A simple method for the conversion of carboxylic acids to boronic esters via redox-active esters (RAEs) is reported using copper catalysis. The scope of this transformation is broad, and compared with the known protocols available, it represents the most inexpensive, rapid, and operationally simple option. In addition to a full exploration of the scope, a kinetic study was performed to elucidate substrate and reagent concentration dependences.
A simple method for the conversion of carboxylic acids to boronic esters via redox-active esters (RAEs) is reported using coppercatalysis. The scope of this transformation is broad, and compared with the known protocols available, it represents the most inexpensive, rapid, and operationally simple option. In addition to a full exploration of the scope, a kinetic study was performed to elucidate substrate and reagent concentration dependences.
The metamorphosis of alkyl carboxylic
acids into boronic acids is a powerful transformation that provides
a rapid gateway into useful chemical space.[1] In 2017, our lab reported a straightforward method to achieve this
through the intermediacy of redox-active esters (RAEs), an inexpensive
Ni-catalyst, and an in situ derived boron ate complex (from B2pin2).[2] Shortly thereafter,
two separate reports emerged from the Aggarwal[3] and Li[4] groups on photochemical and photoinduced
electron transfer (PET)-based approaches to the same transformation.[5] Both methods employed RAEs and either a photoactive
boron-donor (B2cat2) in the case of the former
method, or an Ir-based photocatalyst and B2pin2 as the borondonor in the latter. These three complementary approaches[6] are clearly of use on a preparative scale, but
for process applications, they all suffer certain drawbacks, such
as the use of excess/expensive borondonors, low concentrations, or
oxygen sensitivity. In addition,certain regions of the world prefer
to avoid the use of homogeneous Ni catalysis on scale,[7] or expensive photocatalysts and continuous flow apparatus
which add additional cost and engineering considerations. These pragmaticconstraints were brought to our attention in the context of the recently
approved β-lactamase inhibitor vaborbactam (1, Figure A, one of two active
ingredients in Vabomere).[8] The chiral ester 2 previously served as a key intermediate en route to 1 and was assembled using standard polar transformations in
a four-step sequence and required the use of toxicacrolein, as well
as kinetic resolution step, resulting in a 50% loss of material.[9] In contrast, a radical disconnection enabled
the use of carboxylic acid 4 (prepared in three steps[10]) directly to access 2 in 48% isolated
yield. In considering options for the commercial scale-up of this
step, the drawbacks of the known decarboxylative borylation (as mentioned
above) were magnified. Here we report a new protocol to achieve this
transformation featuring a simple procedure, short reaction times
(0.1 h), and a catalyst system based on inexpensive Cu without the
need for external ligands. The cost associated with the scale up of
this process is roughly an order of magnitude less than its Ni-catalyzed
counterpart. The kinetics of this intriguing transformation have also
been studied in depth.
Figure 1
(A) Decarboxylative borylation to access vaborbactam.
(B) Discovery
of a Cu-catalyzed decarboxylative borylation and optimization of reaction
conditions. B2pin2 = bis(pinacolato)diboron,
TMEDA = N,N,tetramethylethylenediamine.
(A) Decarboxylative borylation to access vaborbactam.
(B) Discovery
of a Cu-catalyzed decarboxylative borylation and optimization of reaction
conditions. B2pin2 = bis(pinacolato)diboron,
TMEDA = N,N,tetramethylethylenediamine.The development of Cu-catalyzed decarboxylative borylation
was
guided by industrial feedback regarding the minimization of B2pin2 employed, as this was not only a cost driver
but also difficult to remove from the product. Thus, this reagent
was limited to 1.5 equiv for all explorations on the conversion of
model RAE 5 to boronic ester 6 (Figure B, see the Supporting Information for an exhaustive list
of conditions evaluated). As shown in entry 1, standard Ni-catalyzed
conditions with this reduced B2pin2 loading
resulted in 43% yield of 6. A promising hit was obtained
by employing conditions reported by the Cook lab for Mn-catalyzed
borylation of alkyl halides (6%, entry 2).[11] Oestreich’s decarboxylative silylation using Cucatalysis
inspired the conditions attempted in entry 3 (11%).[12] Systematic screening of Cu sources, solvents, and ligands
led to a gradual increase in yield (entry 4).[13] The use of an old bottle of tBuOLi led to the realization
that LiOH was actually the active base for our reaction and the first
promising yields were observed when used in excess (entry 5). Subsequent
ligand screening unveiled that no external ligand was actually needed
(entry 6) and additional evaluation of both the Mg source and Cucatalyst
led to optimized conditions shown in entry 7 (69% yield). If the loading
of B2pin2 and Cu were increased, the yield could
be further increased to 86% (entry 8). The experimental simplicity
of this new protocol is worthy of additional comment. All components
are simply added to a flask, the air is purged and replaced with inert
gas, followed by addition of solvent—the reaction is complete
within minutes at ambient temperature.[14]With an optimized protocol in hand, the scope of this Cu-catalyzed
borylation methodology was explored (Scheme ). To test the generality of this protocol,
3.0 equiv of B2pin2 and 30 mol % of Cu(acac)2 was used for the small-scale preparation of substrates in Scheme . Under standard
conditions, a variety of primary and secondary RAE substrates were
converted to their Bpin derivatives smoothly (Scheme A,B). Simple cyclic (21–25, 27, and 29) and acyclic (6, 11–20, 26, 28, and 30) boronic esters are easily
accessed in higher or comparable yield to known decarboxylative borylation
methods (comparative yields are shown for Ni2, hν3 and PET4-based conditions
where available). Scalability of this reaction was demonstrated through
the preparation of 6 on 3.5 mmol scale with 1.5 equiv
of B2pin2 and 20 mol % of Cu(acac)2. An in situ protocol from the parent alkyl carboxylic acids was
also developed, providing access to several boronic esters (11, 18, 24, and 27)
in similar yields. RAEs with β-nitrogen substitution
were tolerated and afforded the β-amino boronates
(18, 25 and 26), which are
difficult to access otherwise. Furthermore, heterocyclic moieties
were tolerated under the mild reaction conditions, even in the absence
of an external ligand on copper; the 3-pyridyl Bpin ester product
(17) was formed in moderate yield. Despite the use of
LiOH·H2O, a variety of functionalities such as esters
(6), Boc groups (14, 16, 18, 22, 25, and 26),
epoxides (15), ketones (19), and ethers
(20 and 28) were intact under the mild conditions,
presumably due to the limited solubility of LiOH·H2O in organic solvents. Cyclopropyl-based tertiary RAEs were also
found to be suitable substrates for this transformation (31–33). Although active low-valent Cu species are
likely generated during this reaction,aryl chloride (32) was left unscathed, while aryl iodidecontaining substrates (33) could be obtained in synthetically useful yield with judicious
choice of solvent.
Scheme 1
Scope of the Cu-Catalyzed Decarboxylative Borylation
with NHPI Redox-Active
Esters
Reaction conditions:
(a) RAE (1.0 equiv), Cu(acac)2 (30 mol %), LiOH·H2O (15.0 equiv), MgCl2 (1.5 equiv), B2pin2 (3.0 equiv), dioxane/DMF, rt, 10 min. (b) Cu(acac)2 (20 mol %) and B2pin2 (1.5 equiv) were
used. (c) 3.5 mmol scale. (d) In situ reaction with NHPI (1.0 equiv)
and DIC (1.0 equiv). (e) [Ni] yield referred to reported
yield in ref (2). (f)
[] yield referred to reported
yield in ref (3). (g)
[PET] yield referred to reported yield in ref (4). (h) solvent MTBE/DMF was
used. Ts = tosyl, Boc = tert-butyloxycarbonyl, Fmoc
= fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl. NHPI = N-hydroxyphthalimide,
DIC = N,N’-diisopropylcarbodiimide.
Scope of the Cu-Catalyzed Decarboxylative Borylation
with NHPI Redox-Active
Esters
Reaction conditions:
(a) RAE (1.0 equiv), Cu(acac)2 (30 mol %), LiOH·H2O (15.0 equiv), MgCl2 (1.5 equiv), B2pin2 (3.0 equiv), dioxane/DMF, rt, 10 min. (b) Cu(acac)2 (20 mol %) and B2pin2 (1.5 equiv) were
used. (c) 3.5 mmol scale. (d) In situ reaction with NHPI (1.0 equiv)
and DIC (1.0 equiv). (e) [Ni] yield referred to reported
yield in ref (2). (f)
[] yield referred to reported
yield in ref (3). (g)
[PET] yield referred to reported yield in ref (4). (h) solvent MTBE/DMF was
used. Ts = tosyl, Boc = tert-butyloxycarbonyl, Fmoc
= fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl. NHPI = N-hydroxyphthalimide,
DIC = N,N’-diisopropylcarbodiimide.As a testament to the chemoselectivity of the method,
complex natural
products and drug molecule acid derivatives (34–42) were further evaluated in this study (Scheme C). Thus, diverse scaffolds
containing displacement-prone chlorides (34), ketones
(35 and 38), lactones (37),
acetonides (36), base-labile Fmoc groups (41) and alkenes (37 and 40) were left unperturbed
under the reaction conditions. Six of the nine substrates investigated
were obtained with an enhanced yield and reduced reaction time when
compared to established methods.Although this protocol was
proved to be successful on a range of
substrates, there are some limitations. Diminished yields were observed
for acids containing aryl (43) or alkyl (44) bromides due to competitive protodebromination or borylation of
bromide. Tertiary (45), benzylic (46), and
α-amino (47) substrates are also nonproductive
or low-yielding.Following the substrate scope exploration,
a preliminary mechanistic
inquiry was conducted (Scheme E). Radical clock experiments, including cyclopropyl ring
opening (48) and 5-exo-trig radical
cyclization (49), suggested the presence of alkyl radicals
during this protocol, which is consistent with reported RAE decarboxylative
coupling studies.[15]After achieving
the process requirements and demonstrating the
generality of this Cu-catalyzed decarboxylative borylation, this protocol
was ultimately tested on the genuine substrate 50. Gratifyingly,
the desired product 2 was obtained in 64% yield with
1.5 equiv of B2pin2 and 20 mol % of Cu(acac)2 (Scheme ).
As a further test of its scalability, boronate 2 was
isolated in similar yield during 2.5 mmol scale synthesis, and the
reaction was complete in less than 10 min. Not only was a higher yield
achieved compared with our previous Ni-catalyzed borylation conditions,
but the decreased stoichiometry of B2pin2, removal
of strong base, and absence of exogenous ligands led to a dramatically
less expensive decarboxylative borylation protocol ($224 per mole
vs Ni $1565 per mole). This procedure also compares favorably from
a cost perspective to the other known decarboxylative borylation methods.[16]
Scheme 2
Cu-Catalyzed Decarboxylative Borylation
to Synthesize Target Compound 2 and Cost Comparisons
with Other Methods
(a) 0.1 mmol
scale.
(b) 2.5 mmol scale. (c) The cost of raw materials for one mole reaction
setup. See the Supporting Information for
details. (d) B2cat2 prepared from B2(NMe2)4 and catechol. e) Ir[(ppy)2dtbpy]PF6 prepared from IrCl3 × H2O in 2 steps.
Cu-Catalyzed Decarboxylative Borylation
to Synthesize Target Compound 2 and Cost Comparisons
with Other Methods
(a) 0.1 mmol
scale.
(b) 2.5 mmol scale. (c) The cost of raw materials for one mole reaction
setup. See the Supporting Information for
details. (d) B2cat2 prepared from B2(NMe2)4 and catechol. e) Ir[(ppy)2dtbpy]PF6 prepared from IrCl3 × H2O in 2 steps.Kinetic studies of the
borylation reaction were carried out on
RAE derived from 5-phenylvaleric acid to understand the concentration
dependences and the role of the reaction components. Following the
time course of the reaction under our initial standard conditions
(Scheme A, entry 8)
revealed that the reaction occurs extremely rapidly, with full consumption
of the RAE within 3 min of initiating the reaction and 5-phenylvaleric
acid forming as the major byproduct (see the Supporting Information for details). The concentration dependences were
probed by varying initial concentrations separately for each component
and comparing reaction rate to that under standard conditions. Parameters
for increased rate include increased [B2pin2], [Cu(acac)2], and equivalents of LiOH·H2O, whereas reaction rate was not significantly influenced by changes
in equivalents of MgCl2 or [RAE] (Scheme A). Interestingly, the fraction yield increased
substantially in reactions run at lower [RAE] from
60% to 85%, indicating that under these conditions, a larger percentage
of the RAE is directed toward the productive reaction pathway. This
suggests that while the productive reaction exhibits zero order kinetics
in [RAE], unproductive side reactions have a positive dependence on
RAEconcentration.
Scheme 3
(A) Kinetic Studies of Cu-Catalyzed Decarboxylative
Borylation and
Concentration Dependences for This Transformation; (B) Reactions Orders
in [Cu] for Formation of Product and Major Byproduct; (C) Relationship
between the Relative Rates of Productive and Side Reactions to mol
% Cu
Selectivity to desired product
is enhanced by high [Cu] and low [RAE]. Yields were determined by
LC-UV.
(A) Kinetic Studies of Cu-Catalyzed Decarboxylative
Borylation and
Concentration Dependences for This Transformation; (B) Reactions Orders
in [Cu] for Formation of Product and Major Byproduct; (C) Relationship
between the Relative Rates of Productive and Side Reactions to mol
% Cu
Selectivity to desired product
is enhanced by high [Cu] and low [RAE]. Yields were determined by
LC-UV.We examined the role of each component
in turn by removing them
one at a time and probing the effect on both product yield and consumption
of RAE (see the Supporting Information for
details). It was found that a Cu(I) source does not significantly
reduce product yield from that observed with the Cu(II) source used
under standard conditions. Reactions carried out with either source
of Cu removed from the reaction mixture afforded no product, but did
consume RAE.Removal of MgCl2 also resulted in no
product formation,
although RAE was consumed, albeit more slowly than under standard
reaction conditions. Interestingly, removal of either LiOH·H2O or B2pin2completely suppressed the
consumption of RAE, suggesting a role for both species in activating
the catalyst for product turnover as well as for side reactions of
RAE.Further examination of the role of [Cu(acac)2] in both
productive and unproductive reactions is shown in Scheme B, where the concentration
of product 11 and the major byproduct 5-phenylvaleric
acid is plotted as a function of (time·[Cu]) according to the
methodology of Burés.[17] Overlay
for reactions at different [Cu] in Scheme B (top) indicates first order kinetics in
[Cu] for the borylation reaction, while the lack of overlay for acid
formation in the plot of Scheme B (bottom) suggests that the consumption of RAE in
unproductive side reactions are not a simple function of the concentration
of Cu. These results suggest the rate laws shown in equations and 2 that describe the formation of the borylation product and the overall
consumption of RAE, respectively. The productive Cu-catalyzed reaction
may be maximized at the expense of the Cu-free byproduct formation
by maximizing the ratio given in eq . Employing dilute conditions of [RAE] and/or high
catalyst loadings thus offers a practical means of increasing reaction
efficiency. The selectivity dependence on the [RAE]/[Cu] ratio is
illustrated in the model in Scheme C,[18] where the ratio of k′/k = 0.25 is derived from the
data in Scheme B.These results
suggest the mechanistic picture shown in Scheme . The observed positive
order kinetics in [LiOH·H2O] and [B2pin2] may be rationalized by rate-determining formation of a complex
with Cu. This complex may then react with the RAE forming a radical
complex that fragments to release CO2 and phthalimide.[19] Finally, radical recombination will result in
the borylated alkyl product and thus close the productive catalyticcycle. The formation of side products from the RAE is noncatalyzed
and occur in the presence of B2pin2 and LiOH·H2O.
Scheme 4
Proposed Cu-Catalyzed Borylation Mechanism
This work constitutes another
example of the use of Cu-catalysis
for inducing decarboxylation of redox-active esters.[12,20] In the present case, inexpensive and rapid access to boronic esterscombined with a clear analysis of concentration dependences may facilitate
large-scale adoption. The simple experimental protocol described herein
might inspire other radical-based cross couplings and functional group
interconversions using Cu.
Authors: Alexander Fawcett; Johan Pradeilles; Yahui Wang; Tatsuya Mutsuga; Eddie L Myers; Varinder K Aggarwal Journal: Science Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Frederik Sandfort; Matthew J O'Neill; Josep Cornella; Laurin Wimmer; Phil S Baran Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Tian Qin; Lara R Malins; Jacob T Edwards; Rohan R Merchant; Alexander J E Novak; Jacob Z Zhong; Riley B Mills; Ming Yan; Changxia Yuan; Martin D Eastgate; Phil S Baran Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Jacob T Edwards; Rohan R Merchant; Kyle S McClymont; Kyle W Knouse; Tian Qin; Lara R Malins; Benjamin Vokits; Scott A Shaw; Deng-Hui Bao; Fu-Liang Wei; Ting Zhou; Martin D Eastgate; Phil S Baran Journal: Nature Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Shengyang Ni; Natalia M Padial; Cian Kingston; Julien C Vantourout; Daniel C Schmitt; Jacob T Edwards; Monika M Kruszyk; Rohan R Merchant; Pavel K Mykhailiuk; Brittany B Sanchez; Shouliang Yang; Matthew A Perry; Gary M Gallego; James J Mousseau; Michael R Collins; Robert J Cherney; Pavlo S Lebed; Jason S Chen; Tian Qin; Phil S Baran Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Tie-Gen Chen; Lucas Mele; Olivier Jentzer; Dominique Delbrayelle; Pierre-Georges Echeverria; Julien C Vantourout; Phil S Baran Journal: Tetrahedron Lett Date: 2021-07-24 Impact factor: 2.032
Authors: Cian Kingston; Michael A Wallace; Alban J Allentoff; Justine N deGruyter; Jason S Chen; Sharon X Gong; Samuel Bonacorsi; Phil S Baran Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Jin-Xin Zhao; Yu-Xuan Chang; Chi He; Benjamin J Burke; Michael R Collins; Matthew Del Bel; Jeff Elleraas; Gary M Gallego; T Patrick Montgomery; James J Mousseau; Sajiv K Nair; Matthew A Perry; Jillian E Spangler; Julien C Vantourout; Phil S Baran Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 11.205