1986
S. Singh et al. / Tetrahedron Letters 48 (2007) 1983–1986
9. Bezrodnyi, V. P.; Skrypnik, Y. G.; Lyashchuk, S. N.;
DFT calculations for 3 were performed by using GAUSS-
IAN-98; the built-in default thresholds for wavefunction
and gradient convergence were employed. Frisch, M. J.;
Trucks, G. W.; Schlegel, H. B.; Scuseria, G. E.; Robb, M.
A.; Cheeseman, J. R.; Zakrzewski, V. G.; Montgomery, J.
A., Jr.; Stratmann, R. E.; Burant, J. C.; Dapprich, S.;
Millam, J. M.; Daniels, A. D.; Kudin, K. N.; Strain, M.
C.; Farkas, O.; Tomasi, J.; Barone, V.; Cossi, M.; Cammi,
M. R.; Mennucci, B.; Pomelli, C.; Adamo, C.; Clifford, S.;
Ochterski, J.; Petersson, G. A.; Ayala, P. Y.; Cui, Q.;
Morokuma, K.; Salvador, P.; Dannenberg, J. J.; Malick,
D. K.; Rabuck, A. D.; Raghavachari, K.; Foresman, J. B.;
Cioslowski, J.; Ortiz, J. V.; Baboul, A. G.; Stefanov, B. B.;
Liu, G. A.; Liashenko, A.; Piskorz, P.; Komaromi, I.;
Gomperts, R.; Martin, R. L.; Fox, D. J.; Keith, T.; Al-
Laham, M. A.; Peng, C. Y.; Nanayakkara, A.; Challa-
combe, M.; Gill, P. M. W.; Johnson, B.; Chen, W.; Wong,
M. W.; Andres, J. L.; Gonzalez, C.; Head-Gordon, M.;
Replogle, E. S.; Pople, J. A. GAUSSIAN-98 (Revision A. 7),
Gaussian, Pittsburgh, PA, 2001.
Byalykh, E. V. Zh. Org. Khim. 1991, 27, 813–820.
10. Chaudhary, S. K.; Hernandez, O. Tetrahedron Lett. 1979,
20, 99–102.
11. Murugan, R.; Scriven, E. F. V. Aldrichim. Acta 2003, 36,
21–27, and references cited therein.
12. Ragnarsson, U.; Grehn, L. Acc. Chem. Res. 1998, 31, 494–
501, and references cited therein.
13. (a) Fu, G. Acc. Chem. Res. 2004, 37, 542–547; (b) Arp, F.
O.; Fu, G. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 14264–14265;
(c) Fu, G. C. Acc. Chem. Res. 2006, 39, 853–860.
14. (a) Birman, V. B.; Uffman, E. W.; Jiang, H.; Li, X.;
Kilbane, C. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 12226–12227;
(b) Birman, V. B.; Li, X.; Jiang, H.; Uffman, E. W.
Tetrahedron 2006, 62, 285–294.
15. Kawabata, T.; Nagato, M.; Takasu, K.; Fuji, K. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 3169–3170.
16. (a) Spivey, A. C.; Fekner, T.; Spey, S. E.; Adams, H.
J. Org. Chem. 1999, 64, 9430–9443; (b) Spivey, A. C.;
Arseniyadis, S.; Fekner, T.; Maddaford, A.; Leese, D. P.
Tetrahedron 2006, 62, 295–301.
28. Mayr, H.; Kempf, B.; Ofial, A. R. Acc. Chem. Res. 2003,
36, 66–77.
17. France, S.; Guerin, D. J.; Miller, S. J.; Lectka, T. Chem.
Rev. 2003, 103, 2985–3012.
29. While 4-N lone pair orbital parallel to the p system is
beneficial for the first step, it is partially detrimental for
the second step because it makes N–C@O bond breaking
difficult, and so it is conceivable that some flexibility in the
ring system might be beneficial for catalysis.
30. Sviridenko, F. B.; Stass, D. V.; Kobzeva, T. V.; Tretya-
kov, E. V.; Klyatskaya, S. V.; Mshvidobadze, E. V.;
Vasilevsky, S. F.; Molin, Y. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004,
126, 2807–2819.
18. Seitzberg, J. G.; Dissing, C.; Sotofte, I.; Norrby, P.-O.;
Johannsen, M. J. Org. Chem. 2005, 70, 8332–8337.
19. Diez, D.; Gil, M. J.; Moro, R. F.; Garrido, N. M.;
Marcos, I. S.; Basabe, P.; Sanz, F.; Broughton, H. B.;
Urones, J. G. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2005, 16, 2980–
2985.
20. (a) Dalaigh, C. O.; Hynes, S. J.; O’Brien, J. E.; McCabe,
T.; Maher, D. J.; Watson, G. W.; Connon, S. J. Org.
Biomol. Chem. 2006, 4, 2785–2793; (b) Connon, S. J. Lett.
Org. Chem. 2006, 3, 333–338.
31. Wang, Y.-G.; Takeyama, R.; Kobayashi, Y. Angew.
Chem., Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 3320–3323.
21. (a) Priem, G.; Pelotier, B.; Macdonald, S. J. F.; Anson, M.
S.; Campbell, I. B. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 68, 3844–3848; (b)
Pelotier, B.; Priem, G.; Macdonald, S. J. F.; Anson, M. S.;
Upton, R. J.; Campbell, I. B. Tetrahedron Lett. 2005, 46,
9005–9007.
22. Heinrich, M. R.; Klisa, H. S.; Mayr, H.; Steglich, W.;
Zipse, H. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 4826–4828.
23. Sakamoto, T.; Miura, N.; Kondo, Y.; Yamanaka, H.
Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1986, 34, 2018–2023.
24. (a) Xu, S.; Held, I.; Kempf, B.; Mayr, H.; Steglich, W.;
Zipse, H. Chem. Eur. J. 2005, 11, 4751–4757; (b) Fischer,
C. B.; Xu, S.; Zipse, H. Chem. Eur. J. 2006, 12, 5779–5784,
The reaction scheme presented is strictly correct only for
sterically unhindered acyl donors, where the catalytic
route is considerably faster than the uncatalyzed reaction.
25. rp(NMe2) = ꢀ0.83; rm(Alkyl) = ꢀ0.06 Hansch, C.; Taft,
R. W. Chem. Rev. 1991, 91, 165–195.
26. The acylpyridinium salt derived from DMAP has a higher
solubility than that from pyridine, and this could also
contribute to its greater effectiveness Spivey, A. C.;
Arseniyadis, S. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 5436–
5441.
32. (a) Tamao, K.; Ishida, N.; Tanaka, T.; Kumado, M.
Organometallics 1983, 2, 1694–1696; (b) Tamao, K.;
Kakui, T.; Akita, M.; Iwahara, T.; Kanatani, R.; Yoshida,
J.; Kumada, M. Tetrahedron 1983, 39, 983–990; (c)
Fleming, I.; Henning, R.; Plaut, H. J. Chem. Soc., Chem.
Commun. 1984, 1, 29–31; (d) Fleming, I.; Henning, R.;
Parker, D. C.; Plaut, H.; Sanderson, P. E. J. J. Chem. Soc.,
Perkin Trans. 1 1995, 4, 317–337.
33. Tabusa, F.; Komatsu, M.; Morita, S.; Kanbe, T.; Naka-
gawa, K. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1985, 33, 3775–3786.
34. Minin, P. L.; Walton, J. C. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 68, 2960–
2963.
35. Characterization data. Compound 1: mp = 270 °C (char-
1
ring); H NMR (500 MHz, CD3OD) d: 7.78 (s, 2H), 3.19
(t, 4H, J = 5.9 Hz), 2.60 (t, 4H, J = 6.6 Hz), 1.89 (m, 4H);
13C NMR (125 MHz, CD3OD) d: 147.37, 146.53, 115.04,
48.99, 24.13, 20.96. Compound 2: 1H NMR (500 MHz,
CDCl3) d: 8.04 (s, 2H), 3.68 (t, 4H, J = 5.7 Hz), 2.85 (t,
4H, J = 5.7 Hz); 13C NMR (125 MHz, CDCl3) d: 151.82,
146.62, 120.86, 45.04, 31.75. Compound 3: 1H NMR
(500 MHz, CD3OD) d: 8.04 (s, 2H), 3.22 (t, 4H,
J = 5.1 Hz), 2.66 (t, 4H, J = 5.9 Hz), 1.78 (m, 4H), 1.66
(m, 4H); 13C NMR (125 MHz, CD3OD) d: 157.39, 148.73,
129.37, 52.17, 30.61, 26.95, 25.29.
27. (a) Held, I.; Villinger, A.; Zipse, H. Synthesis 2005, 9,
1425–1430; (b) Pascal, R. A. Jr., Personal communication.