Methods for the construction of thiazolo-, thiazino-, and thiazepino-2H-indazoles from o-nitrobenzaldehydes or o-nitrobenzyl bromides and S-trityl-protected 1°-aminothioalkanes are reported. The process consists of formation of the requisite N-(2-nitrobenzyl)(tritylthio)alkylamine, subsequent deprotection of the trityl moiety with TFA, and immediate treatment with aq. KOH in methanol under Davis-Beirut reaction conditions to deliver the target thiazolo-, thiazino-, or thiazepino-2H-indazole in good overall yield. Subsequent S-oxidation gives the corresponding sulfone.
Methods for the construction of thiazolo-, thiazino-, and thiazepino-2H-indazoles from o-nitrobenzaldehydes or o-nitrobenzyl bromides and S-trityl-protected 1°-aminothioalkanes are reported. The process consists of formation of the requisite N-(2-nitrobenzyl)(tritylthio)alkylamine, subsequent deprotection of the trityl moiety with TFA, and immediate treatment with aq. KOH in methanol under Davis-Beirut reaction conditions to deliver the target thiazolo-, thiazino-, or thiazepino-2H-indazole in good overall yield. Subsequent S-oxidation gives the corresponding sulfone.
2H-Indazoles are of considerable interest due
to their medicinal chemistry applications, which include anticancer,[1,2] imidazoline I2 receptor,[3] and
antiangiogenic[4] activities (Figure 1a). Addressing this need, we recently developed
the Davis–Beirut reaction,[5−16] which is characterized by a noteworthy N,N-bond forming heterocyclization step, for the construction
of a wide variety of 2H-indazoles and indazolones
(Figure 1b).
Figure 1
(a) Bioactive 2H-indazoles.
(b) A typical Davis–Beirut
reaction proceeding through the proposed nitrosoimine intermediate.[6]
(a) Bioactive 2H-indazoles.
(b) A typical Davis–Beirut
reaction proceeding through the proposed nitrosoimine intermediate.[6]In connection with ongoing research activities addressing
cystic
fibrosis (CF),[17,18] our interest in the development
of myeloperoxidase inhibitors[19,20] led us to explore introduction
of a thioether moiety at C3 of the 2H-indazole scaffold. While attempts to employ RSH in the base-mediated
Davis–Beirut reaction failed, we have found that a thiol tethered
to the 1°-aminoalkane[7,21] used in the reductive
amination step to construct the o-nitrobenzylamine
intermediate (in turn, prepared from the appropriate o-nitrobenzaldehyde or o-nitrobenzyl bromide precursor)
can deliver C3 S-substituted 2H-indazoles.
We report here the details of this investigation.
Results and Discussion
Sulfur-containing molecules are quite relevant in medicine and
in human biology.[22−25] Thioethers also offer an intriguing point of diversification through
easy access to higher oxidation states at sulfur. The potential of
sulfur-containing 2H-indazoles piqued the interest
of Corsi and Palazzo, leading them to develop a limited and somewhat
circuitous route to thiazoloindazole 1a that proceeds
by pyrolysis of 1-benzyl-3-((2-chloroethyl)thio)-1H-indazole (Scheme 1; 40% yield).[26] Attempts to employ external thiols under a variety
of Davis–Beirut reaction conditions (generically PrOH + EtSH + aq. KOH) failed to deliver the thioether-containing
2H-indazole (e.g., the 2H-indazole
in Figure 1b where the −OEt moiety would
be replaced with the sought after −SEt). These reaction attempts
resulted primarily in nitroaryl reduction[27] to the corresponding aniline with only trace formation of the thia-containing
2H-indazole.
Scheme 1
Thiazolo-2H-indazole 1a by Pyrolysis
of 1-Benzyl-3-((2-chloroethyl)thio)-1H-indazole
With this setback
as a backdrop, we decided to explore the formation
of 2,3-dihydrothiazolo[3,2-b]indazole (1a; Scheme 2) from 2-nitrobenzaldehyde and cysteamine
before abandoning the thia-based Davis–Beirut reaction. Condensation
of these two commercially available reagents in methanol provided
the requisite imine 2, but LCMS analysis of the reaction
mixture indicated the formation of a second product that was determined
to be thioaminal 3. Varied reaction times, reaction conditions,
and solvents (MeOH and PrOH) all resulted
in 3 being the major product. Also, attempts at reduction
of this crude mixture of 2 and 3 (NaCNBH3 in MeOH), followed immediately by the Davis–Beirut
reaction, resulted in a complex mixture of products (TLC).
Scheme 2
Unwanted
Aminal Formation using 2-Aminoethanethiol
These difficulties led us to pursue an alternate route
wherein
the sulfur moiety was initially protected. While there are a number
of effective thiol-protecting groups, trityl protection was selected
for all of the aminothiols employed in this study for three reasons
(i) the S-trityl group is easy to deprotect; (ii)
the S-trityl group is stable to reductive amination
conditions; and (iii) the UV activity of the S-trityl protected aminothiols,
as well as their markedly different solubility characteristics, makes
them easier to isolate and manipulate than their unprotected analogues.
In the event (Scheme 3), 2-nitrobenzaldehyde
in methanol reacted quickly with 2-(tritylthio)ethanamine (synthesized
from cysteamine·HCl and trityl chloride in DMF)[28] to give an imine intermediate (not isolated) and subsequent
addition of sodium cyanoborohydride delivered 4. This
crude o-nitrobenzylamine was treated with TFA and
triethylsilane[29] in methylene chloride
to cleave the trityl protecting group (→ 5), and
then the resulting crude thiol was immediately (to minimize disulfide
formation) subjected to the Davis–Beirut reaction—treatment
with KOH in methanol plus 10% water at 90 °C—to deliver 1a in 77% overall yield from 2-nitrobenzaldehyde.
Scheme 3
Davis–Beirut
Route to Thiazolo-2H-indazole 1a
It is interesting to note that
Davis–Beirut reaction on
the alcohol analogue of 5 (−SH replaced with −OH, 5a) leads transiently to 2,3-dihydrooxazolo[3,2-b]indazole (6), but base-mediated opening of the dihydrooxazolo
ring under the reaction conditions produces 1H-indazol-3(2H)-one 7.[12] While
this ring-opening of 6 can be avoided by increasing steric
hindrance at the electrophilic −CH2– through
placement of alkyl substituents at the C2 and/or C3 positions of 6 and by conducting the heterocyclization
at 60 °C,[12] these modifications are
not required in the formation of thiazoloindazole 1a.With the gratifying result of 4 leading to stable 1a in hand, we next set out to prepare homologues (Scheme 4a) of 1a with six- (thiazino; 1b) and seven-membered (thiazepino; 1c) sulfur-containing
heterocycles. Applying Scheme 3 sequence of
reactions to 3-(tritylthio)propan-1-amine delivered thiazinoindazole 1b in 82% overall yield, whereas 4-(tritylthio)butan-1-amine
delivered 1c in 71% overall yield. This last result led
us to prepare the unknown oxygen analogue of 1c for comparison
(e.g., 8; Scheme 4b), which we
obtained from 4-aminobutan-1-ol (→ 8) in 44% overall
yield. Indeed, we observe that the O-analogues of 1a, 1b, and 1c are obtained in lower
yield than the corresponding S-analogues: O-analogues of 1a–c in
24% (see 6 in Scheme 3), 84%,
and 44% yields (respectively) vs S-analogues 1a–c in 77%, 82%, and 71% yields (respectively).[12]
Scheme 4
(a) Thiazino and Thiazepino Analogues of 1a. (b) Oxazepino
Analogue of 1c
Next, the scope of the sulfur-based Davis–Beirut
reaction
was expanded to include substituents on the carbocyclic ring of these
2H-indazoles. These thia-based Davis–Beirut
reactions proceed well with both electron-withdrawing (−COOH
→ 9, −Br → 10, −Cl
→ 11, and pyridyl → 14a,b; Scheme 5a) and electron-donating
(−OCH2O– → 15a–c and 8,9 di-OMe → 16; Scheme 5b) substituents as well as with both o-nitrobenzaldehyde and o-nitrobenzyl bromide precursors
(Scheme 5a–c). Also, substitution ortho to the aldehyde does not dramatically affect the reaction
(ortho-Cl → 11). o-Nitrobenzaldehydes can also be replaced with heteroaryl nitroaldehydes
(e.g., 12 and 13) to give interesting sulfur-containing
heteroaryl analogues (14a,b and 15a–c) in good yields. Benzo-fused analogue 17 was synthesized via trityl-protected 2-aminothiophenol
(Scheme 5c).[30] In
earlier unpublished work, we found that the oxygen analogue of 17 (e.g., where “S” is replaced with “O”)
was not similarly accessible with 2-aminophenol; 2-(3-methoxy-2H-indazol-2-yl)phenol was formed instead.
Scheme 5
Versatility
of the Thia-Based Davis–Beirut Reaction
Diverse aminothiols are not readily available,
and the literature
provides few examples of diverse S-trityl aminoalkanes.
Therefore, the method devised to prepare the S-trityl
aminoalkanes employed in this study is presented in Scheme 6a (exemplified with the preparation of 22; note that 2-(tritylthio)ethanamine,[28] 3-(tritylthio)propan-1-amine,[31] and 4-(tritylthio)butan-1-amine[31] were prepared as reported in the literature). Since the protecting
group used for the amine must be orthogonally removed vis-à-vis
the S-trityl protecting group, phthalimide protection
was selected as both its introduction [amine + phthalic anhydride
(PAN) in refluxing xylenes] and its deprotection (phthalimide + hydrazine
monohydrate) are well established S-trityl-compatible
protocols. From the requisite amino alcohol, amine protection (18 → 19; 80%), alcohol-to-iodide conversion
(19 → 20; 76%),[32]S-alkylation with triphenylmethanethiol
(20 → 21; 55%), and hydrazinolysis
(21 → 22; 44%) delivers the targeted S-trityl aminoalkane. DL-1-(Tritylthio)propan-2-amine (22) was subsequently employed in the Davis–Beirut sequence with o-nitrobenzaldehye (imine formation and reduction, trityl
cleavage, and then aq. KOH in MeOH) to deliver 23—the C3 methyl analogue of 1a—in 66% yield
(Scheme 6b).
Scheme 6
(a) Route to S-Trityl Aminoalkanes (Exemplified
with 22). (b) Synthesis of an Alkyl-Substituted Thiazoloindazole 23
Having successfully
introduced a thia moiety into the 2H-indazole scaffold,
a contrast between these thia- (cf., 1a) and oxo-bridged
(cf., 6) systems in terms
of Davis–Beirut reaction yields is informative. In fact, whereas
some 2,3-dihydrooxazolo[3,2-b]indazoles
(cf., 6) and 3,4-dihydro-2H-[1,3]oxazino[3,2-b]indazoles (e.g., oxa analogues of 1b) exhibit base and light sensitivity, the thia-2H-indazoles reported here are quite stable. Also, while the oxo analogues
can generally undergo further reaction with the alcohol solvent to
form indazolones (cf., 6 → 7 in Scheme 3), the sulfur analogues reported here do not—even
at higher reaction temperatures and extended reaction times.It is also noteworthy that oxo-2H-indazole functionalization
is generally limited to conversion to the corresponding indazolone,
whereas thia-2H-indazoles present new diversification
pathways via, for example, S-oxidation to the corresponding
sulfone. Indeed, as summarized in Figure 2,
oxidation[33] of the thioether moiety in
these thiazolo-, thiazino-, and thiazepino-2H-indazoles
with Na2WO4·2H2O/30%
aq. H2O2/EtOAc leads cleanly and in high yield
to the corresponding sulfones (24–29).
Figure 2
Sulfones obtained by oxidation of the corresponding thia-2H-indazoles.
Sulfones obtained by oxidation of the corresponding thia-2H-indazoles.
Conclusion
In summary, we have shown that the Davis–Beirut
reaction
affords thiazolo-, thiazino-, and thiazepino-2H-indazoles
from o-nitrobenzaldehyde and S-trityl-protected
1°-aminoalkanes in good yields. The process consists of reductive
amination of the o-nitrobenzaldehyde-derived imine, S-trityl deprotection, and immediate refluxing with aqueous
base in methanol. The resulting thia-2H-indazoles
are generally more stable than the corresponding oxo-2H-indazoles, and they can also be oxidized to the corresponding sulfones.
Experimental Section
General Experimental
All solvents and reagents were
purchased from commercial suppliers and used without further purification.
Analytical thin-layer chromatography was carried out on precoated
plates (Silica gel 60 F254, 0.50 mm thickness) and visualized
with UV light. Flash chromatography was performed with 60 Å,
35–70 mm silica gel. Concentration refers to rotary evaporation
under reduced pressure.1H NMR spectra were recorded
at 600 MHz at ambient temperature with DMSO-d6, MeOD-d4, or CDCl3 as solvents. 13C NMR
spectra were recorded at 150 MHz at ambient temperature with DMSO-d6, MeOD-d4 or CDCl3 as solvents.
Data for 1H NMR are recorded as follows: chemical shift
(δ, ppm), multiplicity (s, singlet; d, doublet; t, triplet;
q, quartet; quint, quintet; m, multiplet), coupling constant (Hz),
integration. Chemical shifts are reported in parts per million relative
to DMSO-d6 (1H, δ 2.50; 13C, δ 39.52), MeOD-d4 (1H, δ
3.31; 13C, δ 49.99), or CDCl3 (1H, δ 7.26; 13C, δ 77.16). Infrared spectra
were recorded on an ATI-FTIR spectrometer. High-resolution mass spectra
were acquired on an LTQ Orbitrap XL mass spectrometer equipped with
an electrospray ionization source operating in the positive ion mode.
Samples were introduced into the source via loop injection at a flow
rate of 200 ul/min, in a solvent system of 1:1 acetonitrile:water
with 0.1% formic acid.
General Procedure A: Preparation of Thiazolo-,
Thiazino-, and
Thiazepino-2H-indazoles
2-Nitrobenzaldehyde
(1.1 equiv) was dissolved in MeOH (0.4 M). The requisite S-trityl-protected aminothioalkane (1.0 equiv) was added, and the
solution was stirred until TLC showed consumption of the starting
amine. NaCNBH3 (2.0 equiv) was added portionwise, and the
solution was stirred until consumption of the imine was observed.
The solution was evaporated, and the resulting residue was redissolved
in methylene chloride. The organic layer was washed twice with 1 M
HCl, dried over Na2SO4, filtered, and concentrated
to ∼10 mL. An equal volume of TFA was added, followed by addition
of triethylsilane (3.0 equiv). This solution was left to stir for
30 min and then concentrated (care was taken to vent the rotary evaporator
to nitrogen to prevent disulfide formation). To the remaining residue
was added MeOH (0.1 M), KOH (15 equiv), and 10% v/v H2O.
The solution was heated at reflux in a 90 °C oil bath for 3–6
h. Upon reaction completion, the MeOH was evaporated and the remaining
aqueous mixture was partitioned with EtOAc. The aqueous layer was
extracted with EtOAc twice, and the resulting organic extracts were
combined, washed with brine, dried over Na2SO4, filtered, and concentrated. Purification with silica gel chromatography
provided the desired indazole.
2,3-Dihydrothiazolo[3,2-b]indazole (1a)
Prepared from
216 mg (0.68 mmol) of 2-(tritylthio)ethan-1-amine
using General Procedure A. Purification by silica gel chromatography
(20 → 50% EtOAc in hexanes) provided 1a as a white
amorphous solid in 77% yield (92 mg); 1H NMR (600 MHz,
CDCl3) δ 7.60 (dt, J = 8.9, 1.0
Hz, 1H), 7.47 (dt, J = 8.4, 0.9 Hz, 1H), 7.25 (ddd, J = 8.4, 6.6, 1.0 Hz, 1H), 7.00 (ddd, J = 8.4, 6.6, 0.9 Hz, 1H), 4.67 (t, J = 7.6 Hz, 2H),
3.97 (t, J = 7.6 Hz, 2H); 13C NMR (150
MHz, CDCl3) δ 154.0, 133.1, 126.6, 120.8, 120.0,
118.0, 116.1, 50.4, 34.4. HRMS (ESI) m/z: [M + H]+ calcd for C9H8N2SH 177.0486; Found 177.0482.
3,4-Dihydro-2H-[1,3]thiazino[3,2-b]indazole (1b)
Prepared from
200 mg (0.60 mmol) of 3-(tritylthio)propan-1-amine using General
Procedure A. Purification by silica gel chromatography (20 →
50% EtOAc in hexanes) provided 1b as an amorphous tan
solid in 82% yield (94 mg). 1H NMR (600 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.58 (m, 1H), 7.49 (m, 1H), 7.27 (m, 1H), 6.99 (m, 1H),
4.55 (app. t, J = 6.4 Hz, 2H), 3.23 (app. t, J = 6.4 Hz, 2H), 2.54 (app p, J = 6.4 Hz,
2H); 13C NMR (150 MHz, CDCl3) δ 147.8,
127.0, 120.2, 119.8, 119.2, 117.0, 105.2, 48.8, 25.2, 24.8. HRMS (ESI) m/z: [M + H]+ calcd for C10H10N2SH 191.0643; Found 191.0648.
4-Amino-1-butanol (160
mg, 1.8 mmol) and 2-nitrobenzaldehyde (250 mg, 1.65 mmol) were dissolved
in PrOH (5 mL) and stirred until TLC
showed consumption of the starting material. NaCNBH3 (310
mg, 4.94 mmol) was added portionwise, and the mixture was stirred
for 20 min, at which time TLC showed consumption of the imine. Isopropanol
(10 mL) was added to the solution. KOH (1.40 g, 25 mmol) was dissolved
in a portion of water (2 mL) and added to the PrOH solution, which changed to a dark orange color. This solution
was heated at 60 °C for 8 h. The organic layer was washed twice
with water and once with brine, dried over Na2SO4, filtered, and concentrated. Purification by silica gel chromatography
(50% EtOAc in hexanes) provided 8 as a tan amorphous
solid in 44% yield (142 mg). 1H NMR (600 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.54 (dt, J = 8.5, 1.2 Hz, 1H),
7.49 (dt, J = 8.8, 1.0 Hz, 1H), 7.22 (ddd, J = 8.8, 6.6, 1.2 Hz, 1H), 6.97 (ddd, J = 8.5, 6.6, 1.0 Hz, 1H), 4.51 (m, 2H), 4.20 (m, 2H), 2.16 (m, 2H),
1.96 (m, 2H); 13C NMR (150 MHz, CDCl3) δ
148.4, 146.8, 126.5, 120.3, 118.9, 117.1, 110.0, 74.6, 52.8, 31.7,
26.1; HRMS (ESI) m/z: [M + H]+ calcd for C11H12N2OH 189.1028; Found 189.1027.
4-(Bromomethyl)-3-nitrobenzoic acid
(150 mg, 0.54 mmol 1.0 equiv)
and DIPEA (0.250 mL, 1.40 mmol, 2.5 equiv) were dissolved in MeOH.
3-(Tritylthio)propan-1-amine (480 mg, 1.40 mmol, 2.5 equiv)
was dissolved in MeOH and added dropwise over 6 h to the stirring
benzyl bromide solution. After addition was complete, the solution
was left to stir overnight. The solvent was evaporated, and the remaining
residue was redissolved in 10 mL of methylene chloride. To this solution
was added 10 mL of TFA, followed quickly by addition of triethylsilane
(0.225 mL, 1.40 mmol, 2.5 equiv). The solution was left to stir for
30 min. The solvent was evaporated, and the residue was redissolved
in MeOH. KOH (484 mg, 8.63 mmol, 15 equiv) was dissolved in 10% v/v
water and added to the MeOH solution. This mixture was heated at reflux
in a 90 °C bath for 4 h. After the solution cooled, the MeOH
was evaporated and EtOAc was added to the remaining aqueous residue.
The aqueous layer was extracted once with EtOAc and then acidified.
The aqueous layer was then extracted twice more with EtOAc (these
extracts were not combined with the first). The organic layer was
then washed with brine, dried over Na2SO4, filtered,
and concentrated. Purification by silica gel chromatography (AcOH
in 99% EtOAc → 1% AcOH, 10% EtOH in 89% EtOAc) provided 9 as an amorphous pale yellow solid in 73% yield (98 mg).
IR (neat) νmax 3250, 1740 cm–1; 1H NMR (600 MHz, DMSO) δ 12.04 (s, 1H), 8.17 (s, 1H),
7.55 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 1H), 7.47 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 1H), 4.53 (app. t, J = 5.9 Hz, 2H), 3.33
(app. t, J = 5.5, 5.5 Hz, 2H), 2.57 (app. p, J = 6.3 Hz, 2H); 13C NMR (150 MHz, DMSO) δ
167.7, 146.0, 128.9, 124.6, 120.8, 119.7, 119.2, 48.8, 24.3, 23.9;
HRMS (ESI) m/z: [M + H]+ calcd for C11H10N2O2SH 235.0541; Found 235.0540.
1-(Bromomethyl)-4,5-dimethoxy-2-nitrobenzene
(276 mg, 1 mmol, 1.0 equiv) and DIPEA (0.521 mL, 3 mmol, 3.0 equiv)
were dissolved in MeOH. 3-(Tritylthio)propan-1-amine (666 mg, 2 mmol,
2 equiv) was dissolved in MeOH and added dropwise over 6 h to the
stirring benzyl bromide solution. After addition was complete, the
solution was left to stir overnight. The solvent was evaporated, and
the remaining residue was redissolved in 10 mL of methylene chloride.
To this solution was added 10 mL of TFA, followed quickly by addition
of triethylsilane (0.470 mL, 3 mmol, 3.0 equiv). The solution was
left to stir for 30 min. The solvent was evaporated, and the residue
was redissolved in MeOH. KOH (841 mg, 15 mmol 15 equiv) was dissolved
in 10% v/v water and added to this MeOH solution. The mixture was
heated at reflux in a 90 °C bath for 4 h. After the solution
cooled, MeOH was evaporated and EtOAc was added to the remaining aqueous
residue. The aqueous layer was extracted once with EtOAc and then
acidified. The aqueous layer was then extracted twice more with EtOAc
(these extracts were not combined with the first). The organic layer
was then washed with brine, dried over Na2SO4, filtered, and concentrated. Purification by silica gel chromatography
(10% EtOH in EtOAc) provided 16 as an amorphous yellow
solid in 75% yield (188 mg). 1H NMR (600 MHz, MeOD) δ
6.84 (s, 1H), 6.73 (s, 1H), 4.40 (app. t, J = 5.9
Hz, 2H), 3.88 (s, 3H), 3.84 (s, 3H), 3.25 (dd, J =
8.0, 3.2 Hz, 2H), 2.49 (m, 2H); 13C NMR (150 MHz, MeOD)
δ 153.6, 148.1, 145.0, 125.6, 119.3, 117.3, 114.7, 98.1, 96.0,
56.6, 56.4, 25.8; HRMS (ESI) m/z: [M + H]+ calcd for C12H14N2O2SH 251.0854; Found 251.0848.
Benzo[4,5]thiazolo[3,2-b]indazole (17)
Prepared from
178 mg (0.49 mmol) of 2-(tritylthio)aniline
using General Procedure A. Purification by silica gel chromatography
(50% EtOAc in hexanes) provided 17 as an amorphous solid
in 65% yield (71 mg). 1H NMR (600 MHz, CDCl3) δ 8.35 (d, J = 8.2 Hz, 1H), 7,87 (m, 2H),
7.81 (d, J = 8.4 Hz, 1H), 7.63 (t, J = 7.2 Hz, 1H), 7.51 (t, J = 7.3 Hz, 1H), 7.46 (t, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H), 7.17 (t, J = 8.3 Hz, 1H) 13C NMR (150 MHz, CDCl3) δ 162.4, 153.6, 149.0,
135.9, 132.4, 131.8, 131.0, 128.0, 126.6, 125.9, 124.5, 123.9, 121.6.
HRMS (ESI) m/z: [M + H]+ calcd for C13H8N2SH 225.0486;
Found 225.0482.
dl-alaninol (1.00 g, 13.30 mmol,
1 equiv) and
phthalic anhydride (2.37 g, 16.00 mmol, 1.2 equiv) were dissolved
in xylenes and heated at 140 °C for 3 h. The solution was concentrated,
and the resulting solid was purified by silica gel chromatography
(20% EtOAc in hexanes) to give the desired phthalimido alcohol. Isolated
in 80% yield (2.18 g). Spectral data were in accordance with literature
values.[34]
2-(1-Iodopropan-2-yl)isoindoline-1,3-dione
(20)
Triphenylphosphine (2.55g, 9.70 mmol, 2
equiv) and imidazole
(67 mg, 0.99 mmol, 0.2 equiv) were dissolved in dry methylene chloride.
Iodine (2.50g, 9.84 mmol, 2 equiv) was added, and the solution was
left to stir for 10 min. 19 (1.00 g, 4.87 mmol, 1 equiv)
was dissolved in dry methylene chloride and added dropwise over 20
min. After addition, the solution was left to stir overnight. The
solution was concentrated and then redissolved in EtOAc. The organic
layer was washed with saturated sodium thiosulfate and brine, dried
over Na2SO4, filtered, and concentrated. Purification
by column chromatography (5% EtOAc in hexanes) provided the desired
product. Isolated in 76% yield (1.16g). Spectral data were in accordance
with literature values.[35]
Trityl mercaptan (965 mg, 3.50 mmol, 1.1
equiv)
was dissolved in dry DMF and cooled to 0 °C. Sodium hydride (60%
dispersion in mineral oil, 152 mg, 3.80 mmol, 1.2 equiv) was added,
and the solution was stirred for 20 min. 20 (1.00 g,
3.17 mmol, 1 equiv) was dissolved in dry DMF and added dropwise to
the stirring solution over 10 min. After addition, the reaction was
allowed to warm to room temperature and tracked by TLC to completion.
The solution was partitioned between water and EtOAc. The organic
layer was washed with water, dried over Na2SO4, filtered, and concentrated. Purification by silica gel chromatography
(30% EtOAc in hexanes) provided 21 as a white amorphous
solid in 55% yield (809 mg). IR (neat) νmax 1711,
1600 cm–1; 1H NMR (600 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.79 (m, 2H), 7.69 (m, 2H), 7.38–7.20 (m,
15H), 4.08 (m, 1H), 3.12 (dd, J = 12.2, 9.8 Hz, 1H),
2.51 (dd, J = 12.2, 9.8 Hz, 1H), 1.30 (d, J = 6.9, 3H); 13C NMR (150 MHz, CDCl3) δ 168.1, 144.7, 134.0, 132.0, 129.7, 128.0, 126.8, 123.3,
67.1, 46.9, 35.4, 18.8. HRMS (ESI) m/z: [M + H]+ calcd for C30H25NO2SH 464.1684; Found 464.1680.
3-Methyl-1-(tritylthio)butan-2-amine
(22)
Isoindolinedione 21 (500 mg,
1.07 mmol, 1.0 equiv)
was suspended in a 4:1 solution of EtOH:BuOH. To this solution was
added hydrazine monohydrate (6.0 equiv). The mixture was heated at
reflux overnight. Upon cooling, a white precipitate formed. The precipitate
was filtered off, and the filtrate was concentrated. The resulting
residue was redissolved in chloroform, and the solution was left to
stir for 1 h. The resulting precipitate was filtered off, and the
filtrate was concentrated. Purification of the residue by silica gel
chromatography (10% EtOAc inmethylene chloride →10% MeOH in
methylene chloride) provided 22 as a white crystalline
solid in 44% yield (160 mg). mp 151–153 °C; IR (neat)
νmax 3379 cm–1; 1H NMR
(600 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.32–7.28 (m, 15H), 2.60
(m, 1H), 2.21 (m, 1H), 2.08 (m, 1H), 0.89 (d, J =
6.4 Hz, 3H); 13C NMR (150 MHz, CDCl3) δ
144.9, 129.5, 128.5, 127.2, 66.4, 48.6, 46.6, 22.0. HRMS (ESI) m/z: [M-CPh3+H]+ calcd
for C3H9NSH 92.0534; Found 92.0524.
3-Methyl-2,3-dihydrothiazolo[3,2-b]indazole
(23)
Prepared from 160 mg (0.47 mmol) of 22 using General Procedure A. Purification by silica gel chromatography
(20 → 50% EtOAc in hexanes) provided 23 as an
amorphous yellow solid in 66% yield (60 mg). 1H NMR (600
MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.46 (d, J = 9.0 Hz,
2H), 7.20 (m, 1H), 6.89 (m, 1H), 5.58 (m, 1H), 4.66 (ddd, J = 9.5, 8.3 1H), 4.17 (dd, J = 9.5, 8.0,
1H), 1.71 (d, J = 6.4 Hz, 3H); 13C NMR
(150 MHz, CDCl3) δ 153.7, 151.4, 126.8, 119.4, 119.0,
117.6, 101, 85.4, 52.7, 20.9. HRMS (ESI) m/z: [M + H]+ calcd for C10H10N2SH 191.0643; Found 191.0644.
General Procedure
B: Preparation of Sulfones
The indazole
(1.0 equiv) was dissolved in EtOAc to 0.8 M. Na2WO4·2H2O (0.1 equiv) was dissolved in a small
amount of water and added to the EtOAc solution. A solution of 30%
hydrogen peroxide (3.0 equiv) was added dropwise. After addition,
the mixture was stirred until starting material was consumed (tracked
by LCMS and TLC). The solution was cooled to 0 °C, and saturated
sodium bisulfite (2 mL) was added dropwise. The solution was extracted
with EtOAc, and then the organic layer was dried over Na2SO4, filtered, and concentrated.
Authors: John M Knapp; Alex B Wood; Puay-Wah Phuan; Michael W Lodewyk; Dean J Tantillo; A S Verkman; Mark J Kurth Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Wayne E Conrad; Kevin X Rodriguez; Huy H Nguyen; James C Fettinger; Makhluf J Haddadin; Mark J Kurth Journal: Org Lett Date: 2012-07-23 Impact factor: 6.005
Authors: Tsukasa Okiyoneda; Guido Veit; Johanna F Dekkers; Miklos Bagdany; Naoto Soya; Haijin Xu; Ariel Roldan; Alan S Verkman; Mark Kurth; Agnes Simon; Tamas Hegedus; Jeffrey M Beekman; Gergely L Lukacs Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2013-05-12 Impact factor: 15.040
Authors: Aaron Roth; Sean Ott; Kelli M Farber; Teresa A Palazzo; Wayne E Conrad; Makhluf J Haddadin; Dean J Tantillo; Carroll E Cross; Jason P Eiserich; Mark J Kurth Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Jie S Zhu; Jung-Ho Son; Andrew P Teuthorn; Makhluf J Haddadin; Mark J Kurth; Dean J Tantillo Journal: J Org Chem Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 4.354