DOI:
10.1039/C5RA04729C
(Paper)
RSC Adv., 2015,
5, 37737-37741
Aldehyde–alkyne–amine (A3) coupling catalyzed by a highly efficient dicopper complex†
Received
17th March 2015
, Accepted 13th April 2015
First published on 13th April 2015
Abstract
A dicopper(I) complex,
(pip = (2-picolyliminomethyl)pyrrole anion), was utilized to catalyze A3 coupling reactions, which led to the formation of propargylamines. Aldehydes, alkynes and amines with a variety of structures have been tested. A low catalyst loading of 0.4 mol% was sufficient to give good to excellent yields. The low catalyst loading, broad scope of substrate and easy preparation make this dicopper complex a useful catalyst for A3 coupling.
Introduction
Propargylamines are versatile building blocks for the synthesis of various nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compounds,1 and important intermediates for the preparation of complex natural products and biologically active molecules.2 Further, some propargylamines have been clinically used or are currently tested for the treatment of Parkinson's disease3 and Alzheimer's disease.4 Classically, propargylamines are synthesized by the nucleophilic addition of a metal alkynylide to C
N electrophiles, which often requires stoichiometric amount of highly active organometallic reagents such as organolithium,5 Grignard reagents,6 and organozinc reagents,7 and hence is less attractive due to low tolerance of functional groups, harsh reaction conditions, and operational complexity. In the past decade, transition-metal catalyzed three-component coupling of an aldehyde, an alkyne, and an amine (generally referred as A3-coupling) has received more and more attention due to its atom economy, step efficiency, and high chemical selectivity.8 This reaction was proposed to proceed through the addition of an in situ generated metal-alkynylide to an imine (or iminium ion), which is also formed in situ from a reaction between an aldehyde and an amine, and water was formed as the only side product.
Transition metal salts and complexes, especially those from coinage metals (Cu, Ag, and Au),8 as well as Zn,9 Ni,10 Fe,11 In,12 Ir,13 Co,14 Mn,15 Bi,16 Hg17 and Cd18 have been developed as the catalysts for A3-coupling, among which copper compounds have been studied most. Recently, Heaney and co-workers proposed that in the mechanism of copper(I)-catalyzed A3-coupling, a dimeric copper(I) acetylide 1a (Scheme 1) forms in the early stage of the catalytic cycle.19 The intermediate 1a then binds to the imine or iminium ion, which leads to the addition of the alkynylide to the imine or iminium ion, and yields the intermediate 1b (Scheme 1). It is worth mentioning that this mechanism is similar to those of copper-catalyzed alkyne–azide cycloaddition (CuAAC),20 Kinugasa reaction,21 and Glaser coupling.22 In fact, several dicopper catalysts have been shown to be highly efficient for CuAAC.23 To our best knowledge, only one type of dicopper catalyst based on pybox ligands has been reported for A3 coupling.24 The pybox catalysts were used for asymmetric synthesis and a loading of 5–10% was commonly used. Based on the mechanism, the primary function of a dinuclear structure should be improving its catalytic efficiency. Therefore, exploring new dicopper catalysts is important for enhance catalytic efficiency as well as understanding the mechanism of A3 coupling.
 |
| Scheme 1 Proposed catalytic intermediates in A3-coupling.19 | |
Previously we reported that a dinuclear copper(I) complex,
(pip = (2-picolyliminomethyl)pyrrole anion) (Scheme 2) efficiently catalyzed the alkyne–azide cycloaddition at a low loading of 0.2 mol%.23a The catalyst has a stable dimeric structure in solutions and is easy to prepare. Given the similarity between the proposed mechanisms of copper catalyzed A3 and alkyne–azide cycloaddition reactions, we hypothesized that this catalyst could also possess a high activity for A3 reaction. Herein, we reported our study on the catalytic behaviors of this dicopper(I) compound for a series of A3 reactions with different substrates.
 |
| Scheme 2 Structure of . | |
Results and discussion
A model reaction with benzaldehyde, phenylacetylene and piperidine was studied first to evaluate the catalytic activity of
and to optimize the reaction condition. The reaction was performed in refluxing toluene for 12 hours in the presence of 1 mol% of
. The coupling reaction proceeded well and the expected propargylamine was isolated with nearly quantitative yield (Table 1, entry 1). Other solvents were also tested for the reaction (entries 2–7). The bath temperature was set to 110 °C, and thus the reaction was either at this temperature or the boiling points of the solvents. Non-polar solvents toluene and dioxane gave much better yields than the polar solvents including DMF, DMSO, EtOH and MeCN. The moderate yield obtained by using THF (entry 3) may also be due to the its low boiling point.
Table 1 Optimization of reaction conditions of A3 couplinga

|
Entry |
Solvent |
Cat. (%) |
t (h) |
Yieldb (%) |
Reaction conditions: benzaldehyde (1.0 mmol), piperidine (1.0 mmol), phenylacetylene (1.2 mmol), catalyst, solvent (3 mL). Isolated yield. (CuOAc)2 was used as the catalyst. |
1 |
Toluene |
1 |
12 |
99 |
2 |
MeCN |
1 |
12 |
61 |
3 |
THF |
1 |
12 |
71 |
4 |
Dioxane |
1 |
12 |
80 |
5 |
EtOH |
1 |
12 |
37 |
6 |
DMF |
1 |
12 |
32 |
7 |
DMSO |
1 |
12 |
25 |
8 |
Toluene |
0.8 |
12 |
99 |
9 |
Toluene |
0.6 |
12 |
99 |
10 |
Toluene |
0.4 |
12 |
98 |
11 |
Toluene |
0.2 |
12 |
90 |
12 |
Toluene |
0.4 |
4 |
97 |
13 |
Toluene |
0.4 |
2 |
98 |
14c |
Toluene |
2 |
2 |
67 |
The loading of the catalyst was optimized by conducting the reaction with 1–0.2 mol% of loading using toluene as the solvent (entry 1, 8–11). The results revealed that
is highly active for A3-coupling. When the catalyst loading was reduced to 0.4 mol%, the reaction still gave 98% yield (entry 10). Even a loading as low as 0.2 mol% gave 90% yield (entry 11). It is worth mentioning that homogenous A3 reaction often requires 5–10 mol% of catalyst loading.8 Further studies showed that the reaction time can be decreased without affect the yields. As shown in entry 12 and 13 in Table 1, 98% yield was obtained after 2 h and there was no significant difference between 2 h and 4 h reactions. The low catalyst loading and short reaction time clearly proves the high activity of
.
The catalytic activity of
was compared to another dicopper(I) compound (CuOAc)2, which has also been reported to be a high-efficiency catalyst for CuAAC reaction.23c However, even when 2 mol% of (CuOAc)2 was used, which was 5 times more than that of
, the corresponding A3-coupling only gave 67% yield (entry 14).
The structural effects of the aldehyde reactants were studied using the optimized reaction condition. Aromatic and aliphatic aldehydes with a variety of structures were examined using piperidine and phenylacetylene as the other reactants, and the results are summarized in Table 2. All the aromatic aldehydes tested showed high reactivity. Electron-withdrawing or electron-donating substituents at ortho-, meta-, or para-position showed almost no effects, and excellent yields were obtained from the corresponding aldehydes (entries 1–9). Sterically hindered aromatic aldehydes including 2,6-dichlorobenzaldehyde and 2,6-dimethoxybenzaldehyde also reacted well, and gave the corresponding products with yields of 88% and 98% respectively (entry 10 and 11). Aliphatic aldehydes including pentanal, isopentanal, octanal, cyclopentanecarboxaldehyde and cyclohexanecarboxaldehyde, were also excellent substrates for this catalytic reaction. Yields above 90% were obtained for all the tested aliphatic aldehydes after the reactions proceeded 2 hours (entries 12–16). Heteroaromatic aldehydes including 2-furaldehyde and 2-thenaldehyde were also examined and afforded the corresponding products with yields of 89% and 81% respectively (entries 17 and 18).
Table 2 Reaction yields of different aldehydes under optimized reaction conditionsa

|
Entry |
R |
Yieldb (%) |
Reaction conditions: aldehyde (1.0 mmol), piperidine (1.0 mmol) and phenylacetylene (1.2 mmol) in toluene (3 mL). Isolated yield. |
1 |
C6H5 |
98 |
2 |
4-FC6H4 |
97 |
3 |
3-FC6H4 |
98 |
4 |
2-FC6H4 |
98 |
5 |
4-MeOC6H4 |
96 |
6 |
3-MeOC6H4 |
97 |
7 |
2-MeOC6H4 |
97 |
8 |
1-Naphthyl |
95 |
9 |
2-Naphthyl |
97 |
10 |
2,6-Cl2C6H3 |
88 |
11 |
2,6-(MeO)2C6H3 |
98 |
12 |
C4H9 |
99 |
13 |
Me2CHCH2 |
99 |
14 |
C7H15 |
97 |
15 |
c-Pentyl |
91 |
16 |
c-Hexyl |
94 |
17 |
2-Furyl |
89 |
18 |
2-Thiophenyl |
81 |
The structural effects of alkynes were studied using benzaldehyde and piperidine as the other reactants, and the results are summarized in Table 3. Aromatic acetylenes, regardless of electron-withdrawing or electron-donating groups on the phenyl ring, reacted well and gave excellent yields (entries 1–6). Hept-1-yne, an aliphatic alkyne, also underwent the reaction well and afforded the corresponding product nearly quantitatively (entry 7). However, propargylic alcohol and 1-phenylprop-2-yn-1-ol gave complex mixtures (entries 8 and 9), which were difficult to separate by column chromatography. A possible reason is that the hydroxyl group on the alpha carbon of the alkynes may participate in the formation of the catalytic intermediates and cause side reactions. A heteroaromatic alkyne, 2-ethynylthiophene, were also examined, and a yield of 85% was obtained (entry 10).
Table 3 Reaction yields of different alkynes under optimized reaction conditionsa

|
Entry |
R |
Yieldb (%) |
Reaction conditions: benzaldehyde (1.0 mmol), piperidine (1.0 mmol) and alkyne (1.2 mmol) in toluene (3 mL). Isolated yield. Complex mixture not isolated. |
1 |
4-MeOC6H4 |
97 |
2 |
3,4-(MeO)2C6H3 |
95 |
3 |
4-MeC6H4 |
97 |
4 |
3-MeC6H4 |
98 |
5 |
4-FC6H4 |
93 |
6 |
4-BrC6H4 |
98 |
7 |
C5H11 |
99 |
8 |
CH2OH |
c |
9 |
CH(OH)C6H5 |
c |
10 |
2-Thiophenyl |
85 |
Amines with different structures were also tested using the optimized reaction condition (Table 4). Secondary amines, including morpholine, pyrrolidine and Bn2NH gave the expected products with satisfied yields (entries 1–3). However, no product was detected after the reaction when aniline was used (entry 4). This result shows that the catalytic system cannot be applied to aromatic primary amine.25
Table 4 Effect of different amines on A3 coupling under optimization reaction conditionsa

|
Entry |
R1R2NH |
Yieldb (%) |
Reaction conditions: benzaldehyde (1.0 mmol), amine (1.0 mmol) and phenylacetylene (1.2 mmol) in toluene (3 mL). Isolated yield. |
1 |
Morpholine |
96 |
2 |
Pyrrolidine |
87 |
3 |
Bn2NH |
97 |
4 |
PhNH2 |
nd |
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that a dicopper(I) complex
is highly efficient for catalyzing the A3 coupling reaction, which produces propargylamines. Aromatic and aliphatic aldehydes, alkynes and secondary amines with various structures reacted well at a catalyst loading of 0.4 mol%, and gave good to excellent yields. The broad substrate scopes, mild reaction condition and low catalyst loadings make
a useful catalyst for the A3 reaction.
Experimental section
General procedure for A3-coupling
To a solution of
(2.0 mg, 0.4% mmol) in toluene (3 mL) was added alkyne (1.2 mmol), aldehyde (1.0 mmol) and amine (1.0 mmol) under nitrogen atmosphere. The reaction mixture was heated at 110 °C for 2 h, cooled, and then subjected to column chromatography on silica gel (300–400 mesh) eluting with petroleum ether–ethyl acetate to give the desired propargylamine.
Acknowledgements
Financial supports from Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (no. 2010121014), NSF of Fujian Province (no. 2013J05030) and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FP048956) are gratefully acknowledged.
Notes and references
- For some recent examples, see:
(a) R. K. Arigela, R. Kumar, S. Samala, S. Gupta and B. Kundu, Eur. J. Org. Chem., 2014, 6057 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(b) C. E. Meyet and C. H. Larsen, J. Org. Chem., 2014, 79, 9835 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(c) G. Naresh, R. Kant and T. Narender, Org. Lett., 2014, 16, 4528 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(d) A. Ranjan, R. Yerande, P. B. Wakchaure, S. G. Yerande and D. H. Dethe, Org. Lett., 2014, 16, 5788 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(e) Y. Xia, L. Y. Chen, S. Lv, Z. Sun and B. Wang, J. Org. Chem., 2014, 79, 9818 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(f) O. P. Pereshivko, V. A. Peshkov, J. Jacobs, L. V. Meervelt and E. V. Van der Eycken, Adv. Synth. Catal., 2013, 355, 781 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(g) A. Monleón, G. Blay, L. R. Domingo, M. C. Muñoz and J. R. Pedro, Chem.–Eur. J., 2013, 19, 14852 CrossRef PubMed;
(h) C. Tsukano, S. Yokouchi, A. L. Girard, T. Kuribayashi, S. Sakamoto, T. Enomoto and Y. Takemoto, Org. Biomol. Chem., 2012, 10, 6074 RSC;
(i) M. J. Gainer, N. R. Bennett, Y. Takahashi and R. E. Looper, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2011, 50, 684 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- For some selected examples, see:
(a) G. Huang, Z. Yin and X. Zhang, Chem.–Eur. J., 2013, 19, 11992 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(b) N. Mont, V. P. Mehta, P. Appukkuttan, T. Beryozkina, S. Toppet, K. Van Hecke, L. Van Meervelt, A. Voet, M. DeMaeyer and E. V. Van der Eycken, J. Org. Chem., 2008, 73, 7509 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(c) J. J. Fleming and J. Du Bois, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006, 128, 3926 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(d) B. Jiang and M. Xu, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2004, 43, 2543 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(e) M. H. Davidson and F. E. McDonald, Org. Lett., 2004, 6, 1601 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(f) B. M. Trost, C. K. Chung and A. B. Pinkerton, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2004, 43, 4327 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(g) N. Gommermann and P. Knochel, Chem. Commun., 2004, 2324 RSC;
(h) G. S. Kauffman, G. D. Harris, R. L. Dorow, B. R. P. Stone, R. L. Parsons Jr, J. A. Pesti, N. A. Magnus, J. M. Fortunak, P. N. Confalone and W. A. Nugent, Org. Lett., 2000, 2, 3119 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(i) M. Konishi, H. Ohkuma, T. Tsuno, T. Oki, G. D. VanDuyne and J. Clardy, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1990, 112, 3715 CrossRef CAS.
-
(a) J. J. Chen, D. M. Swope and K. Dashtipour, Clin. Ther., 2007, 29, 1825 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(b) S. Pålhagen, E. Heinonen, J. Hägglund, T. Kaugesaar, O. Mäki-Ikola and R. Palm, Neurology, 2006, 66, 1200 CrossRef PubMed.
-
(a) I. Bolea, A. Gella and M. Unzeta, J. Neural Transm., 2013, 120, 893 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(b) O. Weinreb, T. Amit, O. Bar-Am and M. B. H. Youdim, Curr. Drug Targets, 2012, 13, 483 CrossRef CAS;
(c) O. Bar-Am, T. Amit, O. Weinreb, M. B. H. Youdim and S. Mandel, J. Alzheimer's Dis., 2010, 21, 361 CAS.
-
(a) B. J. Wakefield, Organolithium Methods in Organic Synthesis, Academic Press, London, 1988, ch. 3, p. 32 Search PubMed;
(b) P. Kaur, G. Shakya, H. Sun, Y. Pan and G. Li, Org. Biomol. Chem., 2010, 8, 1091 RSC;
(c) R. Díez, R. Badorrey, M. D. Díaz-de-Villegas and J. A. Gálvez, Eur. J. Org. Chem., 2007, 2114 CrossRef PubMed;
(d) K. B. Aubrecht, M. D. Winemiller and D. B. Collum, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2000, 122, 11084 CrossRef CAS.
-
(a) B. J. Wakefield, Organomagnesium Methods in Organic Synthesis, Academic Press, London, 1995, ch. 3, p. 46 Search PubMed;
(b) B. L. Chen, B. Wang and G. Q. Lin, J. Org. Chem., 2010, 75, 941 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- For some examples, see:
(a) L. Zani, S. Alesi, P. G. Cozzi and C. Bolm, J. Org. Chem., 2006, 71, 1558 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(b) G. Huang, Z. Yin and X. Zhang, Chem.–Eur. J., 2013, 19, 11992 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(c) G. Blay, E. Ceballos, A. Monleón and J. R. Pedro, Tetrahedron, 2012, 68, 2128 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(d) W. Yan, B. Mao, S. Zhu, X. Jiang, Z. Liu and R. Wang, Eur. J. Org. Chem., 2009, 3790 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- For recent reviews, see:
(a) N. Uhlig, W. J. Yoo, L. Zhao and C. J. Li, in Modern Alkyne Chemistry Catalytic and Atom-Economic Transformations, ed. B. M. Trost and C. J. Li, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2014, pp. 239–268 Search PubMed;
(b) G. Abbiati and E. Rossi, Beilstein J. Org. Chem., 2014, 10, 481 CrossRef PubMed;
(c) V. A. Peshkov, O. P. Pereshivko and E. V. Van der Eycken, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2012, 41, 3790 RSC;
(d) W. J. Yoo, L. Zhao and C. J. Li, Aldrichimica Acta, 2011, 44, 43 CAS.
-
(a) Y. Qiu, Y. Qin, Z. Ma and W. Xia, Chem. Lett., 2014, 43, 1284 CrossRef CAS;
(b) N. P. Eagalapatia, A. Rajacka and Y. L. N. Murthy, J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem., 2014, 381, 126 CrossRef PubMed;
(c) K. V. V. Satyanarayana, P. A. Ramaiah, Y. L. N. Murty, M. R. Chandra and S. V. N. Pammi, Catal. Commun., 2012, 25, 50 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(d) C. Mukhopadhyay and S. Rana, Catal. Commun., 2009, 11, 285 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(e) E. Ramu, R. Varala, N. Sreelatha and S. R. Adapa, Tetrahedron Lett., 2007, 48, 7184 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
-
(a) K. Namitharan and K. Pitchumani, Eur. J. Org. Chem., 2010, 411 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(b) S. Samai, G. C. Nandi and M. S. Singh, Tetrahedron Lett., 2010, 51, 5555 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
-
(a) D. A. Kotadia and S. S. Soni, Appl. Catal., A, 2014, 488, 231 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(b) T. Zeng, W. W. Chen, C. M. Cirtiu, A. Moores, G. Song and C. J. Li, Green Chem., 2010, 12, 570 RSC;
(c) B. Sreedhar, A. S. Kumar and P. S. Reddy, Tetrahedron Lett., 2010, 51, 1891 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(d) W. W. Chen, R. V. Nguyen and C. J. Li, Tetrahedron Lett., 2009, 50, 2895 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(e) P. Li, Y. Zhang and L. Wang, Chem.–Eur. J., 2009, 15, 2045 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
-
(a) C. Y. K. Chan, N. W. Tseng, J. W. Y. Lam, J. Liu, R. T. K. Kwok and B. Z. Tang, Macromolecules, 2013, 46, 3246 CrossRef CAS;
(b) Y. Zhang, P. Li, M. Wang and L. Wang, J. Org. Chem., 2009, 74, 4364 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(c) J. S. Jadav, B. V. S. Reddy, A. V. H. Gopal and K. S. Patil, Tetrahedron Lett., 2009, 50, 3493 CrossRef PubMed.
-
(a) S. Sakaguchi, T. Mizuta, M. Furuwan, T. Kubo and Y. Ishii, Chem. Commun., 2004, 1638 RSC;
(b) S. Sakaguchi, T. Kubo and Y. Ishii, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2001, 40, 2534 CrossRef CAS.
- W. W. Chen, H. P. Bi and C. J. Li, Synlett, 2010, 475 CAS.
- S. N. Afraj, C. Chen and G. H. Lee, RSC Adv., 2014, 4, 26301 RSC.
- A. Teimouri, A. N. Chermahini and M. Narimani, Bull. Korean Chem. Soc., 2012, 33, 1556 CrossRef CAS.
- P. H. Li and L. Wang, Chin. J. Chem., 2005, 23, 1076 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- D. S. Raghuvanshi and K. N. Singh, Synlett, 2011, 373 CAS.
- B. R. Buckley, A. N. Khan and H. Heaney, Chem.–Eur. J., 2012, 18, 3855 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
-
(a) M. Ahlquist and V. V. Fokin, Organometallics, 2007, 26, 4389 CrossRef CAS;
(b) B. F. Straub, Chem. Commun., 2007, 3868 RSC.
- A. Mames, S. Stecko, P. Mikozajczyk, M. Soluch, B. Furman and M. Chmielewski, J. Org. Chem., 2010, 75, 7580 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- L. G. Fedenok and M. S. Shvartsberg, Tetrahedron Lett., 2011, 52, 3776 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
-
(a) H. B. Chen, N. Abeyrathna and Y. Liao, Tetrahedron Lett., 2014, 55, 6575 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(b) R. Berg, J. Straub, E. Schreiner, S. Mader, F. Rominger and B. F. Straub, Adv. Synth. Catal., 2012, 354, 3445 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(c) C. Shao, G. Cheng, D. Su, J. Xu, X. Wang and Y. Hu, Adv. Synth. Catal., 2010, 352, 1587 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(d) G. C. Kuang, P. M. Guha, W. S. Brotherton, J. T. Simmons, L. A. Stankee, B. T. Nguyen, R. J. Clark and L. Zhu, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2011, 133, 13984 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(e) B. R. Buckley, S. E. Dann and H. Heaney, Chem.–Eur. J., 2010, 16, 6278 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(f) K. Kamata, Y. Nakagawa, K. Yamaguchi and N. Mizuno, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2008, 130, 15304 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
-
(a) J. Wang, Z. Shao, K. Ding, W. Y. Yu and A. S. C. Chan, Adv. Synth. Catal., 2009, 351, 1250 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(b) M. Panera, J. Díez, I. Merino, E. Rubio and M. P. Gamasa, Inorg. Chem., 2009, 48, 11147 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- A3-coupling using primary amine as substrate is much more difficult and only limited examples was reported:
(a) J. B. Bariwal, D. S. Ermolat'ev and E. V. Van der Eycken, Chem.–Eur. J., 2010, 16, 3281 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(b) N. Mont, V. P. Mehta, P. Appukkuttan, T. Beryozkina, S. Toppet, K. Van Hecke, L. Van Meervelt, A. Voet, M. Demaeyer and E. V. Van der Eycken, J. Org. Chem., 2008, 73, 7509 CrossRef CAS PubMed;
(c) J. S. Yadav, B. V. S. Reddy, V. Naveenkumar, R. S. Rao and K. Nagaiah, New J. Chem., 2004, 28, 335 RSC;
(d) L. Shi, Y. Q. Tu, M. Wang, F. M. Zhang and C. A. Fan, Org. Lett., 2004, 6, 1001 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
Footnote |
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: Experimental details and characterization data. See DOI: 10.1039/c5ra04729c |
|
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 |
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.