borinic acid-catalyzed sulfation and boronic acid-promoted ......work on utilizing boronic acids as...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Borinic Acid-Catalyzed Sulfation and Boronic Acid-Promoted Esterification of Carbohydrates
by
Yu Chen Lin
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science
Department of Chemistry University of Toronto
© Copyright by Yu Chen Lin 2017
-
ii
Borinic Acid-Catalyzed Sulfation and Boronic Acid-Promoted
Esterification of Carbohydrates
Yu Chen Lin
Master of Science
Department of Chemistry University of Toronto
2017
Abstract
Carbohydrates and their O-sulfates play important roles in biological functions, including cellular
recognition and adhesion, neural processes, fibrosis, growth factor regulation, cancer metastasis,
and cellular entry of viruses. However, preparation of sulfated carbohydrates remains a synthetic
challenge with conventional methods requiring lengthy protection and deprotection steps.
Described herein is our work toward the development of a method for the regioselective sulfation
of fully unprotected carbohydrates using a borinic acid catalyst. Via an activated 1,2-cis-borinate
intermediate, our method was shown to be robust in the sulfation of a range of substrates, including
the synthesis of a sulfated galactosylceramide found in mammalian nervous systems. In addition,
work on utilizing boronic acids as protective groups for the preparation of sugar fatty acid ester
surfactants is also discussed.
-
iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Mark Taylor, for the opportunity to join his lab,
and his continued support in my studies, research, and pursuits.
I am also very grateful to all the Taylor lab members whom I’ve had the pleasure of meeting and
working together with. You have all made me feel so at home here, and although it has only been
a year, the great memories I’ve had here will stay with me long after. Furthermore, I’d like to give
a shout out to my friends in and around the Department for every laughter and drink we’ve shared.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their unconditional love and support throughout the
years and during my degree.
-
Table of Contents Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... vii
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................1
1.1 Sulfated carbohydrates ...................................................................................................1
1.2 Direct, regioselective synthesis of sulfated carbohydrates ............................................4
1.3 Synthesis of sulfated carbohydrates via masked sulfates ............................................11
1.4 Organoboron compounds in carbohydrate chemistry ..................................................18
1.5 Scope of Thesis ............................................................................................................20
Chapter 2 Regioselective, catalytic sulfation of unprotected carbohydrates ....................21
2.1 Sulfation of carbohydrates with 2,2,2-trichloroethyl chlorosulfate .............................21
2.2 Sulfation of carbohydrates with alkyl and aryl 1,2-dimethylimidazolium salt ............22
2.3 Sulfation of carbohydrates with sulfur trioxide amine complexes ..............................29
2.4 Summary and future work ...........................................................................................32
2.5 Experimental ................................................................................................................33
2.5.1. General Information .........................................................................................33
2.5.2. General Procedure A ........................................................................................34
2.5.3. Preparation of catalyst and carbohydrate substrates ........................................34
2.5.4. Synthesis and characterization of compounds .................................................36
Chapter 3 Boronic acid-promoted Fischer esterification ..................................................47
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................47
3.2 Chemical synthesis of sugar fatty acid esters ..............................................................49
-
v
3.3 Summary ......................................................................................................................51
3.4 Experimental ................................................................................................................51
3.4.1 General Information .........................................................................................51
3.4.2 General Procedure B ........................................................................................52
3.4.3 Synthesis and characterization of compounds .................................................52
Appendices ...............................................................................................................................58
A1.NMR spectra of reported compounds ..........................................................................58
-
vi
List of Tables Table 01. Optimization of methyl 6-O-TBS-α-D-mannopyranoside sulfation with 2,2,2-TCE chlorosulfate ..................................................................................................................................22
Table 02. Optimization of methyl α-L-rhamnopyranoside sulfation with TCE-sulfuryl 1,2- dimethylimidazolium triflate .........................................................................................................24
Table 03. Solvent screen of methyl α-L-rhamnopyranoside sulfation with TCE-sulfuryl 1,2- dimethylimidazolium triflate .........................................................................................................25
Table 04. Boronic acid/Lewis base co-catalyst for sulfation of methyl α-L-rhamnopyranoside ....26
Table 05. Optimization of methyl α-L-rhamnopyranoside sulfation with arylsulfuryl 1,2-dimethylimidazolium triflate .........................................................................................................28
Table 06. Optimization of methyl α-D-mannopyranoside sulfation with sulfur trioxide amine complex .........................................................................................................................................30
Table 07. Optimization of n-octyl α-D-galactopyranoside sulfation with sulfur trioxide amine
complex .........................................................................................................................................31
Table 08. Substrate scope of carbohydrate sulfation with SO3-Me3N ...........................................32
Table 09. Substrate scope for fatty acid and sugar alcohol esterification .......................................50
-
vii
List of Figures Figure 01. Structure of select naturally occurring sulfated carbohydrates .......................................2
Figure 02. Structure of the major tri-sulfated disaccharide repeat unit in heparin ...........................3
Figure 03. Structure of heparin derivatives .....................................................................................4
Figure 04. Conventional routes to access various patterns of carbohydrate sulfation ......................5
Figure 05. Transient boronate ester protection in the regioselective sulfation of steroids ...............6
Figure 06. Temperature-dependent regioselective sulfation of galactoside ....................................7
Figure 07. Effect of SO3-amine complexes in the sulfation of trimethylsilyl cellulose ...................8
Figure 08. Regioselective sulfation with dibutyltin oxide of 1,2-cis-diol and 1,2-cis-dioxy ...........9
Figure 09. Regioselective sulfation with dibutyltin oxide of 1,3-cis-diol ......................................10
Figure 10. Regioselective sulfation with dibutyltin oxide in the absence of 1,2-cis-diol ...............10
Figure 11. Routes of nucleophilic attack on a carbohydrate sulfate diester ...................................11
Figure 12. Preparation and unmasking of phenyl sulfate diesters ..................................................12
Figure 13. Preparation and unmasking of alkyl sulfate diesters, a) sulfation with iBu/nP
chlorosulfate, b) unmasking of iBu sulfate diesters, c) unmasking of nP sulfate diesters ...............13
Figure 14. Preparation and unmasking of trifluoroethyl sulfate diesters .......................................14
Figure 15. Stability of TFE-masked sulfate diester to further functionalizations ..........................15
Figure 16. Deprotection of TFE-masked sulfate diesters ..............................................................16
Figure 17. Preparation and unmasking of trichloroethyl sulfate diesters .......................................17
Figure 18. Regioselective TCE-masked sulfation of unprotected carbohydrates ..........................18
Figure 19. Tetracoordinate organoboron activation of diols for regioselective functionalization .19
-
viii
Figure 20. Synthesis of trichloroethyl chlorosulfate .....................................................................21
Figure 21. Synthesis of 2,2,2-trichloroethoxysulfuryl 1,2-dimethylimidazolium salts .................23
Figure 22. Sulfation with pre-formed cyclic arylboronate of methyl α-L-rhamnopyranoside .......26
Figure 23. Preparation of alkyl- and arylsulfuryl 1,2-dimethylimidazolium triflate .....................27
Figure 24. Decomposition study of 2.08, 2.18, 2.19 in CD3CN; A: 2.08 in 1 equiv. 1,2-
dimethylimidazole; B: 2.08 in 1 equiv. DIPEA; C: 2.18 in 1 equiv. DIPEA; D: 2.18 in 1 equiv. 3
MS-dried DIPEA; E: 2.19 in 1 equiv. DIPEA; F: 2.19 in 1 equiv. 3 MS-dried DIPEA .........29
Figure 25. Structure of select fatty acids and sugar alcohols .........................................................47
Figure 26. Preparation of sugar fatty acid esters with lipases ........................................................49
-
List of Abbreviations
Ac acetyl
app apparent Bn benzyl
br broad
Bu butyl
Bz benzoyl calcd. calculated
Cp cyclopentadienyl
CSA (1S)-(+)-10-camphorsulphonic acid d doublet
DAST (diethylamino)sulfur trifluoride
DBU 1,8-diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene
DCM dichloromethane
dec. decomposed
DIPEA N-N-diisopropylethylamine DMA N-N-dimethylacetamide
DMAP 4-(dimethylamino)pyridine
DMF N-N-dimethylformamide DMPU 1,3-dimethyl-3,4,5,6-tetrahydro-2(1H)-pyrimidinone equiv equivalents
ESI electrospray ionization
Et ethyl GML glycerol monolaurate h hour
hept heptet
HIV human immunodeficiency virus
HMDS bis(trimethylsilyl)amide
-
x
HMPA hexamethylphosphoramide
HRMS high-resolution mass spectra iBu isobutyl
Im imidazole
iPr isopropyl
IR infrared m multiplet (NMR), medium (IR)
m meta
Me methyl
min minute
MP 4-methoxyphenyl
Ms methanesulfonyl
MS molecular sieve NBS N-bromosuccinimide NMP N-methylpyrrolidine
NMR nuclear magnetic resonance
nP neopentyl o ortho p pentet
p para
Ph phenyl
Piv pivaloyl
PMB para-methoxybenzyl
PMP 1,2,2,6,6-pentamethylpiperidine
ppm parts per million q quartet rt room temperature s singlet (NMR), strong (IR)
SFAE sugar fatty acid ester
SIV simian immunodeficiency virus
-
xi
t triplet
TBAF tetrabutylammonium fluoride
TBS tert-butyldimethylsilyl tBu tert-butyl
TCE 2,2,2-trichloroethyl
TDS thexyl-dimethylsilyl
Tf trifluoromethanesulfonyl
TFA trifluoroacetic acid
TFE 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl
THF tetrahydrofuran
TMS trimethylsilyl
TREAT-HF triethylamine trihydrofluoride UV ultraviolet w weak
-
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Carbohydrates present a wealth of diverse structures derived from joining together
monosaccharides, primarily in their pyranose or furanose forms. These structures can undergo
further functionalization such as alkylation, macrocyclization, phosphorylation, and sulfation.
Their structural diversity is mirrored by their broad range of biological functions and properties,
from energy storage as starch and structural support as cellulose, to cellular recognition and other
intercellular functions as glycolipids and glycoproteins.
The monosaccharides that make up complex carbohydrate structures contain several hydroxyl
groups that differ in their stereochemical arrangements. Site selectivity among similar hydroxyl
groups presents a difficult challenge for chemical modification. However, certain distinguishing
features among monosaccharides have been exploited. Reactivity differences among amines,
primary and secondary hydroxyl groups allow for site-selective modifications. cis-Diols present
in mannose and galactose can be used to distinguish between two secondary hydroxyl groups.
Differences between axial and equatorial hydroxyl groups can be used to influence stereochemical
outcomes.
1.1 Sulfated carbohydrates Sulfated carbohydrates are common in nature and play key roles in biological functions (Figure
01). Dermatan sulfate 1.01, found in skin and blood vessels, plays a role in coagulation and
fibrosis.1 Heparan sulfate 1.02, found on all cell surfaces, is a proteoglycan that functions in cell
adhesion, blood coagulation, and growth factor regulation.1 Sulfated sialyl-Lewisx 1.03, found on
cell surfaces, binds preferentially to lymphocyte cell-adhesion molecule L-selectin2 and has been
1 Capila, I.; Linhardt, R. J. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 390-412.
2 Julien, S.; Ivetic, A.; Grigoriadis, A.; QiZe, D.; Burford, B.; Sproviero, D.; Picco, G.; Gillett, C.; Papp, S. L.;
Schaffer, L. Cancer Res. 2011, 71, 7683-7693.
-
2
shown to play a role in bladder urothelial carcinoma metastasis.3 Sulfated galactosylceramide 1.04,
found in the myelin sheath of nerve cells, play various functions in the nervous system. Abnormal
expression of these sulfoglycolipids is associated with neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s
and Parkinson’s diseases.4 These sulfoglycolipids are also involved in the progression of other
illnesses such as diabetes mellitus and the cellular entry of HIV-1.5
Figure 01. Structure of select naturally occurring sulfated carbohydrates.
Perhaps the most well-known sulfated carbohydrates belong to the heparin polysaccharide family
(Figure 02). Discovered in 1916, naturally occurring heparin contains on average 25 units of the
disaccharide 1.05, giving a molecular weight of 5–40 kDa.1 It is the biological macromolecule
with the highest density of negative charge due to its sulfate and carboxylate groups. Heparin
3 Taga, M.; Hoshino, H.; Low, S.; Imamura, Y.; Ito, H.; Yokoyama, O.; Kobayashi, M. Urol. Oncol.: Semin. Orig.
Invest. 2015, 33, 496.e1-496.e9. 4 Eckhardt, M. Mol. Neurobiol. 2008, 37, 93-103.
5 Compostella, F.; Panza, L.; Ronchetti, F. C. R. Chim. 2012, 15, 37-45.
OO O
OH-O3SO
NHAc
O OHO
OSO3-HOOC
Dermatan sulfate 1.01
O-O3SO
O
OSO3-
O
AcHNO
OHO
OSO3-HOOC
OHO
OH
AcHN
OO
OH
HOOCOO
Heparan sulfate 1.02
OAcHN
COOH
OH
OH
HOHO
OO O
OSO3-OH
OH
OO OH
OH
NHAc
OOH
OHOH
6-Sulfo sialyl-Lewisx 1.03
OO
-O3SO
OHOH
OHC13H27
OH
HN fatty acid
O
Sulfated galactosylceramide 1.04
-
3
initiates the blood coagulation cascade by binding to enzyme antithrombin III, which then
inactivates thrombin and other proteases.1
Figure 02. Structure of the major tri-sulfated disaccharide repeat unit in heparin.
First approved in 1939, heparin sodium salt is an anticoagulant drug administered through
intravenous catheter or as an injection. It remains one of the oldest pharmaceutical drugs that is
still in use. Pharmaceutically relevant effects aside from anticoagulation include anti-inflammatory
properties for the treatment of ulcerative colitis and relief of obstructive pulmonary diseases like
asthma.6 Most pharmaceutical-grade heparin on the market is isolated from animal tissues,
particularly from porcine intestine or bovine lungs. However, the sulfation pattern of livestock-
grown heparin is variable and difficult to control, and the extracted heparin is prone to viral and
bacterial contamination. Recently, mammalian cell production of heparin using the Chinese
hamster ovary cell lines have been shown to be a safer and more robust alternative.6,7
Due to the success of heparin as a drug, a number of derivatives and low-molecular weight
analogues have been studied. Fondaparinux 1.06, a pentasaccharide marketed by
GlaxoSmithKline, was approved in 2001 as an anticoagulant (Figure 03).8 Fondaparinux has
advantages over heparin in that the former has a longer half-life, thus requiring a lower dosage.
6 Oduah, E. I.; Linhardt, R. J.; Sharfstein, S. T. Pharmaceuticals 2016, 9, 38.
7 Baik, J. Y.; Gasimli, L.; Yang, B.; Datta, P.; Zhang, F.; Glass, C. A.; Esko, J. D.; Linhardt, R. J.; Sharfstein, S. T.
Metab. Eng. 2012, 14, 81-90. 8 Bauer, K. A.; Hawkins, D. W.; Peters, P. C.; Petitou, M.; Herbert, J. M.; Boeckel, C. A. A.; Meuleman, D. G.
Cardiovasc. Ther. 2002, 20, 37-52.
O
O
OSO3-
O
-O3SHN
O OHO
OSO3--OOCHO
Heparin 1.05
-
4
Pentosan polysulfate 1.07, a plant-derived oligosaccharide, exhibits anti-HIV activity.9 Heparin
tetrasaccharide 1.08, with increased oral bioavailability, has anti-allergic activity and is being
studied for the treatment of asthma.10
Figure 03. Structure of heparin derivatives.
1.2 Direct, regioselective synthesis of sulfated carbohydrates Synthesis of sulfated carbohydrates remains a challenge despite their long history of biologically
relevant properties. Sulfation is commonly carried out with sulfur trioxide-amine complexes,
together forming a Lewis acid-base adduct. These complexes are easier to handle than liquid sulfur
trioxide, which requires distillation prior to use. The relative reactivities of the SO3 complexes
9 Baba, M.; Nakajima, M.; Schols, D.; Pauwels, R.; Balzarini, J.; De Clercq, E. Antiviral Res. 1988, 9, 335-343. 10
Ahmed, T.; Smith, G.; Abraham, W. M. Pulm. Pharmacol. Ther. 2013, 26, 180-188.
O
OSO3-
O
-O3SHNHO
O
OSO3-OH
-OOCOH
O
O
OSO3-O
-OOCOH
OOH
OHOSO3-
Heparin tetrasaccharide 1.08
O
OSO3-O
OSO3-
n
Pentosan polysulfate 1.07
O
O
OSO3-
HO
-O3SHNHO
O O-OOC
OH
HOO
O
OSO3-
-O3SHN-O3SO
O
-OOC OSO3-HO
O
OMe
OSO3-
O
-O3SHNHO
Fondaparinux 1.06
-
5
generally vary inversely with the strength of the Lewis base component. Common complexes used
are listed in order of decreasing basicity: Me3N ≈ Et3N > pyridine > DMF.11
Conventional routes to sulfated carbohydrates consist of numerous protection and deprotection
steps. As exemplified in Figure 04, the synthesis of galactopyranoside monosulfate requires
multiple orthogonal protecting groups, functional group manipulation, and selective deprotection
to reveal the free hydroxyl at the position of interest for sulfation.12
Figure 04. Conventional routes to access various patterns of carbohydrate sulfation.12
To overcome lengthy protection/deprotection steps, methods for direct and regioselective sulfation
have been studied.13 Boronate ester protection was utilized by McLeod to transiently mask the cis-
diols of steroid 1.09 for selective functionalization at the remaining hydroxyl group.14 The
11
Gilbert, E. E. Chem. Rev. 1962, 62, 549-589. 12 Marinier, A.; Martel, A.; Banville, J.; Bachand, C.; Remillard, R.; Lapointe, P.; Turmel, B.; Menard, M.; Harte, W. E.; Wright, J. J. K. J. Med. Chem. 1997, 40, 3234-3247. 13 Al-Horani, R. A.; Desai, U. R. Tetrahedron 2010, 66, 2907-2918. 14
Hungerford, N. L.; McKinney, A. R.; Stenhouse, A. M.; McLeod, M. D. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2006, 4, 3951-3959.
OHO OR
OHHO
OH
OO OR
OHO
OH
OO OR
OSO3-O
OH
OO OR
OPivO
OH
OO OR
OPivO
OSO3-
OHO OR
OPivAcO
OPiv
SO3-amine
O-O3SO OR
OPivAcO
OPiv
OBzO OR
OBz
OO
Ph
OBzO OR
OPivOH
OBz
SO3-amine
OBzO OR
OPiv-O3SO
OBz
SO3-amineSO3-amine
6-O-monosulfate 2-O-monosulfate 3-O-monosulfate 4-O-monosulfate
-
6
boronate ester of 1.10 can then be cleaved to reveal the cis-diol in 1.11 for selective sulfation to
give 1.12 (Figure 05). Although this route still requires protecting groups, it reduces the number
of separate purification steps.
Figure 05. Transient boronate ester protection in the regioselective sulfation of steroids.14
A temperature-dependent regioselective sulfation of galactoside 1.14 was described by Kondo
(Figure 06).15 Sulfation performed at room temperature with SO3-pyridine yielded the 3,4-O-bis-
sulfate 1.15 while at 0 oC, the reaction afforded only the 4-O-sulfate 1.16 without observable 3-O-
or bis-sulfate. The 3-O-sulfate 1.18, however, could only be prepared after first protecting the C4-
hydroxyl group. This method was not shown to be generalizable to other sugar moieties or to be
applicable in the presence of exposed primary or C2-hydroxyl groups.
15 Tsukida, T.; Yoshida, M.; Kurokawa, K.; Nakai, Y.; Achiha, T.; Kiyoi, T.; Kondo, H. J. Org. Chem. 1997, 62, 6876-6881.
HO
OH
OH
H
1) PhB(OH)2, DMF/CH2Cl22) TBS-Cl, imidazole
TBSOH
H2O2, aq. NaOH
THF73% over 3 steps
OBO
Ph
TBSO
OH
OH
H
SO3-pyridineDMF, pyridine
61%
TBSO
OH
OSO3- +Na
H
80% AcOH/H2O
69%HO
OH
OSO3- +Na
H
1.09 1.10
1.11
1.121.13
-
7
Figure 06. Temperature-dependent regioselective sulfation of galactoside.15
Following up on previous reports of sulfate insertion into O-Si bonds,16,17 Richter showed that the
Lewis base used in the sulfate complex can be tuned to influence the regiochemical outcome
(Figure 07).18 Trimethylsilyl cellulose 1.19 with SO3-DMF preferentially yields the 6-O-sulfate
1.20 while SO3-Et3N preferentially yields the 2-O-sulfate 1.21. The authors rationalize this effect
by stating that the electron-donation of Et3N polarizes the O-S bond of its SO3 complex, promoting
insertion at the more polarized O-Si bond of the O-2 position. This electron-donating effect is
absent in the DMF complex, which favors the more sterically accessible position at O-6.
16 Stein, A.; Wagenknecht, W.; Philipp, B.; Klemm, D.; Schnabelrauch, M., German Patent DD 299313, 1989. 17 Wagenknecht, W.; Nehls, I.; Stein, A.; Klemm, D.; Philipp, B. Acta Polym. 1992, 43, 266-269. 18 Richter, A.; Klemm, D. Cellulose 2003, 10, 133-138.
OHO OR
OBzOH
OBz
SO3-pyridineDMF, rt
73%
SO3-pyridineDMF, 0 oC
73%
OHO OR
OBzAcO
OBz
SO3-pyridineDMF, 0 oC
90%
O-O3SO OR
OBzAcO
OBz
OHO OR
OBz-O3SO
OBz
O-O3SO OR
OBz-O3SO
OBz
1.14
1.17
1.15 1.16 1.18
-
8
Figure 07. Effect of SO3-amine complexes in the sulfation of trimethylsilyl cellulose.18
Dibutyltin oxide was employed by Flitsch in 1994 to facilitate the regioselective sulfation of 1.22
(Figure 08).19,20 The dibutylstannylene acetal 1.23 was first formed at the cis-diol group with
super-stoichiometric amount of dibutyltin oxide, followed by a solvent-switch and addition of SO3-
Me3N complex to afford the product of sulfation at the more sterically accessible position of the
19
Guilbert, B.; Davis, N. J.; Flitsch, S. L. Tetrahedron Lett. 1994, 35, 6563-6566. 20
Guilbert, B.; Davis, N. J.; Pearce, M.; Aplin, R. T.; Flitsch, S. L. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 1994, 5, 2163-2178.
OTMSO O
OTMS
OTMS
SO3-DMFTHF
SO3-Et3NTHF
OTMSO O
O
OTMS
SO
OO
SiO
TMSO O
OTMS
OSO
OO Si
NaOHMeOH
NaOHMeOH
OHO O
OSO3-
OH
OHO O
OH
OSO3-
major product, 1.20 major product, 1.21
1.19
-
9
1,2-cis-diol. The galactosylceramide glycolipid 1.24, found in mammalian nervous systems, was
synthesized in excellent yield. This strategy was also shown for disaccharides, including a
lactoside 1.25 to give the 3′-O-sulfate 1.26 as the major product with 10% of the 3′,6′-O-bis-sulfate
byproduct 1.27. In the absence of Bu2SnO, this reaction gave no observable 1.26. Maltosides 1.28
protected at the primary hydroxyl groups that do not possess a cis-diol were selectively 2′-O-
sulfated to give 1.29 in decent yield. The authors rationalize that the regioselectivity is due to either
the higher reactivity of the 2′-hydroxyl group or the C1′-C2′ cis-dioxy configuration. However,
they did not perform the control reaction to show that the maltoside sulfation is only regioselective
in the presence of Bu2SnO.
Figure 08. Regioselective sulfation with dibutyltin oxide of 1,2-cis-diol and 1,2-cis-dioxy.20
In 2004, Gelb adapted the method for the synthesis of 1.32, a fluorescent probe used in the assay
for screening newborns against Hunter syndrome, a disease caused by the deficiency of iduronate-
2-sulfatase (Figure 09).21 The dibutyltin oxide, in this case, binds to the 1,3-cis-diol of iduronic
ester 1.30, delivering the sulfate to the more nucleophilic O-2 affording 1.31.13
21
Blanchard, S.; Turecek, F.; Gelb, M. H. Carbohydr. Res. 2009, 344, 1032-1033.
OHO OR
OHOH
OH
Bu2SnO (1.5 equiv)
MeOHreflux, 2 h
ORO
O
OHO
OH
SnBu
BuSO3-Me3N (2 equiv)
THFrt, 4 h
1.2497%
O-O3SO OR
OHOH
OH
R =HN
OH
C13H27
O
C8H17
1.22 1.23
OHO
O
OHHO
OH
OOH
OH
OHSPh
1) Bu2SnO (1 equiv) MeOH, reflux, 2 h
2) SO3-Me3N (2 equiv) dioxane, rt, 30 h
ORO
O
OR′HO
OH
OOH
OH
OHSPh
1.25 1.26 R = SO3-, R′ = H1.27 R = SO3-, R′ = SO3-
76%10%
OOH
OTBS
OHO-allylO
OOH
OH
OO
Ph1) Bu2SnO (1 equiv) MeOH, reflux, 2 h
2) SO3-Me3N (2 equiv) dioxane, rt, 93 h
OOH
OTBS
OHO-allylO
OOH
-O3SO
OO
Ph
1.28 1.2956%
-
10
Figure 09. Regioselective sulfation with dibutyltin oxide of 1,3-cis-diol.21
In 2009, Kosma demonstrated the regioselective sulfation of xylopyranosides and xylotriosides.22
Low-molecular weight xylans and their sulfates have been shown to possess antithrombin23 and
antiasthmatic24 activities. With the dibutyltin oxide strategy, 1.33 and 1.35 gave the terminal 4-O-
sulfated products 1.34 and 1.36, respectively (Figure 10).22 However, this selectivity for substrates
without the presence of a cis-diol was not explained, and the remaining mass balance of the
sulfation of 1.35 was unaccounted for.
Figure 10. Regioselective sulfation with dibutyltin oxide in the absence of 1,2-cis-diol.22
Although activation with dibutyltin oxide has shown to be highly selective for sulfating the
equatorial hydroxyl of a cis-diol, it requires—at minimum—a stoichiometric amount of tin, long
reaction times (93 h to afford 1.29), and a two-step activation/sulfation process. That being said,
22
Abad-Romero, B.; Mereiter, K.; Sixta, H.; Hofinger, A.; Kosma, P. Carbohydr. Res. 2009, 344, 21-28. 23 Yamagaki, T.; Tsuji, Y.; Maeda, M.; Nakanishi, H. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 1997, 61, 1281-1285. 24 Kuszmann, J.; Medgyes, G.; Boros, S. Carbohydr. Res. 2005, 340, 1739-1749.
O
OHOH
O
MeOOCOH O O
O
NH
HNt-BuO
O 1) Bu2SnO (1.5 equiv) MeOH, reflux, 40 min
2) SO3-Me3N (1.5 equiv) DMF, 55 oC, 24 h O
OSO3-OH
O
MeOOCOH O O
O
NH
HNt-BuO
O
O
OSO3-OH
O
-OOCOH O O
O
NH
HNt-BuO
ONaOH
H2O
1.3261% over 2 steps
1.30 1.31
HO OHO
OHOMe
1) Bu2SnO (1.08 equiv) toluene, reflux, 15 h
2) SO3-Me3N (1.1 equiv) THF, rt, 48 h
-O3SOO
HOOH
OMe
O OHO
OHHO O
HOOH
O OHO
OHOMe
1) Bu2SnO (4 equiv) toluene, reflux, 15 h
2) SO3-Me3N (3.2 equiv) THF, rt, 72 h
O OHO
OH
-O3SOO
HOOH
O OHO
OHOMe
1.33 1.3474%
1.35 1.3627%
-
11
direct sulfation of carbohydrates presents a concise and efficient alternative to traditional
protecting group-based methods. However, this strategy is often only applicable as the final step
in a complex synthesis. The highly polar sulfated products are insoluble in organic solvents,
making them difficult to purify and manipulate for subsequent elaborations. To this end, masked
sulfates have been devised.
1.3 Synthesis of sulfated carbohydrates via masked sulfates Masked sulfates, or protected sulfate esters, provide a way to address the issues of sulfated
products, allowing for chemical transformations of the molecule elsewhere. Following appropriate
transformations, the sulfate can be unmasked to reveal the desired product. These masked sulfates
must be stable to conventional purification techniques and survive a wide range of reaction
conditions including, in particular, the deprotection conditions of other functional groups on the
molecule.
Sulfate diesters have generally been used, providing the added benefit of a spectroscopic handle
that is compatible with common characterization techniques. Sulfate diesters are prone to
nucleophilic attack and substitution at one of three possible sites (Figure 11).25 Substitution via
Route A leading to desulfation is generally slow, particularly on a carbohydrate’s secondary
hydroxyl group. Design of sulfate diesters would ideally disfavor attack on the sulfur center (Route
B), or premature deprotection of the ester (Route C).
Figure 11. Routes of nucleophilic attack on a carbohydrate sulfate diester.25
25
Proud, A. D.; Prodger, J. C.; Flitsch, S. L. Tetrahedron Lett. 1997, 38, 7243-7246.
SO O
O OR carbohydrate
NuA
BC
-
12
Perlin first introduced phenyl chlorosulfate as a masked sulfating group for carbohydrates.26 The
stable phenyl chlorosulfate is synthesized from phenol, sodium hydroxide, and sulfuryl chloride
in high yields. After reaction with 1.37 (Figure 12), unmasking of the sulfate diester 1.38 was
achieved by catalytic hydrogenolysis of the phenyl group to a cyclohexyl group, followed by alkyl
fission to give 1.39. Although yields for unmasking the phenyl group were not reported, the authors
stated that about 10% desulfation had occurred. The phenyl-masked sulfate is stable to the
TFA/CHCl3 conditions used to deprotect the 5,6-O-isopropylidene group, and also stable to 1:1
Ac2O:H2SO4, which was used to deprotect both isopropylidene groups. However, this method is
not compatible with functional groups sensitive to base and hydrogenolysis.
Figure 12. Preparation and unmasking of phenyl sulfate diesters.26
Alkyl-masked sulfating groups have been described by Widlanski with particular emphasis on
isobutyl (iBu) and neopentyl (nP) chlorosulfates.27 The carbohydrate 1.37 was first stirred in
NaHMDS, followed by the addition of the masked chlorosulfate to give sulfated products 1.40 and
1.41 (Figure 13a). Sulfation with iBu chlorosulfate was slower and required large excess of the
chlorosulfate, while sulfation with nP chlorosulfate required DMPU as a co-solvent. The stabilities
of the sulfates were studied using phenyl iBu or nP sulfate diesters as model substrates. The iBu
sulfate diester degraded completely in 6% piperidine after 24 h, but was relatively stable in 50%
TFA (7.1% degradation after 24 h). No degradation of the nP sulfate diester was observed in 20%
piperidine, versus 6.9% degradation in 50% TFA after 24 h. Both sulfate diesters were stable under
26
Penney, C. L.; Perlin, A. S. Carbohydr. Res. 1981, 93, 241-246. 27
Simpson, L. S.; Widlanski, T. S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 1605-1610.
OOH
OO
OO
1) NaH, THF, 30 min
2)SO
OClPhO , 20 h
OO
OO
OO
SOPh
O O
1.3875%
K2CO3, PtO2, H2
EtOH, H2O, 20 h
OOSO3-
OO
OO
1.37 1.39
-
13
conditions used to deprotect benzyl and isopropylidene groups (hydrogenolysis with Pd/C and H2,
and acidification with aq. H2SO4/THF)
Figure 13. Preparation and unmasking of alkyl sulfate diesters, a) sulfation with iBu/nP
chlorosulfate, b) unmasking of iBu sulfate diesters, c) unmasking of nP sulfate diesters.27
Unmasking of the diester was examined through Route C (Figure 11) via the attack of a small
nucleophile on the alkyl group to reveal the sulfated carbohydrate. iBu sulfate diester 1.42 was
unmasked cleanly in the presence of NaI at elevated temperatures to give 1.43 (Figure 13b). nP
sulfate diester 1.44, however, was more difficult to unmask due to its increased bulk. Under the
same deprotection conditions for the iBu sulfate diester, the nP sulfate diester 1.44 yielded no
OOH
OO
OO
1) NaHMDS, THF
2) ClSO2OiBu (5–10 equiv), −15 oCor
ClSO2OnP (1 equiv), DMPU, −75oC
OO
OO
OO
SOR
O O
1.40 R = iBu 95%1.41 R = nP 95%
OiBu-O3SO
OH
HO
OH OH
NaI
acetone, 55 oCO
-O3SO
OH
HO
OH OH1.4397%
a)
b)
c)
NaI
acetone, 55 oC
OOSO3-nP
OO
OO
no reaction
OnP-O3SO
OH
HO
OH OH
O
OH
HO
OH OHN3
OOSO3-nP
OO
OO
OOSO3-
OO
OO
NaN3
DMF, 70 oC
NaN3
DMF, 70 oC
1.3998%
1.37
1.42
1.44
1.44
1.45 1.46
-
14
reaction (Figure 13c). NaN3 was found to be able to unmask the nP sulfate diester of the
glucofuranose sulfate 1.44 to give 1.39, but led to the azide substitution product of the
glucopyranose sulfate 1.45 to give 1.46. Although the method shown by Widlanski were not
generally applicable and showed limited scope, it does offer a masked-sulfate approach with the
potential for alkyl group manipulation to tune the reactivity of the masked sulfate.
Trihaloethyl-masked sulfates have also long been considered as an alternative to aryl-masked
sulfates. Trifluoroethyl (TFE) and trichloroethyl (TCE) are thought to hinder Routes B and C
(Figure 11) compared to alkyl and aryl masking groups due to both steric and electronic reasons.
TCE esters have been used in the protection of phosphate and carboxyl groups, and removed
selectively by Zn/AcOH. Flitsch sought to extend trihaloethyl masking to the sulfation of
carbohydrates.25 Focusing initially on TCE-masked sulfates, the authors were unable to sulfate
carbohydrates in sufficiently high yields for further studies, citing steric hindrance of the trichloro
group. Switching direction to TFE-masked sulfates, the authors were unable to introduce the TFE-
sulfate in one step from the TFE-chlorosulfate. Instead, the carbohydrate 1.47 had to be first
sulfated with an SO3-amine complex, followed by TFE protection with 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane
in moderate yields (Figure 14). The TFE-sulfate diester 1.48 was stable to conditions including
hydrogenation, 20% TFA/EtOH, and NaOMe/MeOH used for isopropylidene deprotection. Harsh
conditions (reflux in t-BuOK/t-BuOH) were required for attack on the sulfur center and elimination
of TFE to give the unmasked sulfate 1.49. However, deprotection of TFE-sulfate diester on O-2
or O-3 positions resulted in sulfate migration to free, adjacent hydroxyl groups. Apart from
difficult deprotection, this masked sulfate strategy was not widely adopted in carbohydrate
synthesis due to the need for a two-step sulfation process and the potentially explosive nature of
trifluorodiazoethane.
Figure 14. Preparation and unmasking of trifluoroethyl sulfate diesters.25
1) SO3-pyridine, MeCN, 80 oC
2) F3C N2citric acid, MeCN, rt
1.4851%
OO
O
OHO
O
OO
O
OSO3TFEO
O OHO
OSO3-HO
OH OH
1) 4:1 TFA:EtOH rt, 2 h, 97%
2) t-BuOK, t-BuOH, reflux, 96%
1.47 1.49
-
15
Linhardt then showed the versatility and stability of TFE-masked sulfate diesters in subsequent
functionalizations. Sulfate diesters 1.50 and 1.52 were stable to either TBAF in AcOH or TREAT-
HF (Figure 15), thus demonstrating orthogonality to silyl protective groups.28 The masked sulfate
diesters were also stable to fluorination and glycosylation conditions, affording TFE-masked
sulfate disaccharides 1.54 and 1.56 in decent yields.
Figure 15. Stability of TFE-masked sulfate diester to further functionalizations.28
28
Karst, N. A.; Islam, T. F.; Linhardt, R. J. Org. Lett. 2003, 5, 4839-4842.
OBzO OTDS
OSO3TFE
O
N3
OBzO
OSO3TFE
O
N3
1) TBAF, AcOH, THF, −25 oC
2) DAST, DCM, , −30 oC
OBzO OTDS
OSO3TFEBnO
N3
F
1) TREAT-HF
2) DAST, DCM, −30 oC
1.5166%
1.5363%
OBzO
OSO3TFEBnO
N3 F
OBzO
OSO3TFEBnO
N3F
+O
O
O
OHO
OAgClO4, Cp2ZrCl2
4 Å MS, DCMO
O
O
OO
O
OBzO
OSO3TFEBnO
N3
1.5464%
OO
O
OHO
O+
BF3 Et2O
4 Å MS, DCM
OBzO
OBnTFEO3SO
N3O
NH
Cl3CO
O
O
OO
O
OBzO
OBnTFEO3SO
N3
1.5649%
1.50
1.52
1.53 1.47
1.55 1.47
OCl
OCl
-
16
Deprotection of TFE-masked sulfate diesters proved to be quite challenging.29 Previously reported
t-BuOK deprotection conditions were effective on monosaccharide 1.57 to give 1.58, but led to
the decomposition of disaccharide 1.59 (Figure 16). However, NaOMe/MeOH was found to be
able to unmask the diester of disaccharide 1.59 in good yields to give 1.60 with minimal
decomposition. Deprotection of TFE-masked bis-sulfate disaccharide 1.61 required a two step
process. Unmasking with NaOMe/MeOH gave 1.62 in excellent yield, but the harsher t-BuOK
reagent used in the second step gave 1.63 in only moderate yield, along with disaccharide
decomposition, desilylation, and desulfonation.
Figure 16. Deprotection of TFE-masked sulfate diesters.29
In 2004, Taylor re-visited Flitsch’s attempts to develop a method for TCE-masked sulfate diesters
and succeeded in sulfating aryl alcohols with TCE chlorosulfate.30 In follow-up reports of
extending this methodology to the sulfation of carbohydrate 1.47, the authors managed to
synthesize the sulfate diester 1.64 in approximately 50% yield, with the majority of the remaining
mass balance being the chlorosugar byproduct 1.65 (Figure 17). This result, in contrary to Flitsch’s
29
Karst, N. A.; Islam, T. F.; Avci, F. Y.; Linhardt, R. J. Tetrahedron Lett. 2004, 45, 6433-6437. 30
Liu, Y.; Lien, I. F. F.; Ruttgaizer, S.; Dove, P.; Taylor, S. D. Org. Lett. 2004, 6, 209-212.
OBnO OMP
OSO3TFE
OOPh t-BuOK, t-BuOH
OO
O
OO
O
OBzO
OBnTFEO3SO
N3 NaOMe, MeOH
OBnO OMP
OSO3-O
OPh
OBzO
OBnTFEO3SO
N3
OBnO OMP
OTBS
O
OSO3TFE
NaOMe, MeOHO
HO
OBn-O3SO
N3
OBnO OMP
OTBS
O
OSO3TFE
t-BuOK, t-BuOHO
HO
OBn-O3SO
N3
OBnO OH
OTBS
O
OSO3-
OO
O
OO
O
OHO
OBn-O3SO
N3
1.5882%
1.6070%
1.6290%
1.6350%
1.57
1.59
1.61
-
17
report in 1997,25 showed that TCE-sulfated carbohydrates could indeed be prepared in good yields.
Encouraged by this finding, Taylor designed a sulfating reagent that did not release an effective
nucleophilic species. With the optimized 1,2-dimethylimidazolium triflate salt 1.67 in hand, the
authors achieved TFE-masked sulfation of carbohydrate 1.66 to give 1.68 in high yields, as well
as deprotection of 1.68 under mild conditions with Zn or Pd/C and ammonium formate to give
1.58 (Figure 17).31 The sulfating reagent 1.67 was stable to prolonged storage at room temperature
and the TCE-masked sulfate diester 1.68 was stable to a range of reaction conditions:
NaOMe/MeOH and ZnCl2/AcOH/Ac2O for debenzylation and deacetylation, NBS in
acetone/water, DBU, and acidic conditions for benzylidene opening.
Figure 17. Preparation and unmasking of trichloroethyl sulfate diesters.31,32
Masked sulfation provides products that can be manipulated for further synthetic transformations.
However, despite these recent advances in the field of masked sulfation of carbohydrates, there
remains a need for a reliable method toward the regioselective installation of a masked sulfate
group, particularly on fully unprotected carbohydrates. In 2016, Kaji and Makino33 bridged that
gap by using the transient boronate ester protection for the regioselective sulfation of steroids
31
Ingram, L. J.; Desoky, A.; Ali, A. M.; Taylor, S. D. J. Org. Chem. 2009, 74, 6479-6485. 32
Ingram, L. J.; Taylor, S. D. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 3503-3506. 33
Fukuhara, K.; Shimada, N.; Nishino, T.; Kaji, E.; Makino, K. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2016, 2016, 902-905.
OO
O
OHO
O
SO
OClTCEO
AgCN, Et3N, DMAP, THF
OO
O
OSO3TCEO
O
OO
O
ClO
O
1.64~ 50%
+
OBnO OMP
OH
OOPh
SO
OTCEO N N
OTf
1,2-dimethylimidazoleDCM, 24 h
OBnO OMP
OSO3TCE
OOPh
1.6896%
Zn or Pd/CHCO2NH4
MeOH
OBnO OMP
OSO3-O
OPh
1.58with Zn: 94%
1.47 1.65
1.66
1.67
-
18
described previously14 and the TCE-masked sulfate developed by Taylor.31 In one pot, unprotected
carbohydrates 1.69 with 1,2-cis- or 4,6-diols are protected by phenylboronic acid, followed by
TCE-masked sulfation at the remaining hydroxyl group of 1.70, and transesterification of the
boronate ester with pinacol to reveal the TCE-masked sulfate carbohydrate 1.71 in good yields
(Figure 18).
Figure 18. Regioselective TCE-masked sulfation of unprotected carbohydrates.33
1.4 Organoboron compounds in carbohydrate chemistry As discussed previously, organoboron compounds have been used in carbohydrate chemistry for
functional group protection14,33 among other purposes.34 In addition, organoboron compounds in
their tetracoordinate state have been used for the activation of diols. As first described by Aoyama,
the phenylboronate ester of the 1,2-cis-diol of methyl α-L-fucopyranoside 1.72 can be activated
by an amine base to give the tetracoordinate complex 1.73 (Figure 19).35 It can then undergo
regioselective alkylation at the more accessible position to give 1.74. Other regioselective
transformations following this strategy have also been explored, including the glycosidation of
34
McClary, C. A.; Taylor, M. S. Carbohydr. Res. 2013, 381, 112-122. 35
Oshima, K.; Kitazono, E.-I.; Aoyama, Y. Tetrahedron Lett. 1997, 38, 5001-5004.
O
OR(HO)n
PhB(OH)2
DCMrt, 24–48 h
O
OR(HO)n
OOB
Ph
1)
SO
OTCEO N N
OTf
1,2-dimethylimidazole4 Å MS, THF or DCM20–24 h, 0 oC to rt
2) pinacol, DCM
O
OR(HO)n
TCEO3SO
Product:
OTCEO3SO O
OHHO
OH
OHO OMe
OH
HO
TCEO3SO
O
OH
TCEO3SO
OMe
OH
76% 74% 66% 72%
1.691.70 1.71
OOSO3TCE
OH
OMe
OH
-
19
unprotected carbohydrate 1.72, via the tetracoordinate complex 1.75, to give the disaccharide 1.76
(Figure 19).36
Figure 19. Tetracoordinate organoboron activation of diols for regioselective functionalization.34
Expanding on the reactivity of tetracoordinate boronates, our group has developed catalytic
versions employing borinic acid derivatives, avoiding the need for complexation with a Lewis
36
Oshima, K.; Aoyama, Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 2315-2316.
OOH
OH
OMe
OH
1) PhB(OH)2
2) Ag2O, Et3N benzene, reflux
OOH
O
OMe
O
B PhEt3N
n-BuI OOH
OH
OMe
On-Bu
1.7450%
OOH
OH
OMe
OH Ag2CO3Et4N+ I-, 4 Å MS
OOH
O
OMe
O
B
OOH
OH
OMe
O
1.7693%
O BOH
O
OAcO
Br
OAc
AcO
AcO
OAcO
OAc
AcO
AcO
OHO
OMe
OTBSHO
HO
BO
H2NPh
Ph(10 mol%)
BzCl, iPr2NEt
MeCNO
O
OMe
OTBSO
HO
BPhPh
BzO NHBz
OBzO
OMe
OTBSHO
HO
1.7995%
1.721.73
1.72
1.75
1.77 1.78
-
20
base. Catalytic, regioselective acylation,37 sulfonylation,38 alkylation,39 and glycosylation40 of
carbohydrates have since been accomplished. An example with 1.77 is shown in Figure 19,
forming the tetracoordinate complex 1.78, to give the regioselectively benzoylated product 1.79.
1.5 Scope of Thesis Carbohydrates and their O-sulfated derivatives have long been known to play important roles in
biology. With a growing number of carbohydrate drugs being approved in recent years, it follows
that concise and elegant approaches to the synthesis of carbohydrate derivatives, including O-
sulfates, are also increasingly needed. Furthermore, organoboron compounds have shown to be
powerful in imparting regiocontrol in carbohydrate functionalization, both as protecting and
activating groups.
The remainder of this thesis discusses my research on expanding the scope of borinic acid catalysis
and boronic ester protection in carbohydrate synthesis. Chapter 2 outlines the development of a
method for the regioselective sulfation of unprotected sugars. In contrast to previously described
sulfation methods, this synthesis employs catalytic borinic acid to effect direct sulfation with high
selectivity. Chapter 3 describes the use of boronic acids in Fischer esterification between sugar
alcohols and fatty acids for the preparation of surfactants. The esterification project outlined in this
last chapter was conducted in conjunction with a fellow laboratory group member, Sanjay Manhas,
and individual contributions to the joint work are delineated therein.
37 Lee, D.; Taylor, M. S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 3724-3727. 38
Lee, D.; Williamson, C. L.; Chan, L.; Taylor, M. S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 8260-8267. 39
Chan, L.; Taylor, M. S. Org. Lett. 2011, 13, 3090-3093. 40
Gouliaras, C.; Lee, D.; Chan, L.; Taylor, M. S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 13926-13929.
-
21
Chapter 2 Regioselective, catalytic sulfation of unprotected carbohydrates
As discussed in Chapter 1, although regioselective methods using stoichiometric amounts of
additives have been developed for direct sulfation, they are only suitable as the final step in a
synthesis due to the highly polar nature of the products. Masked sulfates, with their various
protective ester groups, address some of the issues of sulfated products but no regioselective
strategies have been developed for sulfation. My research began by employing the catalytic
method developed in our lab using borinic acid-activation of cis-diols to prepare TCE-masked
sulfates of carbohydrates.
2.1 Sulfation of carbohydrates with 2,2,2-trichloroethyl chlorosulfate
TCE chlorosulfate 2.02 was prepared according to literature41 in 84% yield from sulfuryl chloride
2.01 and 2,2,2-trichloroethanol (Figure 20).
Figure 20. Synthesis of trichloroethyl chlorosulfate.
Initial attempts for TCE-masked sulfation of 6-O-TBS-α-D-mannopyranoside 2.03 with 2.02,
catalyzed by the borinic ester pre-catalyst 2.04 yielded the cyclic sulfate 2.05 in low yields (Table
01). After the initial sulfation reaction, the sulfate diester presumably undergoes a rapid cyclization
with the adjacent free hydroxyl group on the carbohydrate. The 2,2,2-trichloroethoxide generated
in situ as a result of the cyclization may explain the intermolecular TBS migration product 2.06
observed under 1.5 equivalents of DIPEA or Et3N (Entries 1 and 5). However, the sugar without a
TBS-group was not able to be isolated cleanly for characterization. Furthermore, the strongly basic
41
Pitts, A. K.; O'Hara, F.; Snell, R. H.; Gaunt, M. J. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 5451-5455.
SO
Cl ClO
pyridine (1 equiv)Et2O (0.5 M)
1.5 h at −20 oC, then 0.5 h at rt
SO
O ClOCl3C
(1 equiv)2.01
2,2,2-trichloroethanol (1 equiv)
2.0284%
-
22
ethoxide could cause decomposition of the sulfating reagent 2.02, leading to low yields of sulfated
products. Decreasing the reaction time (Entry 2), using DCM as solvent (Entry 3), or using 1.1
equivalents of DIPEA (Entry 4) also gave cyclic sulfates with none of the desired, uncyclized
product observed. A preliminary base screen with Et3N and pyridine (Entries 5, 6) did not yield
any productive results. 1,2,2,6,6-Pentamethylpiperidine (PMP) was used as a bulky base (Entry 7)
in hopes of minimizing cyclic sulfate formation, but the TCE-masked sulfate diester was not
observed.
Table 01. Optimization of methyl 6-O-TBS-α-D-mannopyranoside sulfation with 2,2,2-TCE
chlorosulfate.
2.2 Sulfation of carbohydrates with alkyl and aryl 1,2-dimethylimidazolium salt
Following Taylor’s success using the sulfating reagent in the form of an imidazolium salt,31 we
synthesized the 2,2,2-trichloroethoxysulfuryl 1,2-dimethylimidazolium salts from the reaction of
2.02 with 2-methylimidazole to give 2.07, followed by methylation to give the
dimethylimidazolium salts (Figure 21). MeOTf gave high yields of 2.08, but methylation with MeI
or Me3OBF4 gave low conversion to 2.09 and 2.10, respectively, and were not pursued further.
OHO
HO
OH
OMe
TBSO
Base (1.5 equiv)2.04 (10 mol %)MeCN (0.2 M)
24 h, rt2.03
OHOO
O
OMe
OTBSSOO
OTBSOO
O
OMe
OTBSSOO
+
BaseEntry
2.05 2.06
2.03 Yield (%)a 2.04 Yield (%)a
DIPEADIPEA DIPEA DIPEAEt3N
pyridine 1,2,2,6,6-pentamethylpiperidine
4010636
2919
5---1--
12b3c4d567
aCrude 1H NMR yields were determined based on tetramethylsilane as an internal standard. b6 hour reaction time. cDCM used as solvent. d1.1 equivalents of 1.58 and DIPEA used.
2.042-aminoethyl phenylborinate
OB
NH2
Ph
Ph(1.5 equiv)
SO
O ClOCl3C
-
23
Figure 21. Synthesis of 2,2,2-trichloroethoxysulfuryl 1,2-dimethylimidazolium salts.
We then investigated TCE-masked sulfation with the imidazolium triflate salt using methyl α-L-
rhamnopyranoside as a model substrate for easier characterization compared to the TBS-protected
sugars and to avoid the possibility of silyl migration (Table 02). Conditions A with a tertiary amine
base for substrate/catalyst binding in MeCN were based on previously optimized conditions for
catalyst activity in our group.37 Conditions B with 1,2-dimethylimidazole as base in DCM at 0 oC
to room temperature were based on Taylor’s optimized conditions for TCE-sulfation.31 TCE-
masked sulfated rhamnopyranosides were observed, and a clear pattern of regioselectivity became
evident. With Conditions A, there is a slight preference for the 3-O-sulfated product 2.12 which
presumably goes through a tetracoordinate borinate complex, delivering the TCE-sulfate to the
more accessible, equatorial position at O-3. However, with Conditions B, background reaction in
the absence of catalyst was very prominent, with a slight preference for the 2-O-sulfated product
2.13. The catalyst did not appear to have a significant effect for Conditions B, affording neither an
increase in yield nor influence on regioselectivity. This may be due to the inability of 1,2-
dimethylimidazole to promote effective substrate binding to the borinic acid catalyst.
SO
OClTCEO
NHN
SO
OTCEO N N
MeOTf (1 equiv)SO
OTCEO N N
OTf
2.0776%
2.0882%
2.02
(3.6 equiv)
THF (0.025 M)1 h at 0 oC,
then 1 h at rt
Et2O (0.2 M)0 oC, 3 h
MeI (1 equiv)
THF (0.2 M)0 oC to rt, 4 d
Me3OBF4 (1 equiv)
THF (0.2 M)0 oC, 24 h
SO
OTCEO N N
I
2.09low conversion
SO
OTCEO N N
BF4
2.10low conversion
-
24
Table 02. Optimization of methyl α-L-rhamnopyranoside sulfation with TCE-sulfuryl 1,2-
dimethylimidazolium triflate.
Proceeding with the result that gave the most promising regioselectivity (Table 02, Entry 4,
Condition A), a solvent screen quickly revealed that amide solvents were essential (Table 03).
DMF and DMA gave the 3-O-sulfate 2.12 in improved regioselectivity (Entries 4, 5). A control
reaction in DMA without catalyst gave trace yields (Entry 6), showing that the borinic acid is
crucial. However, the switch to NMP did not prove to be productive (Entry 7). The use of solvent
mixtures, DMA/MeCN and DMA/H2O, also did not prove to be beneficial (Entries 8, 10). In an
attempt to improve yield, we increased the reaction temperature to 50 oC but were met with
decreased yield, although complete regiocontrol (Entry 9). This result was puzzling at the time,
and will be re-visited later on in the chapter.
OHOHO
OH
OMe
Conditions A or Conditions B
(1.5 equiv)SO
O NOCl3C N
OTf
OHOTCEO3SO OH
OMe
OHOHO
OSO3TCE
OMe
+
Equiv. of BaseEntry Yield (%)a with
Conditions AYield (%)a with Conditions B
123456
2.11 2.12 2.13
15243937354
2.12:2.13 Ratiowith Conditions A
2.12:2.13 Ratiowith Conditions BCatalyst (XX mol%)
no catalyst2.04 (10 mol%)2.14 (5 mol%)
2.15 (10 mol%)no catalyst
2.04 (10 mol%)
1:11:1
1.5:11.8:1
1:13:1
605450--
41
1:21:21:2.3
1:1.5
2.04
OB
NH2
Ph
Ph
2.14
O BBPh
Ph
Ph
Ph
2.15
B
O
OH
1.51.51.51.50.20.2
--
aCrude 1H NMR yields were determined based on tetramethylsilane as an internal standard. Product ratio determined by 1H NMR. Conditions A: catalyst (XX mol%), DIPEA (YY equiv), MeCN (0.2 M), 24 h, rt. Conditions B: catalyst (XX mol%), 1,2-dimethylimidazole (YY equiv), DCM (0.2 M), 24 h, 0 oC to rt.
-
25
Table 03. Solvent screen of methyl α-L-rhamnopyranoside sulfation with TCE-sulfuryl 1,2-
dimethylimidazolium triflate.
After further optimization of the reaction conditions (base, catalyst, various methods of reagent
addition) in DMA, we were unable to raise the yield of the desired 3-O-TCE-sulfated product 2.12
above 50% and achieved only modest regioselectivity. Turning to alternate modes of activation,
we looked at complexation induced activation with boronic acid derivatives. The pre-formed cyclic
arylboronate of methyl α-L-rhamnopyranoside 2.14 was hypothesized to be activated by an
external Lewis base (Et3N) through a tetracoordinate intermediate for sulfation (Figure 22).
However, the cyclic boronate acted as a protective group instead to give the 4-O-sulfate, followed
by hydrolysis of the boronate group during work-up to give 2.15. This showed that the competing
background sulfation reaction occurs very rapidly. In the presence of the relatively unreactive 4-
hydroxyl group, the direct sulfation reaction is more favorable than sulfation through the activated
boronate.
OHOHO
OH
OMe
2.15 (10 mol%)DIPEA (1.5 equiv)
Solvent (0.2 M)24 h, rt
(1.5 equiv)SO
O NOCl3C N
OTf
OHOTCEO3SO OH
OMe
OHOHO
OSO3TCE
OMe
+
2.11 2.12 2.13
Entry Yield (%)a
123456b789c10
3745541541
tracetrace3520-
2.12:2.13 RatioSolvent
MeCNDCMTHFDMFDMADMANMP
DMA/MeCN (1:1)DMA/MeCN (1:1)DMA/H2O (20:1)
1.8:11.2:11.2:14.3:14.3:1
1:11.6:1
>20:1
aCrude 1H NMR yields were determined based on tetramethylsilane as an internal standard. Product ratio determined by 1H NMR. bNo catalyst 2.15 used. cReaction performed at 50 oC.
-
-
-
26
Figure 22. Sulfation with pre-formed cyclic arylboronate of methyl α-L-rhamnopyranoside.
Revisiting previous work in our group of using electron-deficient boronic acids and Lewis base
co-catalyst system for the silylation of pyranosides,42 we sought to adapt those conditions for
regioselective sulfation. However, a brief screen of phosphine oxide and phosphoramide Lewis
bases with 3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenylboronic acid yielded no regioselectivity, though the 4-
O-sulfate was not isolated in this case (Table 04).
Table 04. Boronic acid/Lewis base co-catalyst for sulfation of methyl α-L-rhamnopyranoside.
42
Lee, D.; Taylor, M. S. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2013, 11, 5409-5412.
OHOO
O
OMe
B
F3C
OOHO
OH
OMe
SO
OOTCEEt3N (6 equiv)MeCN (0.2 M)
24 h, rt;aqueous work-up
2.1528%
2.14
(1.5 equiv)SO
O NOCl3C N
OTf
OHOHO
OH
OMe2.08 (1.5 equiv)
Lewis Base (20 mol%)DIPEA (1.5 equiv)
MeCN (0.2 M)24 h, rt
B(OH)2
F3C
F3C (20 mol%)
1234
1 : 1.21.1 : 1
1 : 1.11.2 : 1
35304133
n-Bu3P=OPh2MeP=O
Ph3P=OHMPA
OHOTCEO3SO OH
OMe
OHOHO
OSO3TCE
OMe
+
2.12 2.132.11
Entry Yield (%)a 2.12:2.13 RatioLewis Base
aCrude 1H NMR yields were determined based on tetramethylsilane as an internal standard. Product ratio determined by 1H NMR.
-
27
To evaluate the effects of the sulfate ester substituent on reactivity and selectivity, we attempted
to synthesize a series of alkyl- and arylsulfuryl 1,2-dimethylimidazolium triflate (Figure 23). The
reaction of sulfuryl chloride with phenol and para-methoxyphenol gave 2.14 and 2.15,
respectively, in good yields. However, the same reaction with benzyl alcohol, para-methoxybenzyl
alcohol, or sec-butyl alcohol gave products in trace yields or decomposed upon work-up or storage
under air at room temperature overnight. Previously attempts to prepare benzyl chlorosulfates were
reported to lead to the formation of polybenzyl,43 and thus benzyl and alkyl chlorosulfates were
not pursued further. Reaction of 2.14 and 2.15 with 2-methylimidazole gave 2.16 and 2.17,
respectively, and methylation gave the triflate salts 2.18 and 2.19, respectively, in good overall
yields.
Figure 23. Preparation of alkyl- and arylsulfuryl 1,2-dimethylimidazolium triflate.
Sulfation with 2.18 and 2.19 gave markedly better regioselectivity than with TCE-sulfuryl 1,2-
dimethylimidazolium triflate (Table 05). Amide solvents such as DMF and DMA were, again,
particularly effective (Entries 4-7 and 10) and the presence of catalyst was crucial (Entries 1, 3, 8).
The optimal conditions achieved gave 52% yield with 13:1 selectivity of 3-O-sulfate:2-O-sulfate
(Entry 6). However, this yield could not be improved further.
43
Gibbons, R. A.; Gibbons, M. N.; Wolfrom, M. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1955, 77, 6374-6374.
SO
Cl ClO
pyridine, Et2OSO
O ClO(1 equiv)
2.14 R = Ph2.15 R = p-OMePh R = Bn R = PMB R = sec-Bu
R-OHR
54%94%
decompositiondecomposition
trace
NHN
SO
OO N N S
O
OO N N
OTf(3.6 equiv)
R R
2.16 R = Ph2.17 R = p-OMePh
2.18 R = Ph2.19 R = p-OMePh
82%31%
73%82%
MeOTf(1 equiv)
THF Et2O
-
28
Table 05. Optimization of methyl α-L-rhamnopyranoside sulfation with arylsulfuryl 1,2-
dimethylimidazolium triflate.
A closer examination of the sulfating reagents revealed that 2.08, 2.18, and 2.19 underwent
appreciable base-mediated hydrolysis in deuterated acetonitrile, as monitored over time by 1H
NMR spectroscopy (Figure 24). The triflate salts, in the absence of base, were stable in solution
(50%
decomposition after 24 h. 2.18 with 1 equiv. of DIPEA (Figure 24, C) showed >60%
decomposition, while only 50% decomposition with 1 equiv. of DIPEA dried overnight with 3
molecular sieves (Figure 24, D). The greater disparity after 24 h was seen with 2.19 in the presence
of DIPEA (Figure 24, E, 52% decomposition) and 3 MS-dried DIPEA (Figure 24, F, 28%
decomposition). This base-mediated hydrolysis of the sulfuryl imidazolium triflates explains our
(1.5 equiv)
Catalyst (10 mol%)DIPEA (1.5 equiv)
Solvent (0.2 M)24 h, rt
OHOHO
OH
OMeSO
O NO N
OTf
R = H, 2.18123456b7R = p-OMe, 2.198910
no catalyst2.15
no catalyst2.152.152.152.15
no catalyst2.15 2.15
MeCNMeCNDMFDMFDMA
DMA/MeCN (1:1)DMA/MeCN (1:1)
MeCNMeCNDMA
2:18:1
>20:1>20:1
13:1>20:1
2:18:1
>20:1
29490
30365248
344820
R
aCrude 1H NMR yields were determined based on tetramethylsilane as an internal standard. Product ratio determined by 1H NMR. b3 equiv of 2.18 and DIPEA used instead.
Entry Yield (%)a 2.12:2.13 RatioCatalyst Solvent
OHOTCEO3SO OH
OMe
OHOHO
OSO3TCE
OMe
+
2.12 2.132.11
-
-
29
inability to increase sulfation yields by heating the reaction or increasing the concentration—both
changes presumably accelerated the decomposition of sulfating reagents to a greater extent than
they increased the rate of sulfation. Although rigorously drying the reaction mixture would, in
theory, prevent hydrolysis and decomposition of the sulfating reagent, we decided to place this
portion of the project on hold and focus instead on direct, regioselective sulfation without masking
groups.
Figure 24. Decomposition study of 2.08, 2.18, 2.19 in CD3CN; A: 2.08 in 1 equiv. 1,2-
dimethylimidazole; B: 2.08 in 1 equiv. DIPEA; C: 2.18 in 1 equiv. DIPEA; D: 2.18 in 1 equiv. 3
MS-dried DIPEA; E: 2.19 in 1 equiv. DIPEA; F: 2.19 in 1 equiv. 3 MS-dried DIPEA.
2.3 Sulfation of carbohydrates with sulfur trioxide amine complexes We began studying direct sulfation using methyl α-D-mannopyranoside 2.20 as a model substrate
(Table 06). In the absence of catalyst (Entry 1), the reaction mixture included unreacted starting
material and a distribution of O-sulfate and bis-sulfates. A brief catalyst screen (Entries 2-4)
revealed that the reaction is highly influenced by catalyst, with the product being predominantly
the 3-O-sulfate 2.21. This is particularly promising given the presence of a more reactive primary
hydroxyl group in the substrate. Replacing SO3-pyridine with SO3-Me3N (Entry 5) diminished
conversion but afforded a cleaner reaction. Increasing the temperature to 60 oC (Entry 6) and the
-
30
equivalence of sulfating reagent (Entry 7) gave increased yield while maintaining the
regioselectivity of sulfation. Further increasing the amount of sulfating reagent (Entry 8) was not
beneficial and afforded more over-sulfated products than the desired mono-3-O-sulfate (3-
OSO3:over-sulfation 3:1).
Table 06. Optimization of methyl α-D-mannopyranoside sulfation with sulfur trioxide amine
complex.
Further optimization was performed on n-octyl α-D-galactopyranoside to assess the efficiency of
sulfation on a more soluble substrate with the standard conditions set out previously (Table 06,
Entry 7). As discussed by Gilbert in 1962,11 the reactivities of sulfur trioxide amine complexes
vary inversely with the strength of the Lewis base component. A survey of conventional sulfur
trioxide amine complexes in our reaction, however, afforded the opposite trend (Table 07). SO3-
Et3N (Entry 2) gave higher conversion but the regioselectivity of sulfation suffered drastically (3-
OSO3:over-sulfation 0.6:1). Weaker Lewis base complexes (Entry 3, 4) gave low or no conversion.
Sulfating Reagent (XX equiv)
Catalyst (10 mol%)DIPEA
MeCN (0.2 M)3 h, Temperature
OHOHO
OH
OMe
HO
OHO-O3SO
OH
OMe
HO
aCrude 1H NMR yields were determined based on 1,3,5-trimethoxybenzene as an internal standard.
Entry Yield (%)aCatalystSulfating Reagent (XX equiv) Temperature (oC)
12345678
SO3-pyridine (1.5 equiv)SO3-pyridine (1.5 equiv)SO3-pyridine (1.5 equiv)SO3-pyridine (1.5 equiv)SO3-Me3N (1.5 equiv)SO3-Me3N (1.5 equiv)SO3-Me3N (3 equiv)
SO3-Me3N (4.5 equiv)
no catalyst2.142.152.162.152.152.152.15
4040404040606060
2831616627498067
2.14
O BBPh
Ph
Ph
Ph
2.15
B
O
OH2.22
B
S
OH
2.20 2.21
Conversion (%)a
7948827927499089
Equiv. of DIPEA
1.51.51.51.51.51.53
4.5
-
31
To test the hypothesis that a highly Lewis basic additive could accelerate the sulfation,
quinuclidine was added to the reaction with either SO3-Me3N (Entry 5) or SO3-DMF (Entry 6);
however, both changes were not fruitful.
Table 07. Optimization of n-octyl α-D-galactopyranoside sulfation with sulfur trioxide amine
complex.
With the optimized conditions in hand, we began to explore the substrate scope (Table 08). The
sulfated products as a trialkylamine salt were exchanged with DOWEX Na+-resin to give the final
product as a sodium salt. Substrates without primary hydroxyl groups gave sulfated products in
high yields (2.25, 2.26). Sulfation could also be performed in good yields in the presence of
primary hydroxyl groups for a wide range of manno- and galacto-derived pyranosides. No
significant difference in reactivity between α- and β-anomers of methyl-D-galactopyranoside was
observed (2.29 and 2.30). A known sulfated glycolipid 2.34 found in the mammalian nervous
system was also synthesized in good yield.
SO3-Me3N (3 equiv)
2.15 (10 mol%)DIPEA (3 equiv)MeCN (0.2 M)
3 h, 60 oC
OHO
O-Octyl
OHOH
OH
O-O3SO
O-Octyl
OHOH
OH
Entry Yield (%)aChanges to Above Conditions
123456
-SO3-Et3N (3 equiv) instead of SO3-Me3N
SO3-pyridine (3 equiv) instead of SO3-Me3NSO3-DMF (3 equiv) instead of SO3-Me3N
quinuclidine (3 equiv) as additiveSO3-DMF (3 equiv) instead of SO3-Me3N, quinuclidine (3 equiv) as additive
603617010
aCrude 1H NMR yields were determined based on 1,3,5-trimethoxybenzene as an internal standard.
2.23 2.24
Conversion (%)a
79>9551010
-
32
Table 08. Substrate scope of carbohydrate sulfation with SO3-Me3N.
2.4 Summary and future work In summary, a catalytic, regioselective sulfation method was outlined that tolerated a range of fully
unprotected carbohydrates. Our approach is similar to the one described by Flitsch in 199419,20 in
that both strategies utilize cis-diol activation to selectively functionalize at the equatorial hydroxyl
group. However, our method uses benign, organoboron compound in catalytic quantities as
opposed to toxic, organotin reagent in stoichiometric amounts. Furthermore, our one-step
O
OR(HO)n
SO3-Me3N (3 equiv)
2.15 (10 mol%)DIPEA (3 equiv)MeCN (0.2 M)
3 h, 60 oC
O
OR(HO)n
Na+ -O3SO
OOH
OH
OMe
OSO3- +Na
O
OH
HO
OMe
Na+ -O3SO
OHONa+ -O3SO
OH
OMe
HO
OHONa+ -O3SO
OH
SPh
HO
ONa+ -O3SO
OMe
OHOH
OH
ONa+ -O3SO OMe
OHOH
OH
O
Na+ -O3SO SiPr
OHOH
OH
ONa+ -O3SO
O
OHOH
OH
O
Na+ -O3SO
OHOH
AcHNOMe
OO
Na+ -O3SO
OHOH
OHC13H27
OH
HN C15H31
O
>99%2.25
72%2.26
65%2.27
54%2.28
53%2.29
57%2.30
57%2.31
54%2.32
46%2.33
42%a2.34
Reactions were performed at 0.1 mmol scale of substrate. Isolated yields are reported. aReaction was performed at 0.005 mmol scale of substrate with 6 equiv. SO3-Me3N, 40 mol% 2.15, 6 equiv. DIPEA, and 0.5 M MeCN.
-
33
sulfation/activation is achieved in drastically shorter reaction time compared to those reported
using the two-step process with dibutyltin oxide. There is still work to be done to understand the
mechanism of sulfation and the reactivity of the sulfur trioxide amine complexes, particularly why
the trend observed with various Lewis bases of the complex (Table 07) is opposite to that
previously reported.11
2.5 Experimental
2.5.1. General Information
All reactions were performed using a Teflon-coated magnetic stir bar under argon. All solvents
used were dried using the Pure Solv-MD solvent purification system (Innovative Technology) or
previously dried overnight with 3 molecular sieves. All reagents and carbohydrates, unless
otherwise stated, were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich or Carbosynth Ltd. Flash column
chromatography was performed using silica gel (60 , 230-400 mesh) (SiliCycle). Analytical
thin-plate chromatography was performed on aluminum-backed silica gel 60 F254 plates (EMD
Milipore) and visualized under UV or with aqueous basic permanganate stain.
1H, 13C and 2D nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectra were acquired on the Agilent DD2 600
MHz or Agilent DD2 500 MHz, both equipped with a OneNMR probe. Chemical shifts (δ) are
reported in parts per million (ppm), calibrated to the residual protium in the deuterated solvent.
Spectral features are tabulated as follows: chemical shift (δ, ppm); multiplicity (app = apparent, s
= singlet, d = doublet, t = triplet, q = quartet, p = pentet, hept = heptet, m = multiplet, where the
range of chemical shift is given); number of protons, coupling constants (J, Hz); assignment.
Infrared (IR) spectra were acquired on the Fourier-transform Spectrum 100 spectrometer
(PerkinElmer) equipped with a single-bounce diamond/ZnSe ATR accessory. Spectral features are
tabulated as follows: wavenumber (cm-1); intensity (s = strong, m = medium, w = weak, br =
broad). High-resolution mass spectra (HRMS) were acquired on the Agilent 6538 UHD Q-TOF
for electrospray ionization, negative mode (ESI−). Optical rotations were acquired on the
AUTOPOL IV (Rudolph Research Analytical) in a 0.6 dm polarimeter sample cell, at 589 nm
wavelength, at 20 oC, and the sample concentrations are reported in g per 100 mL in methanol.
Melting points were acquired on the Mel-Temp II (Laboratory Devices Inc.), and reported as a
-
34
range of melting or decomposing (denoted by dec.).
Presence of a single sulfate group is confirmed by HRMS. Assignment of sulfation position is
based on change in NMR chemical shift between starting carbohydrate and sulfated product (1H:
approx. +0.8 ppm, 13C: approx. +7 ppm).
2.5.2. General Procedure A
To a 2-dram vial equipped with a magnetic stir bar was added the carbohydrate (0.1 mmol, 1
equiv), sulfur trioxide trimethylamine complex (42 mg, 0.3 mmol, 3 equiv), and 2.15 (2 mg, 0.01
mmol, 0.1 equiv). The reaction vial was capped with a septum and purged with argon. Acetonitrile
(0.5 mL, 0.2 M) was added to the vial, followed by N,N-diisopropylethylamine (0.06 mL, 0.3
mmol, 3 equiv). The septum was quickly replaced with a screw cap, sealed with Teflon tape, and
the reaction was stirred at 60 oC for 3 hours. The mixture was then quenched with MeOH and the
solvent was removed by rotary evaporation. The crude mixture was purified by flash
chromatography on silica gel (2% to 15% MeOH in DCM). Fractions containing the product were
combined and stirred with Dowex 50WX2 Na+-form (50–100 mesh) for 30 min. The resulting
mixture was dried, filtered through Celite with DCM, then MeOH. The MeOH fraction was
collected and dried to give the product as a solid.
2.5.3. Preparation of catalyst and carbohydrate substrates
10H-Dibenzo[b,e][1,4]oxaborinin-10-ol (2.15):
B
O
OH
O 1) n-BuLi, diphenyl ether, THF
2) tributyl borate3) 4N HCl
-
35
10H-Dibenzo[b,e][1,4]oxaborinin-10-ol was prepared according to literature procedure44 from
diphenyl ether and tributyl borate (Sigma-Aldrich). Spectral features are in agreement with those
previously reported.
Methyl-2-acetamido-2-deoxy-α-D-galactopyranoside:
Methyl-2-acetamido-2-deoxy-α-D-galactopyranoside was prepared according to an adapted
literature procedure45 from N-acetyl-D-galactosamine (Sigma-Aldrich). The ⍺-anomer was separated cleanly by flash chromatography on silica gel to give the desired product. Spectral
features are in agreement with those previously reported.46
β-D-galactosyl N-palmitoyl-D-erythro-sphingosine:
44
Dimitrijević, E.; Taylor, M. S. Chem. Sci. 2013, 4, 3298-3303. 45
Liang, H.; Grindley, T. B. J. Carbohydr. Chem. 2004, 23, 71-82. 46
Grönberg, G.; Nilsson, U.; Bock, K.; Magnusson, G. Carbohydr. Res. 1994, 257, 35-54.
OHO
OHOH
AcHNOMe
OHO
OHOH
AcHN OH
Amberlyst H+ resin
MeOH, reflux
OPMBO
OPMBPMBO
PMBO OH
1) Ms2O, PMP, CH2Cl2
2)
HOHN
OH
C13H27C15H31
O
(Ph2B)2O, CH2Cl2
OO
PMBO
OPMBPMBO
PMBOC13H27
OH
HN C15H31
O
3) CF3COOH, anisole, CH2Cl2
-
36
β-D-galactosyl N-palmitoyl-D-erythro-sphingosine was prepared according to a literature
procedure47 from 2,3,4,6-tetra-O-4-methoxybenzyl-D-galactopyranose and N-palmitoyl-D-
sphingosine (Sigma-Aldrich). Spectral features are in agreement with those previously reported.
2.5.4. Synthesis and characterization of compounds
2,2,2-Trichloroethoxysulfuryl chloride (2.02):
2.02 was prepared according to a literature procedure.31
Spectral features are in agreement with those previously
reported.
Methyl 6-O-tert-butyldimethylsilyl-α-D-mannopyranoside 2,3-cyclic sulfate (2.05):
1H NMR (399 MHz, CDCl3) δ 5.00 (app s, 1H, H-1), 4.94
(dd, J = 5.3, 0.9 Hz, 1H, H-2), 4.89 (dd, J = 7.8, 5.3 Hz, 1H,
H-3), 4.25 (dd, J = 9.8, 7.8 Hz, 1H, H-4), 3.96 (dd, J = 10.6,
4.9 Hz, 1H, H-6a), 3.88 (dd, J = 10.6, 5.7 Hz, 1H, H-6b), 3.65
(dddd, J = 9.8, 5.6, 4.9, 0.6 Hz, 1H, H-5), 3.42 (s, 3H, 1-
OCH3), 0.91 (s, 9H, TBS), 0.12 (d, J = 3.2 Hz, 6H, TBS); 13C
NMR (100 MHz, CDCl3) δ 95.4 (C-1), 85.3 (C-3), 78.9 (C-
2), 69.1 (C-4), 67.8 (C-5), 64.0 (C-6), 55.3 (1-OCH3), 25.7 (TBS), 18.2 (TBS), -5.5 (TBS), -5.6
(TBS).
47
D’Angelo, K. A.; Taylor, M. S. Chem. Commun. 2017, 53, 5978-5980.
OHOO
O
OMe
OTBSSOO
Chemical Formula: C13H26O8SSiMolecular Weight: 370.4880
SO
O ClOCl3C
Chemical Formula: C2H2Cl4O3SMolecular Weight: 247.8950
-
37
Methyl 4,6-bis-O-(tert-butyldimethylsilyl)-α-D-mannopyranoside 2,3-cyclic sulfate (2.06):
1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3) δ 4.99 (d, J = 0.8 Hz, 1H, H-1),
4.94 (dd, J = 5.2, 0.9 Hz, 1H, H-2), 4.80 (dd, J = 7.7, 5.3 Hz,
1H, H-3), 4.19 (dd, J = 9.9, 7.8 Hz, 1H, H-4), 3.88 (dd, J =
11.5, 2.0 Hz, 1H, H-6a), 3.82 (dd, J = 11.5, 4.8 Hz, 1H, H-
6b), 3.55 (dddd, J = 9.9, 4.8, 2.1, 0.6 Hz, 1H, H-5), 3.40 (s,
3H), 0.90 (s, 9H), 0.89 (s, 9H), 0.15 (d, J = 11.1 Hz, 6H), 0.08
(d, J = 3.3 Hz, 6H); 13C NMR (100 MHz, CDCl3) δ 95.3 (C-
1), 87.0 (C-3), 79.7 (C-2), 70.6 (C-5), 67.2 (C-4), 61.7 (C-6), 54.9 (1-OCH3), 25.8 (TBS), 25.7
(TBS), 18.3 (TBS), 18.0 (TBS), -4.7 (TBS), -5.2 (TBS), -5.3 (TBS), -5.4 (TBS).
1-(2,2,2-Trichloroethoxysulfuryl)-2-methyl imidazole (2.07):
2.07 was prepared according to a literature procedure.31
Spectral features are in agreement with those previously
reported.
1-(2,2,2-Trichloroethoxysulfuryl)-2,3-dimethylimidazolium triflate (2.08):
2.08 was prepared according to a literature procedure.31
Spectral features are in agreement with those
previously reported.
SO
OO N N
OTfCl3C
Chemical Formula: C8F3H10Cl3N2O6S2Molecular Weight: 308.5775
SO
OO N N
Cl3C
Chemical Formula: C6H7Cl3N2O3SMolecular Weight: 293.5430
OTBSOO
O
OMe
OTBSSOO
Chemical Formula: C19H40O8SSi2Molecular Weight: 484.7510
-
38
Methyl 3-trichloroethylsulfo-α-L-rhamnopyranoside (2.12):
1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3) δ 4.85 (q, J = 10.8 Hz, 2H,
CH2CCl3), 4.85 (dd, J = 9.2, 3.1 Hz, 1H, H-3), 4.71 (d, J =
2.0 Hz, 1H, H-1), 4.32 (dd, J = 3.2, 2.0 Hz, 1H, H-2), 3.78
(app t, J = 9.3 Hz, 1H, H-4), 3.75–3.68 (m, 1H, H-5), 3.39 (s,
3H, 1-OCH3), 1.38 (d, J = 6.1 Hz, 3H, 5-CH3); 13C NMR (100
MHz, CDCl3) δ 100.6 (C-1), 86.8 (C-3), 80.0 (CH2), 70.7 (C-
4), 69.3 (C-2), 68.3 (C-5), 55.3 (1-OCH3), 17.7 (5-CH3).
Methyl 2-trichloroethylsulfo-α-L-rhamnopyranoside (2.13):
1H NMR (399 MHz, CDCl3) δ 4.97 (d, J = 10.7 Hz, 1H,
CH2CCl3), 4.93 (d, J = 1.7 Hz, 1H, H-1), 4.89–4.82 (m, 1H,
H-2), 4.78 (s, 1H, CH2CCl3), 4.01 (dd, J = 9.5, 3.3 Hz, 1H,
H-3), 3.71–3.61 (m, 1H, H-5), 3.48 (app t, J = 9.5 Hz, 1H,
H-4), 3.40 (s, 3H, 1-OCH3), 1.34 (d, J = 6.2 Hz, 3H, 5-CH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz, CDCl3) δ 97.7, 79.8, 77.9, 72.9, 69.4,
68.0, 55.3, 17.4.
Benzenesulfonyl chloride (2.14):
2.14 was prepared according to a literature procedure.48
Spectral features are in agreement with those previously
reported.
48 DeBergh, J. R.; Niljianskul, N.; Buchwald, S. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 10638-10641.
OHOO
OH
OMe
SO
OO
Cl3C
Chemical Formula: C9H15Cl3O8SMolecular Weight: 389.6210
OHOHO
O
OMe
SO
O
OCl3C
Chemical Formula: C9H15Cl3O8SMolecular Weight: 389.6210
SO
OO
Cl
Chemical Formula: C6H5ClO3SMolecular Weight: 192.6130
-
39
4-Methoxybenzenesulfonyl chloride (2.15):
2.15 was prepared according to a literature procedure.48
Spectral features are in agreement with those previously
reported.
1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.25 (d, J = 9.2 Hz, 2H, Ph),
6.89 (d, J = 9.2 Hz, 2H, Ph), 3.77 (s, 3H, CH3); 13C NMR (101
MHz, CDCl3) δ 159.5, 143.5, 122.8, 115.1, 55.8.
2-Methyl-1-(phenylsulfonyl) imidazole (2.16):
2.16 was prepared according to a literature procedure.49
Spectral features are in agreement with those previously
reported.
1-[(p-Methoxyphenyl)sulfonyl]-2-methyl imidazole (2.17):
2.17 was prepared according to an adapted literature
procedure.49 Spectral features are in agreement with those
previously reported.50
49 Desoky, A. Y.; Hendel, J.; Ingram, L.; Taylor, S. D. Tetrahedron 2011, 67, 1281-1287. 50
Reuillon, T.; Bertoli, A.; Griffin, R. J.; Miller, D. C.; Golding, B. T. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2012, 10, 7610-7617.
SO
OO
Cl
MeO
Chemical Formula: C7H7ClO4SMolecular Weight: 222.6390
SO
O NO N
Chemical Formula: C10H10N2O3SMolecular Weight: 238.2610
SO
O NO N
MeO
Chemical Formula: C11H12N2O4SMolecular Weight: 268.2870
-
40
1,2-Dimethyl-3-(phenylsulfonyl)-imidazolium triflate (2.18):
2.18 was prepared according to a literature procedure.49
Spectral features are in agreement with those previously
reported.
1-[(p-Methoxyphenyl)sulfonyl]-2,3-dimethylimidazolium triflate (2.19):
2.19 was prepared according to an adapted literature
procedure.49
1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3) δ 7.51 (d, J = 2.4 Hz, 1H,
Im), 7.33 (d, J = 2.4 Hz, 1H, Im), 7.21 (d, J = 9.2 Hz, 2H,
Ph), 6.96 (d, J = 9.2 Hz, 2H, Ph), 4.09 (s, 3H, 3-CH3),
3.80 (s, 3H, OCH3), 2.93 (s, 3H, 2-CH3); 13C NMR (101
MHz, CDCl3) δ 160.0, 147.9, 142.5, 123.9, 122.5, 120.6, 115.9, 55.8 (OCH3), 37.3 (3-CH3), 11.9
(2-CH3).
Methyl α-L-fucopyranoside 3-(sodium sulfate) (2.25):
2.25 was prepared according to General Procedure A from
methyl α-L-fucopyranoside (18 mg, 0.1 mmol, 1 equiv) and
purified by flash chromatography on silica gel (5% to 15%
MeOH in DCM) to give a beige solid in >95% yield (28 mg).
SO
O NO N
OTf
MeO
Chemical Formula: C13F3H15N2O7S2Molecular Weight: 283.3215
SO
O NO N
OTf
Chemical Formula: C12F3H13N2O6S2Molecular Weight: 253.2955
OOH
OH
OMe
OSO3- +Na
Chemical Formula: C7H13NaO8SMolecular Weight: 280.2228
-
41
[α]#$% = −20.2° (c 0.1, MeOH) (lit. 51: [α]&'( = −157.4° (c 1.3, H2O)); m.p.: 212–214 (dec.) (lit.51, monohydrate: 161–162 oC); 1H NMR (600 MHz, MeOD-d4) δ 4.68 (d, J = 3.9 Hz, 1H, H-
1), 4.47 (dd, J = 10.2, 3.2 Hz, 1H, H-3), 4.07 (dd, J = 3.2, 1.2 Hz, 1H, H-4), 3.97–3.92 (m, 2H, H-
2, H-5), 3.39 (s, 3H, 1-OCH3), 1.23 (d, J = 6.5 Hz, 3H, 5-CH3); 13C NMR (151 MHz, MeOD-d4)
δ 100.0 (C-1), 78.0 (C-3), 70.3 (C-4), 66.6 (C-2), 65.8 (C-5), 54.1 (1-OCH3), 15.1 (5-CH3); IR
(thin film, cm-1): 3438 (br, m), 2946 (w), 1650 (br, m), 1216 (s), 1046 (s), 987 (s), 839 (s), 748
(m); HRMS (ESI−): calcd for C7H13O8S [M − Na]− 257.0337 m/z; found 257.0341 m/z.
Methyl α-L-rhamnopyranoside 3-(sodium sulfate) (2.26):
2.26 was prepared according to General Procedure A from
methyl α-L-rhamnopyranoside (18 mg, 0.1 mmol, 1 equiv)
and purified by flash chromatography on silica gel (5% to
15% MeOH in DCM) to give a white solid in 79% yield (22
mg).
[α]#$% = −94.3° (c 0.27, MeOH); m.p.: 201–202 (dec.); 1H NMR (600 MHz, MeOD-d4) δ 4.58 (d, J = 1.8 Hz, 1H, H-1), 4.42 (dd, J = 9.5, 3.3 Hz, 1H, H-3), 4.16 (dd, J = 3.3, 1.8 Hz, 1H, H-2),
3.65–3.60 (m, 1H, H-5), 3.55 (app t, J = 9.5 Hz, 1H, H-4), 3.36 (s, 3H,1-OCH3