFT method. Through the comparison of theoretical and experimental data, obtained from X-ray crystallography, we found that b3lyp/6-311+g(d,p)^12b,^c results were in best agreement with the experimental data. These comparisons were based on bond lengths, bond angles, and dihedral angles. Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, Scalmani G, Barone V, Petersson GA, Nakatsuji H, Li X, Caricato M, Marenich A, Bloino J, Janesko BG, Gomperts R, Mennucci B, Hratchian HP, Ortiz JV, Izmaylov AF, Sonnenberg JL, Williams-Young D, Ding F, Lipparini F, Egidi F, Goings J, Peng B, Petrone A, Henderson T, Ranasinghe D, Zakrzewski VG, Gao J, Rega N, Zheng G, Liang W, Hada M, Ehara M, Toyota K, Fukuda R, Hasegawa J, Ishida M, Nakajima T, Honda Y, Kitao O, Nakai H, Vreven T, Throssell K, Montgomery JA. Jr, Peralta JE, Ogliaro F, Bearpark M, Heyd JJ, Brothers E, Kudin KN, Staroverov VN, Keith T, Kobayashi R, Normand J, Raghavachari K, Rendell A, Burant JC, Iyengar SS, Tomasi J, Cossi M, Millam J, Klene MM, Adamo C, Cammi R, Ochterski JW, Martin RL, Morokuma K, Farkas O, Foresman JB, Fox DJ. Gaussian 09, Revision A.02. 2016
• 12b Johnson BG, Fisch MJ. J. Chem. Phys. 1994; 100: 7429
• 12c Gauss J. J. Chem. Phys. 1993; 99: 3629
• 13a Sustmann R. Pure Appl. Chem. 1974; 40: 569
• 13b Meyer AG, Ryan JH. Molecules 2016; 21: 935
• 14a Beyramabadi A, Morsali A. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2011; 6: 1780
• 14b Babu NS, Sagar GY. J. Chem. Pharm. Res. 2015; 7: 4063
• 14c Alshamaileh E. Comput. Chem. 2014; 2: 43
• 15 Vektariene A, Vektaris G, Svoboda J. ARKIVOC 2009; (vii): 311
• 16 Parr RG, Pearson RG. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983; 105: 7512
• 17 Parr RG, Szentpaly L, Liu SB. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999; 121: 1922

Publication History

Received: 02 April 2020

Accepted after revision: 20 July 2020

Article published online:
11 August 2020