Ruthenium Lewis Acid‐Catalyzed Asymmetric Diels–Alder Reactions: Reverse‐Face Selectivity for α,β‐Unsaturated Aldehydes and Ketones

Acrolein, methacrolein, methyl vinyl ketone, ethyl vinyl ketone, 3‐methyl‐3‐en‐2‐one, and divinyl ketone were coordinated to a cationic cyclopentadienyl ruthenium(II) Lewis acid incorporating the electron‐poor bidentate BIPHOP–F ligand. Analysis by NOESY and ROESY NMR techniques allowed the determination of conformations of enals and enones present in solution in CD₂Cl₂. The results were compared to solid‐state structures and to the facial selectivities of catalytic asymmetric Diels–Alder reactions with cyclopentadiene. X‐Ray structures of four Ru‐enal and Ru‐enone complexes show the α,β‐unsaturated C=O compounds to adopt an anti‐s‐trans conformation. In solution, enals assume both anti‐s‐trans and anti‐s‐cis conformations. An additional conformation, syn‐s‐trans, is present in enone complexes. Enantioface selectivity in the cycloaddition reactions differs for enals and enones. Reaction products indicate enals to react exclusively in the anti‐s‐trans conformation, whereas with enones, the major product results from the syn‐s‐trans conformation. The alkene in s‐cis conformations, while present in solution, is shielded and cannot undergo cycloaddition. A syn‐s‐trans conformation is found in the solid state of the bulky 6,6‐dimethyl cyclohexanone‐Ru(II) complex. The X‐ray structure of divinyl ketone is unique in that the Ru(II) center binds the enone via a η² bond to one of the alkene moieties. In solution, coordination to Ru–C=O oxygen is adopted. A comparison of facial preference is also made to the corresponding indenyl Lewis acids.