Study of the origin of enantioselectivity in cyclopropanation reactions using the chiral iron carbene complex [(η 5-C 5H 5)(CO) 2Fe [dbnd]CH[(η 6- o-MeOC 6H 4)Cr(CO) 3]] +

Abstract

During our low temperature NMR studies we observed two rotational isomers of the carbene complex [(η 5-C 5H 5)(CO) 2Fe CH[(η 6- o-MeOC 6H 4)Cr(CO) 3]]+ ( 3) with the O–Me group either anti or anti to the Fp moiety. While the Cr(CO) 3 group very effectively shields one face of the carbene complex from attack by the olefin, the presence of anti and anti isomers allows for the formation of both R and S configuration on C-1 of the cyclopropane through a backside or a frontside ring closure mechanism. The reaction of olefin with anti R-3 can result in R-configuration of the cyclopropane carbon C-1 through a frontside closure mechanism, or in S-configuration if backside closure takes place. In a similar manner, anti R-3 may produce S-configuration through frontside closure or R-configuration through backside closure. We previously have shown by crystallography that reaction the R-isomer of 3 with 2-methyl-propene induces predominantly a R-configuration at C-1 of the resulting cyclopropane ( RR-(−)-2,2 dimethyl-1- o-methoxyphenyl(tricarbonyl chromium)cyclopropane, whereas the S-carbene results in the corresponding SS isomer. These findings are consistent with cyclopropane formation from the syn isomer through a frontside closure mechanism or from anti isomer through a backside closure mechanism. In the case of [(η 5-C 5H 5)(CO) 2Fe CH[(η 6- o-MeC 6H 4)Cr(CO) 3]]+ ( 4), only anti isomer is observed and optical rotation data indicate that the methylcarbene exhibits the same asymmetric induction (i.e., R-carbene yields R-cyclopropane C-1 and S-carbene yields S-cyclopropane C-1) as the methoxy analogue, and the assumption of the anti isomer being the reactive one then implies that the reaction proceeds through a backside closure mechanism rather a frontside mechanism. It is very likely that this preference is also valid for the methoxy substituted complex 4. Our results on 4 indicate that the enantioselectivity of the cyclopropanation reaction is not determined by the relative abundance of the isomers. As the syn isomer is the more abundant one, the anti isomer has to be the more reactive one compared to the syn isomer. Interchange of syn and anti isomers occurs fast compared to the rate of reaction of the carbene with olefin. The fast rate of interchange of syn and anti isomers relative to the rate of reaction with olefin precludes the direct observation of any differential reactivity form a change in the syn to anti ratio in the NMR spectrum. However, the in general lower ee values observed for 3 compared with 4 are consistent with the fact that the reactive isomer is less abundant in this case. Our data thus show that enantioselectivity of cyclopropanation with “chiral at carbene” complexes is controlled by the higher reactivity of the anti isomer and occurs through a backside ring closure mechanism.