Sandra M King1, Stephen L Buchwald1. 1. Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology , Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, United States.
Abstract
A general method for the N-arylation of amino acid esters with aryl triflates is described. Both α- and β-amino acid esters, including methyl, tert-butyl, and benzyl esters, are viable substrates. Reaction optimization was carried out by design of experiment (DOE) analysis using JMP software. The mild reaction conditions, which use t-BuBrettPhos Pd G3 or G4 precatalyst, result in minimal racemization of the amino acid ester. This method is the first synthetic application of the t-BuBrettPhos Pd G4 precatalyst. Mechanistic studies show that the observed erosion in enantiomeric excess is due to racemization of the amino acid ester starting material and not of the product.
A general method for the N-arylation of amino acid esters with aryl triflates is described. Both α- and β-amino acid esters, including methyl, tert-butyl, and benzyl esters, are viable substrates. Reaction optimization was carried out by design of experiment (DOE) analysis using JMP software. The mild reaction conditions, which use t-BuBrettPhos Pd G3 or G4 precatalyst, result in minimal racemization of the amino acid ester. This method is the first synthetic application of the t-BuBrettPhos Pd G4 precatalyst. Mechanistic studies show that the observed erosion in enantiomeric excess is due to racemization of the amino acid ester starting material and not of the product.
The functionalization of amino
acids is of great importance for the pharmaceutical and agrochemical
industries (Figure ).[1] Derivatives of natural amino acids
can be employed as inexpensive chiral building blocks in these and
other fields.[2] Moreover, the incorporation
of functionalized amino acids in peptides and proteins has been crucial
for advances in chemical biology, as they allow the development of
new methods to study protein structure and function.[3] Among the many variations of functionalized amino acids, N-arylated amino acids and their esters are desirable compounds
in these contexts, and a general and straightforward synthesis of
these compounds in enantioenriched form is of substantial synthetic
utility.
Figure 1
Medicinal agents containing an N-aryl amino acid
core.
Medicinal agents containing an N-aryl amino acid
core.The N-arylation
of amino acids and esters through
nucleophilic aromatic substitution[4] or
hypervalent iodine chemistry[5] has been
reported, along with other more indirect methods for the preparation
of arylated amino acids.[6] Transition metal
catalyzed N-arylation of amino acids and esters using
aryl (pseudo)halides constitutes another direct approach to these
compounds. However, many reported methods for this transformation
to date result in partial or complete racemization of the α
stereocenter. In other instances, the stereochemical integrity of
the product was not rigorously established. A
general and robust protocol for the enantioretentive N-arylation of amino acids and esters remains to be developed and
would be a useful addition to the current methods for amino acid functionalization.Previous efforts toward the development of a method for the N-arylation of amino acids have primarily focused on Cu-catalyzed
Ullmann-type coupling reactions. Ma’s seminal work constituted
the first report in this field, and their conditions are generally
applicable to the coupling of hydrophobic amino acids with aryl bromides.[7] More recently, methods with aryl iodides have
been developed, but the stereochemical integrity of the product was
only verified for a few substrates.[8] Other
Cu-catalyzed methods employ harsh reaction conditions that likely
result in racemization of the amino acid.[9] Comparatively little work has been done on the development of Pd-catalyzed N-arylation methods.[4,10] The reported conditions
suffer from limited substrate scope, and significant racemization
is observed for a majority of amino acids examined as substrates.[11] Methods for the stereoretentive coupling of
amino acid esters tend to be even narrower in scope due to their greater
propensity to racemize compared to amino acids themselves. Thus, the
development of a general method for the N-arylation
of these derivatives would be especially desirable. Over the past
several years, our group has developed palladacycle precatalysts and
demonstrated their advantages in challenging cross-coupling reactions.[12] In light of the mild conditions under which
these precatalysts undergo activation, we believed that our third
(G3)[13] and fourth (G4)[14] generation of precatalysts would be well suited for the N-arylation of amino acid esters without concomitant racemization.
Herein, we report the development of a general, enantioretentive method
for the N-arylation of amino acid esters.N-Arylation of phenylalanine tert-butyl
ester (5a) with bromobenzene was chosen as a
model system for reaction development. Table summarizes initial studies for which t-BuBrettPhos Pd G3 (P1) was selected as the
precatalyst. Additional optimization results are presented in the Supporting Information (SI, Figure S1). At the
outset of our studies, we were aware that a strong base could readily
racemize amino acid esters. Indeed, the N-arylation
of 5a using sodium tert-butoxide proceeded
in 29% yield and resulted in complete racemization (entry 1). Thus,
to maintain the stereochemical integrity of the amino acid ester,
our efforts focused on identification of a weaker base suitable for
the reaction. The use of sodium phenoxide and cesium carbonate afforded
the N-arylation product 6a in low yields
but with an encouraging level of enantioretention (9% yield, 72% ee,
entry 2 and 19% yield, 73% ee, entry 3, respectively). The conditions
with cesium carbonate (entry 3) served as a suitable starting point
for additional optimization. Further studies revealed that use of
phenyl trifluoromethanesulfonate as the electrophile in
place of bromobenzene resulted in greatly improved yield and enantioretention
(entry 5).
Table 1
Initial N-Arylation
Experimentsa
Reaction conditions:
phenylalanine tert-butyl ester free base (5a, 1.2 equiv),
electrophile (1 equiv), P1 (1 mol %), base (1.2 equiv).
Isolated yields.
Enantiomeric excess (ee) was determined
by HPLC analysis using chiral stationary phases.
Reaction conditions:
phenylalanine tert-butyl ester free base (5a, 1.2 equiv),
electrophile (1 equiv), P1 (1 mol %), base (1.2 equiv).Isolated yields.Enantiomeric excess (ee) was determined
by HPLC analysis using chiral stationary phases.At this point, reaction optimization
was finished by Design of
Experiment (DOE) analysis with the aid of JMP software.[15] For a single iteration of DOE analysis, several
reaction variables served as input for the software, including both
continuous (temperature and concentration) and categorical variables
(base and solvent). Calculations then provided the least number of
reactions necessary to run to determine whether each variable had
a statistically significant effect on the reaction output (yield and
enantioretention). After running these reactions and recording the
output, calculations reported the effect of each variable. In this
way, multiple iterations of DOE analysis led to the optimized reaction
conditions.Initial DOE analysis of the N-arylation
of phenylalanineester5a with phenyl trifluoromethanesulfonate
and precatalyst P1 examined 11 reaction variables (Table A). The effect of
these variables on both the yield and enantiomeric excess of 6a was evaluated. Three variables (ligand additive, treatment
of base by grinding, and the ratio of amino acid ester to phenyl trifluoromethanesulfonate)
did not exhibit a statistically significant effect on either the yield
or enantiomeric excess of 6a. Four additional variables
(precatalyst loading, reaction time, concentration, and solvent) had
a significant effect on either the yield or enantiomeric excess of 6a but not both at the same time. However, the final four
variables (temperature, quantity of the base, presence of 3 Å
molecular sieves, and identity of the base) had significant but contrasting
effects on the yield and enantiomeric excess of 6a. For
example, higher reaction temperatures resulted in isolation of 6a in higher yield but lower enantiomeric excess. These four
variables were further examined in a second round of DOE analysis.
Table 2
Summary of Reaction Optimization by
DOE:a (A) Initial Analysis of 11 Reaction Variables; (B) Subsequent Analysis of Four Reaction Variables
For categorical variables, highest
yield/ee obtained with listed entry. For continuous variables: 0 =
variable has no effect on yield/ee, + = highest yield/ee obtained
at highest value of variable, – = highest yield/ee obtained
at lowest value of variable.
For categorical variables, highest
yield/ee obtained with listed entry. For continuous variables: 0 =
variable has no effect on yield/ee, + = highest yield/ee obtained
at highest value of variable, – = highest yield/ee obtained
at lowest value of variable.In this second iteration (Table B), the first seven variables were set to the conclusion
value from the first analysis. This subsequent analysis showed that
reaction temperature and quantity of base again had significant but
contrasting effects on the yield and enantiomeric excess of 6a. Thus, the optimal value of these two variables required
reaching a compromise between acceptable yield and enantiopurity.
The addition of 3 Å molecular sieves led to a significant decrease
in the yield of 6a and only a minor positive effect on
stereoselectivity and was subsequently omitted from the optimized
reaction conditions. The use of cesium carbonate as base provided
an increase in the yield of 6a while minimally affecting
the enantiomeric purity of the product. With the results of this second
DOE analysis taken into consideration, optimal results (69% yield
of 6a in 89% ee) were obtained when the reaction was
conducted at 50 °C with 3 equiv of cesium carbonate. Increasing
the loading of P1 in this reaction from 2 mol % to 5
mol % increased the yield of 6a without affecting the
enantiomeric purity (93% yield, 91% ee). These conditions were used
for investigations into the substrate scope of the arylation protocol.The scope of amino acid ester substrates for this N-arylation reaction was first explored (Scheme ). The optimized conditions were suitable
for the N-arylation of a wide range of amino acid
esters, including methyl, tert-butyl, and benzyl
esters. The N-arylation of hydrophobic amino acid
esters (glycine, alanine, valine, leucine, and phenylalanine esters)
provided desired products 6a–6i in
high yield and good to excellent levels of enantioretention. A number
of protected aromatic and polar amino acid esters were also transformed
to the N-arylated products with low levels of enantioerosion
and high synthetic efficiency, including tyrosine (benzyl protected, 6j), lysine (Cbz protected, 6k), glutamine (trityl
protected, 6l), tryptophan (Boc protected, 6m), and glutamic acid (Boc protected, 6s) esters. The N-arylation of some protected amino acid esters with other
heteroatom-containing side chains, such as methionine, serine, and
aspartic acid esters 5o–5r, provided
the expected products 6o–6r in high
yield but with a greater degree of erosion of enantiomeric purity.
Proline was unreactive under standard conditions, although by employing
precatalyst P2, the desired coupling product 6t was obtained with minimal loss of enantiomeric purity, albeit in
low yield. At higher temperature and longer reaction time, N-aryl proline 6t was obtained in good yield
but modest enantiomeric excess. Various protected cysteine, arginine,
and histidine esters were found to be incompatible substrates for
this reaction.
Enantiomeric
excess (ee) was determined by HPLC analysis using chiral stationary
phases.
Reaction was run
for 14 h.
P2 (5 mol %) was used as the precatalyst.
Reaction was run at 80 °C.
Substrate Scope of the Amino Acid Ester,,
Reaction conditions: amino acid
ester (1 mmol), phenyl trifluoromethanesulfonate (1 mmol), P1 (5 mol %), cesium carbonate (3 mmol), 2-methyltetrahydrofuran
(2.0 mL).Isolated yields
(average of two runs).Enantiomeric
excess (ee) was determined by HPLC analysis using chiral stationary
phases.Reaction was run
for 14 h.P2 (5 mol %) was used as the precatalyst.Reaction was run at 80 °C.We next evaluated the aryl triflate substrate scope (Scheme ). The previously optimized
reaction conditions were deemed suitable for the N-arylation of the phenylalanine tert-butyl ester 5a with electron-neutral and electron-rich substrates. For
electron-poor aryl triflate substrates, the use of t-BuBrettPhos Pd G4 (precatalyst P3) in place of P1 was found to facilitate conversion of the amino acid ester,
leading to higher yields of the N-arylation product
without eroding the enantiopurity. It is worthwhile to note that these
cases represent the first synthetic applications of precatalyst P3. A range of aryl triflate substrates was then explored
as substrates. N-Arylation of 5a with
aryl triflates with aliphatic substituents, such as 7a and 7b, provided the coupling products 8a and 8b in high yield and enantiomeric excess. The presence
of ortho substituents on the aryl triflate was likewise
tolerated, providing 8c and 8i with similarly
high levels of efficiency and enantioretention. Functionalized aryl
triflates containing a pyrrole (8d), a quinoline (8l), an acetamide (8e), or chloro substituents
(8h, 8i) all proved to be suitable substrates
for this coupling process. Additionally, the N-arylation
of 5a with estrone triflate 7m afforded
the expected product (8m) in 98% yield and 19.6:1.0 dr.
However, the presence of electron-withdrawing substituents, including
an ester (8g), a ketone (8j), or a trifluoromethyl
group (8k), led to higher levels of racemization.
Enantiomeric
excess (ee) was determined by HPLC analysis using chiral stationary
phases.
P1 (5
mol %) was used as the precatalyst.
P3 (5 mol %) was used as the precatalyst.
Substrate Scope of the Aryl Triflate,,
Reaction
conditions: phenylalanine tert-butyl ester (5a, 1 mmol), aryl triflate
(1 mmol), cesium carbonate (3 mmol), 2-methyltetrahydrofuran
(2.0 mL).Isolated yields
(average of two runs).Enantiomeric
excess (ee) was determined by HPLC analysis using chiral stationary
phases.P1 (5
mol %) was used as the precatalyst.P3 (5 mol %) was used as the precatalyst.We subsequently investigated the mechanism of
racemization in this
cross-coupling protocol. First, the N-arylation of
phenylalanine tert-butyl ester 5a with
phenyl trifluoromethanesulfonate was conducted under the
optimized conditions but stopped when the reaction proceeded to roughly
50% conversion (Scheme A). The enantiomeric excess of remaining 5a and N-arylation product 6a were determined in the
crude reaction mixture. Racemization of the recovered starting material
(5a) was observed (81% ee). In contrast, product 6a was obtained in 97% ee. To test further for racemization
of the product, the same experiment was performed with exogenous N-arylation product 9 (93% ee, Scheme B). Chromatographic purification
of 9 from the crude reaction mixture demonstrated that
the enantiomeric excess of 9 was unchanged, suggesting
that product racemization does not occur to a significant extent.
In an additional experiment, the N-arylation of phenylalanine tert-butyl ester 5a was conducted under the
optimized reaction conditions, and the yield and enantiomeric excess
of the product 6a were monitored as a function of reaction
time (see SI, Table S5). The enantiomeric
excess of 6a decreased as a function of time, which is
consistent with our understanding that racemization in this reaction
is mainly due to racemization of the starting material 5a and not of the product.
Scheme 3
(A) Experiment Determining the ee before
and after the Reaction;
(B) Experiment to Test for Product Racemization with Exogenous Product
Added
Enantiomeric
excess (ee) was
determined directly from the crude reaction mixture by HPLC analysis
using chiral stationary phases.
Enantiomeric excess (ee) was determined after purification by silica
gel chromatography.
(A) Experiment Determining the ee before
and after the Reaction;
(B) Experiment to Test for Product Racemization with Exogenous Product
Added
Enantiomeric
excess (ee) was
determined directly from the crude reaction mixture by HPLC analysis
using chiral stationary phases.Enantiomeric excess (ee) was determined after purification by silica
gel chromatography.In summary, we have developed
a general method for the N-arylation of amino acid
esters with aryl triflate electrophiles.
Key to the development of this method was the use of (1) DOE analysis
for reaction optimization and (2) t-BuBrettPhos Pd
G3 (P1) and G4 (P3) precatalysts, which
enabled the use of mild reaction conditions and resulted in minimal
racemization of the amino acid ester. Given the importance of the N-aryl amino acid core structure in medicinal agents, we
anticipate the adoption of this protocol in diverse contexts as a
practical and improved method for their synthesis.
Authors: A P Kozikowski; S Wang; D Ma; J Yao; S Ahmad; R I Glazer; K Bogi; P Acs; S Modarres; N E Lewin; P M Blumberg Journal: J Med Chem Date: 1997-04-25 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Jung Lee; Charles Reynolds; Michele C Jetter; Mark A Youngman; Dennis J Hlasta; Scott L Dax; Dennis J Stone; Sui-Po Zhang; Ellen E Codd Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Lett Date: 2003-06-02 Impact factor: 2.823
Authors: Marlys Hammond; Jaclyn R Patterson; Sharada Manns; Tram H Hoang; David G Washburn; Walter Trizna; Lindsay Glace; Eugene T Grygielko; Rakesh Nagilla; Melanie Nord; Harvey E Fries; Douglas J Minick; Nicholas J Laping; Jeffrey D Bray; Scott K Thompson Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Lett Date: 2009-04-05 Impact factor: 2.823
Authors: George A Doherty; Theodore Kamenecka; Ermenegilda McCauley; Gail Van Riper; Richard A Mumford; Sharon Tong; William K Hagmann Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Lett Date: 2002-03-11 Impact factor: 2.823
Authors: Brett A Hopkins; Hyelee Lee; Sookhee Ha; Lisa Nogle; Berengere Sauvagnat; Spencer McMinn; Graham F Smith; Nunzio Sciammetta Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 4.345
Authors: Yu Kawamata; Julien C Vantourout; David P Hickey; Peng Bai; Longrui Chen; Qinglong Hou; Wenhua Qiao; Koushik Barman; Martin A Edwards; Alberto F Garrido-Castro; Justine N deGruyter; Hugh Nakamura; Kyle Knouse; Chuanguang Qin; Khalyd J Clay; Denghui Bao; Chao Li; Jeremy T Starr; Carmen Garcia-Irizarry; Neal Sach; Henry S White; Matthew Neurock; Shelley D Minteer; Phil S Baran Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Hong Geun Lee; Guillaume Lautrette; Bradley L Pentelute; Stephen L Buchwald Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Philip C Bulman Page; Ross L Goodyear; Yohan Chan; Alexandra M Z Slawin; Steven M Allin Journal: RSC Adv Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 4.036