Synthetic Applications of Amino Acid Derived Aldehydes in Asymmetric Hydroxylation Reactions Using Nitrosobenzene

Abstract

This review highlights the proline-catalyzed asymmetric α-hydroxylation of aldehydes derived from amino acids. This reaction provides a robust method for introducing a hydroxyl group at the α-position of the aldehyde with high stereocontrol. The stereochemical outcome of the hydroxylation is primarily governed by the chiral environment of the proline catalyst and is further influenced by the pre-existing chiral center within the substrate. Post-hydroxylation, the aldehyde intermediates can be readily transformed into alcohols or olefins, depending on the synthetic requirements. We explore the utility of amino acid derived aldehydes, such as those obtained from l-glutamic acid, phenylalanine, proline, and l-aspartic acid, in the context of asymmetric synthesis. The scope of this methodology extends to the efficient construction of various natural products and bioactive compounds, highlighting its significance in modern organic synthesis.

1 Introduction

2 Mechanistic Overview of the Proline-Catalyzed Asymmetric α-Hydroxylation of Aldehydes

3 Review of the Proline-Catalyzed Asymmetric α-Hydroxylation of Aldehydes

4 Current Overview and Future Prospective

5 Conclusion

Keywords

catalysis - asymmetric - proline - amino acid - hydroxylation - aldehyde - stereoisomer

Biographical Sketches

Dr. Vipin Jain earned his Master of Science (M.Sc.) degree in Chemistry from Rajasthan University in 2012. He subsequently completed his doctoral studies (Ph.D.) in 2019 in the Department of Chemistry at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kanpur. Following his Ph.D., he pursued postdoctoral research at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi in 2020. Dr. Jain has served as an Assistant Professor at Chaudhary Bansi Lal University, Bhiwani, Haryana, since 2023. His current research focuses on the synthesis of natural products and the isolation of marker compounds from herbal plants.

Prof. Mayank Kinger obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Medical Science from C.C.S. University, Meerut, India, in 2000. He subsequently completed his Master’s degree in Organic Chemistry from the same institution in 2002. In 2008, he was awarded a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree from Kurukshetra­ University, Kurukshetra, India, under the esteemed supervision of Professor Om Prakash, Emeritus Professor at Kurukshetra University. Following his doctoral studies, Dr. Kinger pursued postdoctoral research as a Fellow at the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, South Korea, from 2010 to 2012. Upon returning to India, he joined M.M. University, Mullana, Ambala, where he contributed significantly to teaching and research. In 2018, he was appointed as an Associate Professor at Chaudhary Bansi Lal University, Haryana, where he continues to serve. Prof. Kinger’s current research interests focus on the design and synthesis of novel biologically active heterocyclic compounds. His work targets the development of potential therapeutic agents, including anticancer, anti-Alzheimer, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, and antifungal compounds.

Sudeep Dhillon was born and raised in Dahola, Jind, Haryana, India. He earned his Bachelor’s degree in Non-Medical Sciences from Panjab University, Chandigarh, in 2015. He subsequently completed his Master’s degree in Organic Chemistry from Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana, India, in 2017. Currently, Sudeep is pursuing his Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree at Chaudhary Bansi Lal University, Bhiwani, India, under the supervision of Dr. Mayank Kinger, Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry. His current research interests include the synthesis of novel biologically active heterocyclic compounds with potential applications as therapeutic agents, such as anticancer, anti-Alzheimer, and anti-inflammatory agents.

1

Introduction

The reaction between amino acid derived aldehydes and proline is a key example of enamine catalysis, where the formation of an enamine intermediate drives the stereoselective α-hydroxylation of the aldehyde. In this process, the enamine intermediate reacts with nitrosobenzene to generate an α-hydroxy aldehyde with high asymmetry at the α-position.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] This methodology has gained widespread attention due to the ready availability of both the proline catalyst and nitrosobenzene, facilitating a broad range of transformations in organic synthesis.[6–11] One of the defining features of this reaction is that the stereochemical outcome is tightly controlled by the specific enantiomer of proline (d- or l-proline) employed, with additional stereoselectivity imparted by any pre-existing chiral centers in the aldehyde substrate. This dual stereocontrol allows for precise manipulation of the resulting hydroxyl group configuration, making the reaction highly versatile and effective in asymmetric synthesis. In recent years, there has been a surge of interest in the proline-catalyzed asymmetric α-hydroxylation of aldehydes derived from naturally occurring amino acids.[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Despite this rapid growth, the field remains fragmented, with reports scattered across different studies and applications.[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] To address this gap, we aim to provide a comprehensive review, summarizing all reported reactions involving amino acid derived aldehydes in asymmetric α-hydroxylation reactions. This review seeks to consolidate the advances in the field, highlighting the key transformations and their significance in the synthesis of complex natural products and bioactive compounds.

2

Mechanistic Overview of the Proline-Catalyzed Asymmetric α-Hydroxylation of Aldehydes

The catalytic cycle of the asymmetric α-hydroxylation reaction is illustrated in Scheme [1]. In this mechanism, the starting aldehyde i undergoes condensation with proline to form an enamine intermediate ii. This enamine subsequently reacts with nitrosobenzene (PhNO) to yield a hydroxy aminated product iv at the α-position of the aldehyde in a highly stereoselective manner. The stereochemistry of the hydroxyl group introduced during this process is determined by the enantiomer of proline (d- or l-proline) employed, with each enantiomer leading to a distinct stereoisomeric product. Following the asymmetric α-hydroxylation, to prevent potential racemization at the newly formed chiral center, the intermediate aldehyde iv can either be reduced in situ to the corresponding alcohol v or subjected to a Horner–Wadsworth–Emmons olefination, depending on the synthetic requirements. In the case of reduction to alcohol v, the O–N bond is cleaved using copper sulfate in an alcoholic solution, thus completing the reaction sequence. The overall process, including the stereochemical control exerted by the proline catalyst and the synthetic versatility of the product, is summarized in Scheme [1].

3

Review of the Proline-Catalyzed Asymmetric α-Hydroxylation of Aldehydes

Previous studies on the proline-catalyzed asymmetric α-hydroxylation of aldehydes have been extensively reported by numerous authors across various research and review articles.[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] However, herein we focus specifically on the utility of amino acid derived aldehydes in the synthesis of natural products and bioactive compounds. Amino acids serve as the primary source of amino functionality in the target molecules, while the hydroxyl group at the α-position is introduced via the proline-catalyzed asymmetric α-hydroxylation, as demonstrated through examples in the following sections.

Scheme 1 Catalytic cycle of asymmetric α-hydroxylation reaction

Scheme 2 Synthesis of galacto-DNJ and altro-DNJ from aldehyde

3.1

1-Deoxygalactonojirimycin, 1-Deoxyaltronojirimycin, and N-Boc-(2S,3S)-3-Hydroxypipecolic Acid

One noteworthy report by Ramapanicker and Chacko highlights the use of l-aspartic acid,[12] which is first converted into an aldehyde 1, a higher homologue of Garner’s aldehyde (Scheme [2]). This aldehyde undergoes proline-catalyzed asymmetric α-hydroxylation using d-proline and nitrosobenzene, followed by in situ Horner–Wadsworth–Emmons (HWE) olefination to prevent racemization. The hydroxyl group in the resulting compound 2 is protected using benzyl bromide, and subsequent dihydroxylation of the olefin under Upjohn conditions affords a dihydroxy ester. Both hydroxyl groups are then protected with 2,2-dimethoxypropane, after which the ester functionality in 3 is reduced to an alcohol and further transformed into a leaving group (OMs) in 4. To initiate cyclization, the acid-sensitive groups are deprotected under acidic conditions (HCl, MeOH), followed by cyclization in a mildly basic environment (K₂CO₃, MeOH), yielding the cyclic product 5. The benzyl group in 5 is subsequently reduced under hydrogenation conditions (Pd/C, H₂), affording galacto-DNJ as the final product. Interestingly, when d-proline in the asymmetric hydroxylation step is replaced with l-proline, and the same reaction sequence is followed, altro-DNJ is obtained with an overall yield of 38% from the same starting aldehyde,[12] as illustrated in Scheme [2]. This highlights the stereocontrolling power of proline in determining the final stereoisomer of the synthesized product.

To synthesize N-Boc-protected 3-hydroxypipecolic acid, the synthetic route begins with l-proline-catalyzed asymmetric α-hydroxylation, followed by Horner–Wadsworth–Emmons (HWE) olefination (Scheme [3]). This leads to the formation of an α,β-unsaturated ester 7, which is subsequently reduced to the corresponding alcohol. The resulting alcohol is then treated with mesyl chloride in the presence of triethylamine, yielding the mesylated intermediate 8. To proceed with further transformations, trifluoroacetic acid in dichloromethane is employed to open the oxazolidine ring and deprotect the N-Boc group. Cyclization is facilitated by potassium carbonate in methanol, forming the desired cyclic structure 9. To aid in separation and purification, the amino group is then re-protected using Boc anhydride, yielding a protected intermediate. The next step involves Corey–Schmidt oxidation (PDC, DMF) to selectively oxidize the primary alcohol group, followed by hydrogenation of the unsaturated bond to obtain the target compound, N-Boc-protected 3-hydroxypipecolic acid. This synthetic pathway, as depicted in Scheme [3], efficiently achieves the desired product through a series of stereoselective and chemoselective transformations.

Scheme 3 Synthesis of N-Boc-protected 3-hydroxypipecolic acid

3.2

Di-epi-castanospermine and Tri-epi-castanospermine

In a separate synthetic endeavor, Ramapanicker and Chacko also described the synthesis of di-epi-castanospermine and tri-epi-castanospermine from the aldehyde precursor, N-Boc homoprolinal (Scheme [4]).[17] Initially, the aldehyde 10 underwent asymmetric α-hydroxylation, catalyzed by d-proline, followed by a Horner–Wadsworth–Emmons (HWE) olefination, yielding olefin 11. This intermediate was subsequently subjected to Upjohn dihydroxylation, producing the dihydroxy ester 12. The transformation of this intermediate into the desired final product was accomplished via two distinct pathways. In the first pathway, the ester was cyclized with the deprotected amine, followed by the reduction of the resulting amide 13 to the corresponding amine using borane, ultimately yielding castanospermine, the target compound. In the second pathway, the ester functionality was initially converted into a leaving group (OMs) in 14, after which cyclization occurred through an intramolecular nucleophilic substitution reaction between the amine and the leaving group. Scheme [4] illustrates the synthesis of 1-deoxy-8,8a-di-epi-castanospermine via these two pathways, starting from N-Boc-homoprolinal 10.

Scheme 4 Synthesis of 1-deoxy-8,8a-di-epi-castanospermine from aldehyde

Using a nearly identical reaction sequence, with the sole modification being the substitution of l-proline for d-proline during the asymmetric α-hydroxylation step, the researchers successfully synthesized 1-deoxy-6,7,8a-tri-epi-castanospermine (Scheme [5]). This strategic alteration in the chiral catalyst played a pivotal role in steering the stereochemical outcome of the synthesis, allowing for the production of the desired stereoisomer of the target compound. The starting point for this synthesis was the same aldehyde precursor utilized in previous steps, ensuring consistency in the initial materials while enabling divergence in the stereochemical profile through the choice of proline. This modified approach resulted in an overall yield of 24%, demonstrating the efficiency of the process despite the inherent complexity of the stereocontrol. The stereochemical inversion achieved by switching from d-proline to l-proline allowed the researchers to generate the specific stereoisomer required for 1-deoxy-6,7,8a-tri-epi-castanospermine. Both synthetic pathways, one employing d-proline and the other l-proline were used to successfully complete this transformation, offering complementary routes to the stereochemically distinct compounds. The complete reaction scheme, outlining both synthetic approaches, is depicted in detail in Scheme [5], showcasing the versatility of proline-mediated stereocontrol in the context of complex molecule synthesis.

Scheme 5 Synthesis of 1-deoxy-6,7,8a-tri-epi-castanospermine from aldehyde

3.3

Hydroxy Diamino Acid Derivatives and the Caprolactam Unit of Bengamide A

In another study by Ramapanicker and co-workers, an aldehyde derived from l-aspartic acid was subjected to an asymmetric α-hydroxylation reaction catalyzed by l-proline, followed by a reductive amination reaction (Scheme [6]).[13] Following the asymmetric α-hydroxylation step, the crude aldehyde intermediate was converted into an amine through reductive amination using dibenzylamine and sodium triacetoxyborohydride. This was followed by further reduction to yield the amine, which was subsequently protected with Boc anhydride, resulting in a hydroxy-N-Boc-protected amino acid 16. In this synthesis, two amine functionalities are introduced: one is present in the starting material, and the second is generated through the reductive amination process. The masked amino alcohol unit, present in the oxazolidine ring of 16, was then converted into the N-Boc-protected acid by ring opening of the oxazolidine using p-toluenesulfonic acid to give 17, followed by oxidation mediated by TEMPO (2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidin-1-oxyl). The overall yield of the desired compound was 24% from the starting material. Additionally, the other stereoisomer of the hydroxy bis-amino acid was synthesized using the same starting material and an identical reaction sequence as illustrated in Scheme [6], with the only modification being the use of d-proline instead of l-proline.

Scheme 6 Synthesis of hydroxy-N-Boc-protected diamino acids from aldehydes of aspartic acid

In an alternative synthetic strategy, l-glutamic acid was utilized as the starting material to achieve the one-carbon extension of hydroxy diamino acids (Scheme [7]).[13] The reaction sequence applied was identical to that used in previous syntheses, allowing for the systematic elongation of the carbon chain. A pivotal feature of this method was the precise control of stereochemistry at the newly generated chiral center, which was accomplished via an asymmetric α-hydroxylation step. This step was catalyzed by the careful selection of either l-proline or d-proline as the chiral inducer. The choice of proline not only facilitated the α-hydroxylation but also dictated the stereochemical outcome at the hydroxyl-bearing carbon. By employing l-proline or d-proline, the researchers were able to selectively induce the desired stereochemistry, ensuring the enantiomeric purity of the extended product. This level of stereochemical control was crucial for maintaining the integrity of the structure of the final compound, particularly in regard to its biological activity or potential applications. The entire reaction pathway, including the selective induction of stereochemistry, is detailed in Scheme [7]. This approach thus enabled both the elongation of the carbon backbone and the retention of strict stereochemical precision, highlighting the versatility of this synthetic methodology.

Scheme 7 Synthesis of hydroxy-N-Boc-protected diamino acids (1C-homologue) from aldehydes of glutamic acid

Scheme 8 Synthesis of hydroxy-N-Boc-protected diamino acids (2C-homologue) from aldehydes of aspartic acid

The authors expanded their synthetic efforts to generate novel derivatives of hydroxy diamino acids, with particular emphasis on the 2-carbon homologues (Scheme [8]).[13] This process began with an aldehyde precursor 25, which was derived from the 3-carbon homologue of Garner’s aldehyde, a key intermediate in amino acid synthesis. To construct these new derivatives, the researchers employed the same reaction sequence that had been previously optimized in earlier syntheses. A critical aspect of the synthetic strategy was the precise control of stereochemistry at the hydroxyl group, which was achieved through an asymmetric α-hydroxylation step. This step was mediated by the selection of either l-proline or d-proline as the chiral catalyst. The use of proline in this context not only facilitated the introduction of the hydroxyl group but also determined the stereochemical configuration at this center. By choosing between l- or d-proline, the authors were able to exert precise control over the enantiomeric outcome, ensuring accurate chiral induction at the desired stereocenter. This stereocontrol was fundamental to the success of the synthetic approach and is depicted in detail in Scheme [8], where the reaction pathway highlights the influence of the chosen proline enantiomer on the final product configuration.

3.4

d-threo-Sphinganine, l-erythro-Sphinganine, and (–)-Spisulosine

Ramapanicker and Jain carried out the synthesis of d-threo-sphinganine, l-erythro-sphinganine, and (–)-spisulosine through a carefully designed multistep process (Schemes 9 and 10).[14] The key step involved a proline-catalyzed asymmetric α-hydroxylation reaction. This reaction was performed on an aldehyde intermediate 1, which was synthesized from l-aspartic acid, a higher homologue of Garner’s aldehyde. Garner’s aldehyde is a widely used chiral building block, and its higher homologue was employed here to introduce the necessary stereochemical elements. To preserve the stereochemical integrity of the molecule and avoid racemization, the aldehyde was reduced to the corresponding alcohol immediately following the α-hydroxylation. Racemization, or loss of stereochemistry, can occur under certain conditions in aldehyde intermediates, so this step was critical to maintain the enantiopurity of the product. The resulting diol 29, produced from the asymmetric hydroxylation step, was then protected at the hydroxyl groups to give 30 and oxidized with IBX to form a hydroxy-protected aldehyde 31. This protection was necessary to prevent unwanted side reactions during subsequent steps. The aldehyde was then subjected to a Wittig reaction, which is a well-known method for forming carbon–carbon double bonds. In this case, the reaction was used to extend the carbon chain of the molecule by producing an olefin 32, a key structural feature required for the synthesis of the long-chain sphingolipid derivatives. Following the Wittig reaction, the olefin was reduced to form the corresponding alkane, thereby completing the carbon chain extension. The final step involved the deprotection of the hydroxyl groups, yielding the target molecule, d-threo-sphinganine, with the correct stereochemistry and structural features. The entire synthetic route is summarized in Scheme [9], highlighting the strategic use of asymmetric catalysis, protection/deprotection steps, and carbon chain extension through the Wittig reaction to achieve the desired sphinganine derivatives.

Scheme 9 Synthesis of d-threo-sphinganine from higher homologue of Garner’s aldehyde

Scheme 10 Synthesis of l-erythro-sphinganine and (–)-spisulosine from higher homologue of Garner’s aldehyde

l-erythro-Sphinganine was synthesized from the same starting material as d-threo-sphinganine, following an identical reaction sequence, with one key modification: the use of l-proline instead of d-proline in the asymmetric hydroxylation step.[14] This substitution facilitated the selective formation of the l-erythro-isomer, resulting in an overall yield of 18% (Scheme [10]).

For the synthesis of (–)-spisulosine, a slightly modified strategy was employed (Scheme [10]). The hydroxymethyl group of the masked bis-amino alcohol (present in the form of an oxazolidine ring) was converted into a methyl group. To achieve this, the oxazolidine ring in 35 was first deprotected using p-toluenesulfonic acid, exposing the primary alcohol. This primary alcohol was then transformed into its corresponding tosyl derivative, making it amenable to subsequent reactions. Reduction of this tosylated intermediate with lithium aluminum hydride led to the formation of the methylated compound 36. Further reduction and deprotection steps were applied to this intermediate, ultimately yielding (–)-spisulosine, the desired final product, as outlined in Scheme [10]. This synthesis highlights the importance of selective transformations and careful protection-deprotection strategies to achieve the structural modifications necessary for the production of biologically relevant sphingolipid derivatives.

3.5

(–)-Bestatin, Epibestatin, and Phebestin

Bestatin, also known as ubenimex, is an α-hydroxy-β-amino dipeptide.[15] Its synthesis, first reported by Jain, was by coupling an α-hydroxy-β-amino acid with the benzyl ester of l-leucine (Scheme [11]). The masked α-hydroxy-β-amino acid portion was synthesized starting from aldehyde 37, which was derived from d-phenylalanine. A proline-catalyzed asymmetric α-hydroxylation of the aldehyde was employed, followed by in situ reduction of the aldehyde to the corresponding alcohol, effectively preventing racemization at the adjacent stereocenter. The resulting diol 38 underwent protection of the hydroxyl groups, initially with a silyl group and subsequently with methoxymethyl protection. After these protective steps, the silyl group was selectively deprotected to expose the primary alcohol 39. This alcohol was then oxidized to the corresponding acid 40 using pyridinium dichromate in dimethylformamide as the solvent. The protected form of the α-hydroxy-β-amino acid 40 was then coupled with the benzyl ester of l-leucine under the conditions of 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)carbodiimide (EDC), 1-hydroxybenzotriazole (HOBt), and diisopropylethylamine. This sequence yielded bestatin with an overall yield of 20% starting from the aldehyde intermediate. The author also reported the synthesis of epibestatin from the same aldehyde using an identical reaction sequence, with the only variation being the use of l-proline in the asymmetric hydroxylation step, resulting in the epimeric form of bestatin. Furthermore, the unnatural tripeptide phebestin was synthesized from the same key intermediate 40 (α-hydroxy-β-amino acid), which had been used in the bestatin synthesis. Phebestin was obtained in a 61% yield by coupling the α-hydroxy-β-amino acid 40 with a dipeptide (H-Val-Phe-OMe), followed by hydrolysis using lithium hydroxide (LiOH) and final deprotection under acidic conditions, as outlined in Scheme [11]. This work demonstrates the versatility of the key intermediate, α-hydroxy-β-amino acid, in constructing a variety of bioactive peptides such as bestatin, epibestatin, and phebestin through careful manipulation of stereochemistry and selective functional group transformations.[15]

Scheme 11 Synthesis of bestatin and phebestin from d-phenylalanine-derived aldehyde

3.6

(–)-Bulgecinine and 5-epi-Bulgecinine

Jain and Kumar also reported the synthesis of (–)-bulgecinine and its stereoisomer, 5-epi-bulgecinine, starting from an aldehyde derived from l-glutamic acid (Scheme [12]).[16] For the synthesis of (–)-bulgecinine, the key step involved a proline-catalyzed asymmetric α-hydroxylation, in which d-proline was employed to introduce the desired stereochemistry. This was followed by an in situ reduction of the aldehyde to the corresponding primary alcohol 41 to avoid racemization. The primary alcohol was subsequently oxidized to regenerate an aldehyde 42. This aldehyde was then subjected to a Wittig reaction, forming an olefin, which is essential for further transformations. The olefin underwent m-CPBA-catalyzed epoxidation, introducing an epoxide moiety. Finally, a boron trifluoride etherate mediated intramolecular cyclization was carried out, which facilitated the formation of the desired cyclic structure. This cyclization yielded (–)-bulgecinine as the primary product, along with its stereoisomer, 5-epi-bulgecinine. This synthetic route is highlighting the use of key stereoselective steps such as asymmetric α-hydroxylation, epoxidation, and intramolecular cyclization, which were critical for achieving the desired stereochemistry in both bulgecinine and its epimer. The methodology demonstrates a well-orchestrated sequence of reactions to construct the complex bicyclic framework of bulgecinine, showcasing the precision required for synthesizing stereochemically rich natural products. The synthesis of the same is represented in Scheme [12].

Scheme 12 Synthesis of 5-epi-bulgecinine and bulgecinine from l-glutamic acid derived aldehyde

4

Current Overview and Future Prospective

The proline-catalyzed asymmetric α-hydroxylation of amino acid derived aldehydes has established itself as a cornerstone in the field of stereoselective synthesis, offering both robustness and precision in controlling the introduction of hydroxyl groups at the α-position of aldehydes. Over the past few years, significant advancements have been made, solidifying this methodology as a versatile and reliable tool for the synthesis of chiral intermediates. The broad substrate scope of the reaction, encompassing aldehydes derived from l-glutamic acid, phenylalanine, proline, l-aspartic acid, and others, has further demonstrated its utility in accessing a wide range of stereochemically complex molecules, particularly in the context of natural product synthesis and the construction of bioactive compounds. This review article has successfully leveraged the dual stereocontrol offered by the proline catalyst and the inherent chirality of amino acid derived aldehydes, enabling precise manipulation of the stereochemical outcome. This has made the methodology particularly attractive for the preparation of compounds requiring strict enantiomeric purity, a critical factor in drug discovery and development. Despite its demonstrated efficiency, the field remains somewhat fragmented, with research efforts distributed across various subfields and applications, making comprehensive understanding and further innovation somewhat challenging. Looking forward, there are several promising avenues for the continued development and refinement of proline-catalyzed asymmetric α-hydroxylation. One key area of exploration is the expansion of the substrate scope beyond traditional amino acid derived aldehydes to include more complex, non-natural aldehyde substrates, which may further extend the range of accessible molecular architectures. In addition, the discovery of new proline analogues or modifications to the catalytic system could enhance stereocontrol, increase reaction efficiency, and provide greater flexibility in reaction conditions. There is also growing interest in adapting this methodology to green chemistry principles, focusing on sustainable catalysts, solvent-free conditions, or minimizing waste generation, which could make this already valuable reaction even more environmentally friendly and widely applicable in industrial settings. Furthermore, integrating this reaction into cascade processes or multistep one-pot syntheses could streamline complex molecule synthesis, reducing the need for multiple purification steps and enhancing overall synthetic efficiency. Its established utility and flexibility, combined with ongoing innovations, ensure its continued relevance and importance in the synthesis of complex, biologically active molecules. As research in this field progresses, new developments will likely open up further opportunities for its application, particularly in pharmaceutical synthesis, materials science, and the sustainable production of fine chemicals.

5

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proline-catalyzed asymmetric α-hydroxylation of aldehydes derived from amino acids has emerged as a powerful and versatile tool in asymmetric synthesis. The ability of the reaction to introduce a hydroxyl group at the α-position with high stereocontrol, driven by the chiral environment of the proline catalyst and the inherent stereochemistry of the substrate, underscores its synthetic utility. This method provides a streamlined approach to constructing chiral intermediates that can be further functionalized into alcohols or olefins, offering valuable flexibility in subsequent transformations. The breadth of amino acid derived aldehydes that can be employed in this reaction, including those from l-glutamic acid, phenylalanine, proline, and l-aspartic acid, demonstrates the wide applicability of the methodology. Importantly, its efficiency and precision make it a key strategy for the synthesis of natural products and bioactive compounds, many of which require exact stereochemical configurations for their biological activity. This review highlights the central role of proline-mediated stereocontrol in modern organic chemistry, providing a foundation for further developments in the field. The exploration of new substrates and reaction conditions may expand the scope of this methodology, allowing for even broader applications in complex molecule synthesis. Ultimately, the proline-catalyzed α-hydroxylation represents a valuable contribution to the advancement of stereoselective synthesis, with far-reaching implications for drug discovery, natural product synthesis, and beyond.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement

The authors (V.K.J. and M.K.) thank CBLU Bhiwani, Haryana for giving the opportunity and providing the platform to write this manuscript.

• References

• 1 Brown SP, Brochu MP, Sinz CJ, MacMillan DW. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003; 125: 10808
• 2 Janey JM. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2005; 44: 4292
• 3 Zhong G. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003; 42: 4247
• 4 Hayashi Y, Yamaguchi J, Sumiya T, Shoji M. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004; 43: 1112
• 5 Zhong G, Yu Y. Org. Lett. 2004; 6: 1637
• 6 Merino P, Tejero T. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004; 43: 2995
• 7 Ramachary DB, Barbas CF. III. Org. Lett. 2005; 7: 1577
• 8 Hayashi Y, Yamaguchi J, Hibino K, Shoji M. Tetrahedron Lett. 2003; 44: 8293
• 9 Bogevig A, Sunden H, Cordova A. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004; 43: 1109
• 10 Font D, Bastero A, Sayalero S, Jimeno C, Pericàs MA. Org. Lett. 2007; 9: 1943
• 11 Kondekar NB, Kumar P. Org. Lett. 2009; 11: 2611
• 12 Chacko S, Ramapanicker R. J. Org. Chem. 2015; 80: 4776
• 13 Philip AT, Raju E, Ramapanicker R. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2016; 5502
• 14 Jain VK, Ramapanicker R. Tetrahedron 2017; 73: 1568
• 15 Jain VK. SynOpen 2019; 3: 114
• 16 Jain VK, Kumar M. SynOpen 2019; 3: 96
• 17 Chacko S, Ramapanicker R. ChemistrySelect 2016; 1: 4458
• 18 Ahuja BB, Sudalai A. Stud. Nat. Prod. Chem. 2020; 64: 418
• 19 Kristensen TE. Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2015; 11: 446
• 20 Mukherjee S, Yang JW, Hoffmann S, List B. Chem. Rev. 2007; 107: 5471
• 21 Vilaivan T, Bhanthumnavin W. Molecules 2010; 15: 917
• 22 Vera S, Landa A, Mielgo A, Ganboa I, Oiarbide M, Soloshonok V. Molecules 2023; 28: 2694
• 23 Kumar P, Dwivedi N. Acc. Chem. Res. 2013; 46: 289
• 24 Venkataramasubramanian V, Chaithanya Kiran IN, Sudalai A. Synlett 2015; 26: 355
• 25 Cambeiro XC, Martín-Rapún R, Miranda PO, Sayalero S, Alza E, Llanes P, Pericàs MA. Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2011; 7: 1486
• 26 Kotsuki H, Ikishima H, Okuyama A. Heterocycles 2008; 75: 493
• 27 An Y.-J, Wang C.-C, Xu Y.-Z, Wang W.-J, Tao J.-C. Catal. Lett. 2011; 141: 1123
• 28 Agirre M, Arrieta A, Arrastia I, Cossio FP. Chem. Asian J. 2019; 14: 44
• 29 Guo H.-M, Niu H.-Y, Xue M.-X, Guo Q.-X, Cun L.-F, Mi A.-Q, Jiang Y.-Z, Wang J.-J. Green Chem. 2006; 8: 682
• 30 Baumann T, Vogt H, Brase S. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2007; 266
• 31 Chaudhari PR, Bhise NB, Singh GP, Bhat V, Shenoy GG. J. Chem. Sci. 2022; 134: 56
• 32 Demir AS, Basceken S. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2013; 24: 1218
• 33 Cheong PH.-Y, Houk KN. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004; 126: 13912
• 34 Poe SL, Bogdan AR, Mason BP, Steinbacher JL, Opalka SM, McQuade DT. J. Org. Chem. 2009; 74: 1574
• 35 Huang K, Huang Z.-Z, Li X.-L. J. Org. Chem. 2006; 71: 8320
• 36 Cui M, Song H, Feng A, Wang Z, Wang Q. J. Org. Chem. 2010; 75: 7018
• 37 Hayashi Y, Yamaguchi J, Sumiya T, Hibino K, Shoji M. J. Org. Chem. 2004; 69: 5966
• 38 Jha V, Kondekar NB, Kumar P. Org. Lett. 2010; 12: 2762
• 39 Hayashi Y, Umekudo N, Hirama T. Org. Lett. 2017; 19: 4155
• 40 Wang H, Yang C, Han K. Struct. Chem. 2006; 17: 97
• 41 Kumar P, Sharma BM. Synlett 2018; 29: 1944
• 42 Panday SK. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2011; 22: 1817
• 43 Guillena G, Ramon DJ. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2006; 17: 1465
• 44 Kumar P, Pandey M, Gupta P, Dhavale DD. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2012; 10: 1820
• 45 Chowdhury PS, Kumar P. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2013; 4586
• 46 Fan X, Alza E, Pericàs MA. RSC Adv. 2012; 2: 6164
• 47 Ahuja BB, Sudalai A. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2015; 26: 24
• 48 Garg Y, Kaur R, Panday SK. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2017; 6700

Publication History

Received: 09 September 2024

Accepted after revision: 09 December 2024

Article published online:
27 January 2025