Transition Felkin

Various structural factors have been considered in interpreting this result The most generally satisfactory approach is based on a transition>state model, advanced by Felkin and co-woricers, in which the largest group is oriented perpendiculariy to the carbonyl group. Nucleophilic addition to the carbonyl groi occurs from the opposite side. ... 

Model calculations generally support Felkin s hypothesis35-38. However, an additional controlling factor is the stabilization of the transition state by the approach of the nucleophile antiperiplanar to a vicinal bond35. In the transition state for axial attack (Figure 8), the incipient bond is approximately antiperiplanar to two axial C — H bonds. Flattening of the ring improves this antiperiplanarity and, therefore, the more flattened the cyclic ketone, the more axial attack is preferred. 

Since equatorial attack is roughly antiperiplanar to two C-C bonds of the cyclic ketone, an extended hypothesis of antiperiplanar attack was proposed39. Since the incipient bond is intrinsically electron deficient, the attack of a nucleophile occurs anti to the best electron-donor bond, with the electron-donor order C—S > C —H > C —C > C—N > C—O. The transition state-stabilizing donor- acceptor interactions are assumed to be more important for the stereochemical outcome of nucleophilic addition reactions than the torsional and steric effects suggested by Felkin. 

One hypothesis proposes a destabilizing, repulsive interaction between two occupied orbitals. The equatorial transition state is destabilized compared to the axial transition state by torsional strain which is introduced by bond eclipsing of the incipient bond with the axial C-2 and C-6 carbon-hydrogen bonds. This Felkin model33 37 relies on the assumption that an incipient bond, even if it is only partially formed, suffers from severe repulsion in the case of eclipsing vicinal tr-bonds. 

With a-alkyl-substituted chiral carbonyl compounds bearing an alkoxy group in the -position, the diastereoselectivity of nucleophilic addition reactions is influenced not only by steric factors, which can be described by the models of Cram and Felkin (see Section 1.3.1.1.), but also by a possible coordination of the nucleophile counterion with the /J-oxygen atom. Thus, coordination of the metal cation with the carbonyl oxygen and the /J-alkoxy substituent leads to a chelated transition state 1 which implies attack of the nucleophile from the least hindered side, opposite to the pseudoequatorial substituent R1. Therefore, the anb-diastereomer 2 should be formed in excess. With respect to the stereogenic center in the a-position, the predominant formation of the anft-diastereomer means that anti-Cram selectivity has occurred. 

The lower diastereoselectivity found with aldehyde 15 (R = CH3) can be explained by the steric influence of the two methyl substituents in close vicinity to the stereogenic center, which probably diminishes the ability of the ether oxygen to coordinate. In contrast, a significant difference in the diastereoselectivity was found in the additions of phenyllithium and phenylmagnesium bromide to isopropylidene glyceraldehyde (17)58 (see also Section 1.3.1.3.6.). Presumably the diastereo-sclcctivity of the phenyllithium addition is determined by the ratio of chelation-controlled to nonchelation-controlled attack of the nucleophile, whereas in the case of phenylmagnesium bromide additional chelation with the / -ether oxygen may occur. Formation of the -chelate 19 stabilizes the Felkin-Anh transition state and therefore increases the proportion of the anZz -diastereomeric addition product. 

I-Oialkoxy carbonyl compounds are a special class of chiral alkoxy carbonyl compounds because they combine the structural features, and, therefore, also the stereochemical behavior, of 7-alkoxy and /i-alkoxy carbonyl compounds. Prediction of the stereochemical outcome of nucleophilic additions to these substrates is very difficult and often impossible. As exemplified with isopropylidene glyceraldehyde (Table 15), one of the most widely investigated a,/J-di-alkoxy carbonyl compoundsI0S, the predominant formation of the syn-diastereomer 2 may be attributed to the formation of the a-chelate 1 A. The opposite stereochemistry can be rationalized by assuming the Felkin-Anh-type transition state IB. Formation of the /(-chelate 1C, which stabilizes the Felkin-Anh transition state, also leads to the predominant formation of the atm -diastereomeric reaction product. 

Thus chelation control " may lead to either product, depending on the relative stabilities of the respective ot- and /(-chelates. In cases with predominant formation of the anri-diastereomer, it is often difficult to establish whether the formation of a /(-chelate or an open-chain Felkin - Anh transition state is responsible for the observed stereochemistry the decision usually rests on plausibility considerations. Thus, with regard to the results obtained for a-alkoxy carbonyl... 

Stereoelectronic effects and nonbonded interactions are non-cooperative in the reactions of (E)-allylboronates and x-heteroatom-substituted aldehydes. Thus, while transition state 8 experiences the fewest nonbonded interactions (gauche pentane type, to the extent that X has a lower steric requirement than R3), transition state 9 is expected to benefit from favorable stereoelectronic activation (Felkin-type)58f. This perhaps explains why the reaction of 2,3-[iso-propylidenebis(oxy)]propanal and ( >2-butenylboronate proceeds with a modest preference (55%) by way ol transition state 9. This result is probably a special case, how ever, since C-3 of 2.3-[isopropylidenebis(oxy)]propanal is not very stcrically demanding in 9 owing to the acetonide unit that ties back the oxygen substituent, thereby minimizing interactions with the... 

As outlined in Section D.2.3.5., the stereochemical outcome of the addition of nucleophilic reagents to chiral aldehydes or ketones is rationalized most plausibly by the Cram-Felkin-Anh model. On the other hand, the corresponding reactions of oxygen- or nitrogen-heterosub-stituted aldehydes or ketones may be interpreted either by the same transition state hypothesis or, alternatively, by Cram s cyclic model. 

Another model can be used to predict diastereoselectivity, which assumes reactant-like transition states and that the separation of the incoming group and any electronegative substituent at the a carbon is greatest. Transition state models 45 and 46 are used to predict diastereoselectivity in what is known as the Felkin Ahn model ... 

Substrate control This refers to the addition of an achiral enolate (or allyl metal reagent) to a chiral aldehyde (generally bearing a chiral center at the a-position). In this case, diastereoselectivity is determined by transition state preference according to Cram-Felkin-Ahn considerations.2... 

Reactions of chiral silanes with chiral aldehydes exhibit matching and mismatching characteristics (Eqs. 9.56 and 9.57) [48]. The additions proceed through an acyclic transition state, which favors syn adducts. The matched (M)/(R) pairing of Eq. 9.56 proceeds by way of a favorable Felkin-Anh arrangement to afford the syn,syn homopropargylic alcohol product. However, if the silanes possess an a-hydrogen, a vinylic chloride intermediate is formed, as shown in Scheme 9.13. Subsequent treat-... 

Scheme 9.18). The BF3 OEt2-promoted additions also proceed via acyclic transition states but the diastereoselectivity results from Felkin-Anh control. 

The factors that control the stereochemical outcome of such rections can be illustrated by additions of enantiomeric allenylzinc reagents to (S)-lactic aldehyde derivatives [114]. The matched S/S pairing proceeds via the cyclic transition state A in which addition to the aldehyde carbonyl assumes the Felkin-Anh orientation with an anti arrangement of the allenyl methyl and aldehyde substituents (Scheme 9.29). The alternative arrangement B is disfavored both by the anti-Felkin-Anh arrangement and eclipsing of the allenylmethyl and aldehyde substituents. 

The mismatched R/S pairing could lead to the anti,syn adduct through transition state C and the syn,anti adduct via D (Scheme 9.30). The former pathway entails non-Felkin-Anh addition but anti disposed methyl and aldehyde substituents. Transition state D proceeds through the Felkin-Anh mode of carbonyl addition but requires eclipsing of the methyl and aldehyde substituents. This interaction is the more costly one and thus disfavors the syn,anti adduct. 

Likely transition states for these additions are shown in Scheme 9.35. The normally favored Felkin-Anh arrangement in the M/S pairing B is strongly disfavored... 

This interaction can be envisioned to stabilize the transition state leading to the observed major anti-Felkin diastereomer 75a. 

Diastereoface selection has been investigated in the addition of enolates to a-alkoxy aldehydes (93). In the absence of chelation phenomena, transition states A and B (Scheme 19), with the OR substituent aligned perpendicular to the carbonyl a plane (Rl = OR), are considered (Oc-or c-r transition state R2 Nu steric parameters dictate that predoniinant diastereoface selection from A will occur. In the presence of strongly chelating metals, the cyclic transition states C and D can be invoked (85), and the same R2 Nu control element predicts the opposite diastereoface selection via transition state D (98). The aldol diastereoface selection that has been observed for aldehydes 111 and 112 with lithium enolates 99, 100, and 101 (eqs. [81-84]) (93) can generally be rationalized by a consideration of the Felkin transition states A and B (88) illustrated in Scheme 19, where A is preferred on steric grounds. 

Obviously, the nature of the organocopper reagent is an important factor with respect to the stereochemical outcome of the cuprate addition. This is nicely illustrated for the cuprate addition reaction of enoate 75 (Scheme 6.15). Here, lithium di-n-butylcuprate reacted as expected by way of the modified Felkin-Anh transition state 77 (compare also 52), which minimizes allylic A strain, to give the anti adduct 76 with excellent diastereoselectivity [30]. Conversely, the bulkier lithium bis-(methylallyl)cuprate preferentially yielded the syn diastereomer 78 [30, 31]. It can be argued that the bulkier cuprate reagent experiences pronounced repulsive interactions when approaching the enoate system past the alkyl side chain, as shown in transition state 77. Instead, preference is given to transition state 79, in which repulsive interactions to the nucleophile trajectory are minimized. 

For a cuprate addition reaction to a diester derivative such as 88, it might be expected that the anti addition product would be favored, since a pronounced allylic strain in these substrates along modified Felkin-Anh lines should favor transition state 52 (see Fig. 6.1). However, experiments produced the opposite result, with the syn product 89 being obtained as the major diastereomer (Scheme 6.18) [36, 37]. 

---