Beatriz
González-Saiz
a,
Pablo
Pertejo
a,
Pablo
Peña-Calleja
a,
Marcin
Mielczarek
a,
Tomás
Hermosilla
a,
Israel
Carreira-Barral
a,
Olivia
de Miguel
a,
Francisco
Rodríguez-Vidal
b,
Roberto
Quesada
a and
María
García-Valverde
*a
aUniversidad de Burgos, Facultad de Ciencias, Burgos, Castilla y León, Spain
bUniversidad de Burgos, Higher Polytechnic School, Av. Cantabria s/n, Burgos, Spain
First published on 28th September 2022
Selection of the appropriate base in Ugi/post-condensation sequences allows the selective syntheses of different ring-size functionalized lactams. The developed methodology uses inexpensive bases under mild and non-sensitive conditions leading to the facile generation of molecular diversity from simple synthons.
The ring expansion of β-lactams is one of the various approaches to the synthesis of γ-lactam skeletons,5 favored due to the β-lactam ring strain.6 Single-step synthetic methodologies illustrating this reaction can be classified into three main categories: (a) intramolecular transamidation from the proper amino-substituted azetidinone, as 4-(1-aminoalkyl)7 or 3-(2-aminoalkyl)-2-azetidinone derivatives,8 which takes place through the N1–C2 cleavage and is the most common one, (b) the rearrangement favored by an electron-deficient position through the C3–C4 cleavage, as the expansion of 4-(1-haloalkyl)-2-azetidinones to γ-lactams via N-acyliminium intermediates,9 and (c) the rearrangement resulting from an anionic position generated by strong bases, as the benzylic anions generated by LDA in N-benzyl-4-arylazetidinones which rearrange to a γ-lactam through a proposed imine anion intermediate originated in the C4–N1 cleavage.10 The examples within this latter methodology are very scarce,11 probably due to the specificity of the substrates needed as well as the reaction conditions (LDA or n-BuLi in anhydrous THF) employed to achieve the expansion (Scheme 1a).
Scheme 1 (a) Previous work on ring expansion of β-lactams through an anionic rearrangement and (b) summary of N-heterocycles synthesized from common Ugi adducts. |
We envisaged the possibility of expanding the scope of this reaction to other substrates, and we planned to use Ugi/post-condensation sequences, seizing their huge potential to yield structurally complex molecules in expedited syntheses from a reduced number of steps.12 Surprisingly, in addition to the applicability of this strategy to a broad spectrum of substrates, we have found that a rational design of β-lactams, selectively synthesized from Ugi adducts, enables the expansion to highly functionalized γ-lactams using weak bases, under mild and non-moisture-sensitive conditions (box in Scheme 1b). Thus, we have found that variation of the nature of the base employed leads to the selective synthesis of differently functionalized N-heterocyclic systems, some of them with unprecedented functionalization patterns, from common multicomponent Ugi adducts (Scheme 1b).
In this way, we prepared different Ugi adducts 5 using 2-nitrobenzylamine 4a, benzylamine 4b and α-amino acid methyl esters 4c–g as amines, along with chloroacetic acids 1a–b, glyoxals 2a–f and different isocyanides 3a–c (Table 1). As we expected, in all cases the enol tautomer was the only one observed, but the spontaneous cyclization never took place.14
Entry | 1 (R1) | 2 (R2) | 3 (R3) | 4 (R4, EWG) | 5 (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
a Yield after purification. | |||||
1 | 1a (H) | 2a (C6H5) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4a (H, 2-NO2C6H4) | 5a (89) |
2 | 1a (H) | 2a (C6H5) | 3b (CH2C6H5) | 4a (H, 2-NO2C6H4) | 5b (67) |
3 | 1a (H) | 2a (C6H5) | 3c (C(CH3)3) | 4a (H, 2-NO2C6H4) | 5c (59) |
4 | 1a (H) | 2b (4-CH3C6H4) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4a (H, 2-NO2C6H4) | 5d (86) |
5 | 1a (H) | 2c (4-ClC6H4) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4a (H, 2-NO2C6H4) | 5e (85) |
6 | 1a (H) | 2d (4-FC6H4) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4a (H, 2-NO2C6H4) | 5f (86) |
7 | 1a (H) | 2e (4-CH3OC6H4) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4a (H, 2-NO2C6H4) | 5g (54) |
8 | 1a (H) | 2f (CH3) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4a (H, 2-NO2C6H4) | 5h (39) |
9 | 1b (C6H5) | 2a (C6H5) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4a (H, 2-NO2C6H4) | 5i (93) |
10 | 1b (C6H5) | 2d (4-FC6H4) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4a (H, 2-NO2C6H4) | 5j (86) |
11 | 1a (H) | 2a (C6H5) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4b (H, C6H5) | 5k (78) |
12 | 1a (H) | 2a (C6H5) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4c (H, CO2CH3) | 5l (52) |
13 | 1a (H) | 2a (C6H5) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4d (C6H5, CO2CH3) | 5m (70) |
14 | 1a (H) | 2a (C6H5) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4e (CH3, CO2CH3) | 5n (65) |
15 | 1a (H) | 2a (C6H5) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4f (CH2C6H5, CO2CH3) | 5o (55) |
16 | 1a (H) | 2a (C6H5) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4g (CH(CH3)2, CO2CH3) | 5p (78) |
17 | 1b (C6H5) | 2a (C6H5) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4c (H, CO2CH3) | 5q (83) |
18 | 1b (C6H5) | 2a (C6H5) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4d (C6H5, CO2CH3) | 5r (76) |
19 | 1b (C6H5) | 2a (C6H5) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4e (CH3, CO2CH3) | 5s (81) |
20 | 1b (C6H5) | 2a (C6H5) | 3a (cC6H11) | 4f (CH2C6H5, CO2CH3) | 5t (82) |
In this way, different bases were employed in order to achieve the selective cyclization of Ugi adduct 5a to the corresponding azetidinone 6a. Initially, we tried triethylamine under different conditions. It turned out that the use of three equivalents of this base in ethanol and ultrasonication for 1 hour afforded azetidinone 6a with a moderate yield (entry 1, Table 2). Then, we tried potassium and sodium carbonates but the obtained yield was low, because the O-alkylation product was obtained along with the desired C-alkylation compound. Despite this result we observed the influence of cation size, as the smaller sodium cation favors C-alkylation15 (entry 2 vs. 4, Table 2). However, when cyclization with lithium carbonate was attempted, the Ugi adduct was recovered (entry 5, Table 2), probably due to the low solubility of this salt in organic solvents.
Entry | 5 (R1, R2, R3, X) | Base | Equiv. | 6 (%) | d.r.b |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
a Yield after purification. b Diastereomeric ratio determined by 1H NMR. c In ethanol at room temperature and ultrasonication, 2 h. d In acetone at reflux, 12 h. e In acetonitrile at reflux, 12 h. f O-Alkylation by-product. g Mixture of O-alkylation and a new compound identified as γ-lactam 7a. h The Ugi adduct was recovered. i Relative configuration (3R*,4R*)/(3R*,4S*). j Diastereoisomers were not separated, characterized as a mixture. | |||||
1 | 5a (H, C6H5, cC6H11, NO2) | NEt3c | 3 | 6a (58) | — |
2 | 5a (H, C6H5, cC6H11, NO2) | K2CO3d | 1.1 | 6a (14)f | — |
3 | 5a (H, C6H5, cC6H11, NO2) | K2CO3d | 2 | 6a (—)g | — |
4 | 5a (H, C6H5, cC6H11, NO2) | Na2CO3d | 1.1 | 6a (40)f | — |
5 | 5a (H, C6H5, cC6H11, NO2) | Li2CO3d | 1.1 | 6a (—)h | — |
6 | 5a (H, C6H5, cC6H11, NO2) | Cs2CO3/LiCle | 1:10 | 6a (65)f | — |
7 | 5a (H, C6H5, cC6H11, NO2) | Cs2CO3/LiIe | 1:10 | 6a (92) | — |
8 | 5a (H, C6H5, cC6H11, NO2) | Cs2CO3/LiIe | 1:2 | 6a (88)f | — |
9 | 5b (H, C6H5, CH2C6H5, NO2) | Cs2CO3/LiIe | 1:2 | 6b (79) | — |
10 | 5c (H, C6H5, C(CH3)3, NO2) | Cs2CO3/LiIe | 1:2 | 6c (67) | — |
11 | 5d (H, 4-CH3C6H4, cC6H11, NO2) | Cs2CO3/LiIe | 1:2 | 6d (73) | — |
12 | 5e (H, 4-ClC6H4, cC6H11, NO2) | Cs2CO3/LiIe | 1:2 | 6e (72) | — |
13 | 5f (H, 4-FC6H4, cC6H11, NO2) | Cs2CO3/LiIe | 1:2 | 6f (68) | — |
14 | 5g (H, 4-CH3OC6H4, cC6H11, NO2) | Cs2CO3/LiIe | 1:2 | 6g (76) | — |
15 | 5h (H, CH3, cC6H11, NO2)b | Cs2CO3/LiIe | 1:2 | 6h (90) | — |
16 | 5i (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, NO2) | Cs2CO3/LiIe | 1:2 | 6i (84) | 24:76i,j |
17 | 5i (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, NO2) | NEt3c | 3 | 6i (93) | 87:13i,j |
18 | 5j (C6H5, 4-FC6H4, cC6H11, NO2) | NEt3c | 3 | 6j (86) | 86:14i,j |
19 | 5k (H, C6H5, cC6H11, H) | Cs2CO3/LiIe | 1:2 | 6k (87) | — |
To overcome this limitation, we decided to work with the more soluble cesium carbonate in the presence of an excess of lithium halides to exchange the counter cation. The use of lithium chloride (10 equiv.) improved the C-alkylation yield although the O-alkylation product was still observed (entry 6, Table 2) but, fortunately, the use of lithium iodide yielded β-lactam 6a as a single compound (entry 7, Table 2); furthermore, the amount of this salt may be reduced to 2 equivalents without a significant decrease in chemical yield (entry 8, Table 2), except for the phenylglycine derivative 6m (entries 2 vs. 4, Table 3). These findings could be explained not only by the smaller counter cation, lithium, which binds tightly to oxygen, but also by the Finkelstein transhalogenation reaction.16 Gratefully, this cyclization strategy proved to be general. Thus, simple refluxing of solutions of Ugi adducts 5 with a combination of cesium carbonate and lithium iodide (1.1:2 equiv.) in acetonitrile for 12 hours afforded in almost all cases the corresponding 2-azetidinones 6. However, triethylamine (3 equiv.) in ethanol and ultrasonication for 2 hours proved to be most often the best choice for the cyclization of 2-chloro-2-phenylacetic derivatives (entries 16 vs. 17, Table 2) as a more efficient strategy. Therefore, this last methodology was chosen as the cyclization strategy for the synthesis of 6i–j and 6q–t. In this way, we achieved chemoselective C-alkylation in the cyclization step from Ugi adducts 5, crucial for our purposes in the subsequent synthesis of γ-lactams.
Entry | 5 (R1, R2, R3, R4) | Base | Equiv. | 6 (%) | d.r.b |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
a Yield after purification. b Diastereomeric ratio determined by 1H NMR. c In acetonitrile at reflux, 12 h. d In ethanol at room temperature and ultrasonication, 2 h. e In acetone at reflux, 12 h. f Complex reaction mixture. g Mixture of O-alkylation and a new compound identified as a fused pyrrolidinone-imide 8 obtained as the major product. h Mixture of O-alkylation and a new compound identified as γ-lactam 7a. i The Ugi adduct was recovered. j Relative configuration (3R*,4R*)/(3R*,4S*). k Both diastereoisomers were separated and fully characterized. l Only the major diastereoisomer was isolated and fully characterized (n.d.: not detected). | |||||
1 | 5l (H, C6H5, cC6H11, H) | Cs2CO3/LiIc | 1:2 | 6l (78) | — |
2 | 5m (H, C6H5, cC6H11, C6H5) | Cs2CO3/LiIc | 1:2 | 6m (—)f | — |
3 | 5m (H, C6H5, cC6H11, C6H5) | NEt3d | 3 | 6m (—)f | — |
4 | 5m (H, C6H5, cC6H11, C6H5) | Cs2CO3/LiIc | 1:10 | 6m (81) | — |
5 | 5m (H, C6H5, cC6H11, C6H5) | K2CO3e | 1.1 | 6m (—)g | — |
6 | 5n (H, C6H5, cC6H11, CH3) | Cs2CO3/LiIc | 1:2 | 6n (90) | >98:2 |
7 | 5n (H, C6H5, cC6H11, CH3) | NEt3d | 3 | 6n (—)h | — |
8 | 5o (H, C6H5, cC6H11, CH2C6H5) | Cs2CO3/LiIc | 1:2 | 6o (81) | >98:2 |
9 | 5o (H, C6H5, cC6H11, CH2C6H5) | NEt3d | 3 | 6o (—)i | — |
10 | 5p (H, C6H5, cC6H11, CH(CH3)2) | Cs2CO3/LiIc | 1:2 | 6p (73) | >98:2 |
11 | 5q (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, H) | Cs2CO3/LiIc | 1:2 | 6q (71) | 55:45j,k |
12 | 5q (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, H) | NEt3d | 3 | 6q (77) | 54:46j,k |
13 | 5r (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, C6H5) | NEt3d | 3 | 6r (45) | 84:16:n.d.:n.d.l |
14 | 5r (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, C6H5) | K2CO3e | 1.1 | 6r (—)g | — |
15 | 5s (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, CH3) | Cs2CO3/LiIc | 1:2 | 6s (90) | 53:24:18:11l |
16 | 5s (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, CH3) | NEt3d | 3 | 6s (93) | 30:26:26:18l |
17 | 5t (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, CH2C6H5) | NEt3d | 3 | 6t (75) | 58:35:7:n.d.l |
The stereochemical outcome in these reactions was also quite remarkable as the diastereoselectivity observed was fairly good when only one reactant incorporated a stereogenic center, but not when 2-chloro-2-phenylacetic acid (used as a racemate) was combined with α-aminoesters (entries 11–17, Table 3). In addition, the stereochemical results for the 2-chloro-2-phenylacetic acid derivatives were strongly dependent on the cyclization methodology (entry 16 vs. 17, Table 2). Nevertheless, given that the relative configuration of these lactams was not important in the next step, as it will be shown below, the isolation of diastereomers of these β-lactams was not necessary.
Entry | 6 (R1, R2, R3, X) | 7 (%)a | d.r.b |
---|---|---|---|
a Yield after purification. b Diastereomeric ratio determined by 1H NMR in the reaction mixture. c Relative configuration (4R*,5R*) in the major diastereomer, determined by NOESY and X-ray diffraction experiments. d Yield as mixture of diastereomers. e Relative configuration (3R*,4R*,5S*) and (3R*,4R*,5R*) in the observed diastereomers, determined by NOESY and X-ray diffraction experiments. f Azetidinone 6k was recovered. Treatment of azetidinone 6k with different bases has been further investigated (see Scheme 3). | |||
1 | 6a (H, C6H5, cC6H11, NO2) | 7a (90) | >98:2c |
2 | 6b (H, C6H5, CH2C6H5, NO2) | 7b (79) | 97:3c |
3 | 6c (H, C6H5, C(CH3)3, NO2) | 7c (67) | >98:2c |
4 | 6d (H, 4-CH3C6H4, cC6H11, NO2) | 7d (71) | 92:8c |
5 | 6e (H, 4-ClC6H4, cC6H11, NO2) | 7e (44) | >98:2c |
6 | 6f (H, 4-FC6H4, cC6H11, NO2) | 7f (42) | >98:2c |
7 | 6g (H, 4-CH3OC6H4, cC6H11, NO2) | 7g (71) | >98:2c |
8 | 6h (H, CH3, cC6H11, NO2) | 7h (76) | >98:2c |
9 | 6i (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, NO2) | 7i (92)d | 64:36:n.d.:n.d.e |
10 | 6j (C6H5, 4-FC6H4, cC6H11, NO2) | 7j (91)d | 57:43:n.d.:n.d.e |
11 | 6k (H, C6H5, cC6H11, H) | 7k (—)f | — |
The possibility of synthesizing new, complex, and highly functionalized γ-lactams through a new and simple methodology prompted us to explore the potential of this reaction. Thankfully, all azetidin-2-ones 6 treated with carbonate afforded expansion products, although the results depended on the nature of the electron-withdrawing group (EWG) on the N-substituent of the β-lactam (Tables 4 and 5). Thus, for 2-nitrobenzylamine derivatives, the treatment of azetidin-2-ones 6a–k with potassium carbonate (1.1 equiv.) in boiling acetone for 12 hours afforded the corresponding 4-acyl-4-alkylaminocarbamoyl-5-(2-nitrophenyl)pyrrolidin-2-ones 7a–k (Table 4). Moreover, these reactions proceeded with high diastereoselectivities. Hence, for 2-chloroacetic acid derivatives 7a–h the observed diastereoselectivities were excellent (entries 1–8, Table 4), while for 2-chloro-2-phenylacetic acid derivatives 7i–j only two of the four possible diastereomers were observed. We also tried the expansion on lactam 6k, derived from benzylamine, a non-activated amine, in order to explore the influence of acidity in the benzylic position. As it was expected, azetidinone 6k was recovered after the treatment with potassium carbonate (entry 11, Table 4). However, in an attempt to achieve expansion from this lactam we tried different bases and conditions, as it will be discussed later.
Entry | 6 (R1, R2, R3, R4) | Carbonate | Equiv. | t (h) | 7 (%)a | 8 (%)a | 9 (%)a |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a Yield after purification. b Synthesis carried out from the Ugi adduct. c Mixture of O-alkylation and expansion products. d After 12 h most of the azetidine was recovered. e After 72 h some azetidine was recovered. f Two diastereomers were observed (d.r. 68:32). g Yield referred to the major diastereomer after purification. h Complex reaction mixture. i A single diastereomer was observed. | |||||||
1 | 6l (H, C6H5, cC6H11, H) | Cs2CO3 | 1.2 | 1 | — | — | 9l (73) |
2 | 6l (H, C6H5, cC6H11, H) | K2CO3 | 1.2 | 12 | 7l (18) | — | 9l (58) |
3 | 6m (H, C6H5, cC6H11, C6H5) | Cs2CO3b,c | 2.2 | 1 | — | — | 9m (65) |
4 | 6m (H, C6H5, cC6H11, C6H5) | K2CO3b,c | 1.1 | 12 | — | 8m (83) | — |
5 | 6m (H, C6H5, cC6H11, C6H5) | Cs2CO3 | 1.2 | 1 | — | 8m (30) | 9m (52) |
6 | 6m (H, C6H5, cC6H11, C6H5) | K2CO3 | 1.2 | 12 | — | 8m (68) | 9m (12) |
7 | 6n (H, C6H5, cC6H11, CH3) | Cs2CO3 | 1.2 | 1 | — | — | 9n (75) |
8 | 6n (H, C6H5, cC6H11, CH3) | K2CO3 | 1.2 | 12 | 7n (58) | 8n (9) | 9n (10) |
9 | 6o (H, C6H5, cC6H11, CH2C6H5) | Cs2CO3 | 1.2 | 1 | — | — | 9o (57) |
10 | 6o (H, C6H5, cC6H11, CH2C6H5) | K2CO3 | 1.2 | 12 | 7o (38) | 8o (36) | 9o (10) |
11 | 6p (H, C6H5, cC6H11, CH(CH3)2) | Cs2CO3 | 1.2 | 1 | — | — | 9p (65) |
12 | 6p (H, C6H5, cC6H11, CH(CH3)2) | K2CO3 | 1.2 | 12d | — | 8p (5) | — |
13 | 6p (H, C6H5, cC6H11, CH(CH3)2) | K2CO3 | 1.2 | 72 | — | 8p (78) | 9p (8) |
14 | 6q (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, H) | Cs2CO3 | 1.2 | 72e | 7q (32)g | — | — |
15 | 6q (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, H) | Cs2CO3 | 2.0 | 12 | —h | — | — |
16 | 6r (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, C6H5) | K2CO3b,c | 1.2 | 5 | — | 8r (70) | — |
17 | 6r (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, C6H5) | Cs2CO3 | 1.2 | 1 | — | 8r (72) | — |
18 | 6s (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, CH3) | K2CO3 | 1.2 | 12 | 7s (75) | — | — |
19 | 6s (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, CH3) | Cs2CO3 | 1.2 | 1 | 7s (80) | — | — |
20 | 6t (C6H5, C6H5, cC6H11, CH2C6H5) | Cs2CO3 | 1.2 | 1 | 7t (67) | — | — |
Thus, the chemical results for the aminoester series were controlled mainly by the substituents size, firstly by the C3 substitution on the γ-lactam (R1) (entries 1–13 vs. 14–20, Table 5) and secondly by the C5 substitution (R4) (entries 8, 10 and 13, Table 5), which is explained by the steric hindrance exerted by the different substituents, and additionally by the nature of the carbonate employed. This shows the importance of the counter cation on the stereoselectivity of enolate reactions,17 which is reflected on the chemical result (entries 7, 9 vs. 8, 10, Table 5). These results are remarkable taking into account that ring expansion is promoted by a weak base in a wet solvent under an air atmosphere, in contrast to the strong bases and dry atmosphere needed for the ring expansion previously reported;10,11 moreover, high diastereoselectivities are observed in these syntheses.
Entry | 4 (R1, R3, EWG) | 10 (%)a | d.r.b,c |
---|---|---|---|
a Yield after purification. b Diastereomeric ratio determined by 1H NMR. c Relative configuration (4R*,5S*) in the major diastereomer, determined by NOESY experiments. d The γ-lactam was recovered. e Complex reaction mixture. | |||
1 | 7a (H, cC6H11, 2-NO2C6H4) | 10a (76) | >98:2 |
2 | 7b (H, CH2C6H5, 2-NO2C6H4) | 10b (58) | >98:2 |
3 | 7c (H, C(CH3)3, 2-NO2C6H4) | 10c (72) | >98:2 |
4 | 7i (C6H5, cC6H11, 2-NO2C6H4) | 10i (—)d | — |
5 | 7l (H, cC6H11, CO2CH3) | 10l (—)e | — |
Entry | Base | Solvent | Equiv. | 11 (%) | 7k (%) | 12 (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a Reflux, 12 h. Azetidinone 6k was recovered. b Ultrasonication, 30 min. c Room temperature, 5 h. d Diastereomeric ratio determined by 1H NMR as 1:1. e Diastereoisomers were not separated. | ||||||
1 | K2CO3a | Acetone | 1.1 | — | — | — |
2 | KOHb | EtOH | Cat. | 94 | — | — |
3 | LDAc | THF | 1.2 | 21 | 23d,e | — |
4 | LDAc | THF | 3.0 | — | 27d,e | 14 |
This succinimide was probably generated through the competing formation of a C-anion on the azetidine ring. Thus, the new C-anion would favor the ring opening to a diamide anion, which after an intramolecular cyclization to a five-member ring followed by an intramolecular Cannizaro-type reaction, would afford imide 12 (Scheme 3).
Scheme 3 Results for the treatment of azetidinone 6l with base and proposed mechanism for the synthesis of succinimide 12 (Cy = cyclohexyl). |
Footnote |
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. CCDC 2193426, 2193428–2193430 and 2193435. For ESI and crystallographic data in CIF or other electronic format see DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d2gc02896d |
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2022 |