April 29, 2024, 11:09:35 AM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Problem of the Week II  (Read 5852 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nkenton

  • New Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-0
Problem of the Week II
« on: February 08, 2012, 08:46:20 PM »
Justify the transformation (from Overman's strychnine synthesis):

Have fun!

Hint: Think "named reactions"

Offline nkenton

  • New Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-0
Re: Problem of the Week II
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2012, 08:46:46 PM »
This was formed in 98% yield apparently

Offline Alberto_Kravina

  • Assault Chemist
  • Retired Staff
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 608
  • Mole Snacks: +70/-15
Re: Problem of the Week II
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2012, 02:57:07 AM »
that's really a good one, it was even on our natural product synthesis exam and is a perfect way to make 3-acyl-pyrrolidines. cheers  8)

Offline Dan

  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4716
  • Mole Snacks: +469/-72
  • Gender: Male
  • Organic Chemist
    • My research
Re: Problem of the Week II
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2012, 03:57:23 AM »
Can I ask if there are any other oxidising agents present, because I'm struggling to get up to the ketone level. I don't want to check the paper myself because it would spoil the fun.

So far I've formed an iminium between the amine and the formaldehyde and done an aza-Cope. Problem is my product doesn't seem to have the required electronics to form the architecture of the final compound, because my alkene is polarised the wrong way. I feel like there needs to be some oxygen in the starting material. If there was a lone pair donor substituent (OH, NH, SH etc.) at the allylic position then I can see what's happening, but for now I'm stumped.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2012, 04:09:10 AM by Dan »
My research: Google Scholar and Researchgate

Offline Alberto_Kravina

  • Assault Chemist
  • Retired Staff
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 608
  • Mole Snacks: +70/-15
Re: Problem of the Week II
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2012, 04:13:23 PM »
Can I ask if there are any other oxidising agents present, because I'm struggling to get up to the ketone level. I don't want to check the paper myself because it would spoil the fun.

So far I've formed an iminium between the amine and the formaldehyde and done an aza-Cope. Problem is my product doesn't seem to have the required electronics to form the architecture of the final compound, because my alkene is polarised the wrong way. I feel like there needs to be some oxygen in the starting material. If there was a lone pair donor substituent (OH, NH, SH etc.) at the allylic position then I can see what's happening, but for now I'm stumped.

good point, didn't even notice it since I already knew the reaction and did not look carefully at the given starting material. an OH group is missing in the allylic position, Tandem Aza-Cope-M_ _ _ _ _ _ (didn't want to spoil it for other people)

Offline stewie griffin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
  • Mole Snacks: +61/-7
Re: Problem of the Week II
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2012, 09:44:29 PM »
Any time I see a Nitrogen, paraformaldehyde, and Overman's name I automatically think Aza-Cope-Mannich  :)

Offline Honclbrif

  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 659
  • Mole Snacks: +58/-10
  • Gender: Male
Re: Problem of the Week II
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2012, 01:21:39 PM »
Ok, I'm not getting to the end on this one. Here's what I've got so far:

Imine formation followed by Aze-Cope Mannich. After that, elimination to restore aromaticity? Then I've got nothing. I have no idea where the oxygen comes from. Have I been on the right track so far?
Individual results may vary

Offline Dan

  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4716
  • Mole Snacks: +469/-72
  • Gender: Male
  • Organic Chemist
    • My research
Re: Problem of the Week II
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2012, 06:59:00 AM »
Yeah, that is exactly what I was doing. The architecture of the final product is incorrect though. If the double bond was polarised in the opposite direction - by the presence of an oxygen atom, if it was an enol - then the product architecture would be correct and it would form a ketone. I think there's a hydroxyl substituent missing in the starting material, I think there should be an allylic alcohol in it - hopefully the OP can clear this up?
My research: Google Scholar and Researchgate

Offline Honclbrif

  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 659
  • Mole Snacks: +58/-10
  • Gender: Male
Re: Problem of the Week II
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2012, 03:12:27 PM »
There is a missing hydroxyl!

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja00073a057

Compound 13.
Individual results may vary

Sponsored Links