Natural products remain the best sources of drugs and drug leads and serve as outstanding small-molecule probes to dissect fundamental biological processes. A great challenge for the natural product community is to discover novel natural products efficiently and cost effectively. Here we report the development of a practical method to survey biosynthetic potential in microorganisms, thereby identifying the most promising strains and prioritizing them for natural product discovery. Central to our approach is the innovative preparation, by a two-tiered PCR method, of a pool of pathway-specific probes, thereby allowing the survey of all variants of the biosynthetic machineries for the targeted class of natural products. The utility of the method was demonstrated by surveying 100 strains, randomly selected from our actinomycete collection, for their biosynthetic potential of four classes of natural products, aromatic polyketides, reduced polyketides, nonribosomal peptides, and diterpenoids, identifying 16 talented strains. One of the talented strains, Streptomyces griseus CB00830, was finally chosen to showcase the discovery of the targeted classes of natural products, resulting in the isolation of three diterpenoids, six nonribosomal peptides and related metabolites, and three polyketides. Variations of this method should be applicable to the discovery of other classes of natural products.
Natural products remain the best sources of drugs and drug leads and serve as outstanding small-molecule probes to dissect fundamental biological processes. A great challenge for the natural product community is to discover novel natural products efficiently and cost effectively. Here we report the development of a practical method to survey biosynthetic potential in microorganisms, thereby identifying the most promising strains and prioritizing them for natural product discovery. Central to our approach is the innovative preparation, by a two-tiered PCR method, of a pool of pathway-specific probes, thereby allowing the survey of all variants of the biosynthetic machineries for the targeted class of natural products. The utility of the method was demonstrated by surveying 100 strains, randomly selected from our actinomycete collection, for their biosynthetic potential of four classes of natural products, aromatic polyketides, reduced polyketides, nonribosomal peptides, and diterpenoids, identifying 16 talented strains. One of the talented strains, Streptomyces griseus CB00830, was finally chosen to showcase the discovery of the targeted classes of natural products, resulting in the isolation of three diterpenoids, six nonribosomal peptides and related metabolites, and three polyketides. Variations of this method should be applicable to the discovery of other classes of natural products.
Natural products occupy tremendous
chemical structural space that is unmatched by any other small-molecule
libraries. As such, they remain the best sources of drugs and drug
leads and serve as outstanding small-molecule probes to dissect fundamental
biological processes.[1−4] Bacteria of both terrestrial and marine origin have proven to be
excellent sources of novel natural products. Recent advances in microbial
genomics have unequivocally demonstrated that the potential of natural
product biosynthesis in bacteria is much higher than previously appreciated.[5−8] A great challenge for the natural product community is to discover
novel natural products efficiently and cost effectively.Traditional
microbial natural product discovery programs start
from fermenting each strain individually, often in multiple media,
followed by preparation of crude extracts. There are two primary approaches
to search for novel natural products from extracts: bioactivity-guided
fractionation and chemical profiling of metabolites possessing novel
structural features.[9−13] In both cases a molecule of interest must be produced in sufficient
quantities to permit isolation, purification, characterization, and
dereplication in a reasonable time frame. The ultimate success in
discovering a new natural product typically requires three principal
steps: dereplication of known compounds at an early stage to avoid
the duplication of effort, isolation and purification of the targeted
molecules from a highly complex matrix, and, finally, structure elucidation
of the purified natural product. This traditional sequence of steps
still characterizes new compound discovery from crude extracts today.
While successful, it is a tedious and laborious process. This process
could be significantly shortened and much more cost-effective if the
biosynthetic potentials of the strain collection were known in advance
so that the resources could be devoted preferentially to interrogate
only the strains that hold the greatest promise in producing novel
natural products or classes of natural products of high interest.Complementary to the traditional approaches, the progress made
in the last two decades in connecting natural products to the genes
that encode their biosynthesis has fundamentally changed the landscape
of natural products research and sparked the emergence of a suite
of contemporary approaches to natural product discovery. Thus, genes
have become as important as chemistry in categorizing known natural
products and identifying likely new ones yet to be discovered. Advances
in microbial genomics have unequivocally demonstrated that we are
missing ∼90% of the natural product biosynthetic capacity of
even the workhorse producers, the actinomycetes.[5] To gain access to this untapped reservoir of potentially
new natural products, two principal strategies have been applied to
induce these cryptic biosynthetic pathways.[5−8,14−22] The so-called epigenetic-related approaches include challenging
the microorganisms through culture conditions, nutritional or environmental
factors, external cues, and stress, as well as exploiting interspecies
crosstalk. The genomics-based approaches include mining the genomes
to predict metabolite structures, engineering the pathways by manipulating
global and/or pathway-specific regulators, and expressing the cryptic
pathways in selected heterologous hosts. While each of the various
approaches has different strengths and weaknesses, they have been
successful in yielding cryptic natural products but only on a case-by-case
basis; currently they are far from being of practical use for natural
product discovery and generally are low throughput. Thus, in spite
of the rapid advances in DNA sequencing technologies and bioinformatics,
sequencing all strains and annotating all genomes within a collection
is still not a practical means to discover new natural products. Furthermore,
it is also unlikely that expedient genetic systems can be rapidly
developed for every strain within a collection, without which any
attempt of metabolic pathway engineering will not be possible.Here we report the development of a practical method to survey
biosynthetic potential in microorganisms, thereby identifying the
most promising strains and prioritizing them for natural product discovery.
Central to our approach is the innovative preparation, by a two-tiered
PCR method, of a pool of pathway-specific probes, thereby allowing
the survey of all variants of the biosynthetic machineries for the
targeted class of natural products. We first used 16 representative
strains, known to produce the selected four major classes of natural
products, to develop and validate the method. We then applied the
method to 100 randomly selected strains from our actinomycete collection
to survey their biosynthetic potential for the four targeted classes
of natural products. We finally selected one lead strain, Streptomyces griseus CB00830, to showcase the discovery
of diterpenoids, resulting in the isolation of viguiepinol (1), oxaloterpin E (2), and oxaloterpin C (3), together with nine additional natural products. Variations
of this method should be applicable to the discovery of other classes
of natural products.
Results and Discussion
Rationale, Design, and
Validation of the Method Surveying Natural
Product Biosynthetic Potential in Microorganisms
In our effort
to assemble a natural product library, actinomycetes from various
unexplored and underexplored ecological niches were fermented for
natural product isolation. Each strain was fermented in two media
(Table S1), and the resultant extracts
were subjected to HPLC-photodiode array-based chemical profiling and
titer estimation for all major metabolites presented.[23−30] The lessons we learned from the initial effort included the following:
(i) the metabolite profile of a given strain was medium dependent,
(ii) increases in the number of media used for each strain correlated
well with the total number of metabolites detected, (iii) with the
two media under the fermentation conditions examined, only 25–30%
of the strains showed promising metabolite profiles deemed worthy
of pursuing subsequent natural product isolation, (iv) given the limited
fermentation media and conditions examined, there was little correlation
between the metabolite profile of the extract and the intrinsic biosynthetic
potential of the strain, and (v) it may not be productive to prioritize
the strains for subsequent natural product discovery based on chemical
profiling of the extracts alone. Clearly, a general, high-throughput
method is needed to rapidly survey the biosynthetic potential of a
strain collection. Strains that harbor the highest biosynthetic potential
can then be identified, prioritized, and subjected to epigenetic-
and/or genomics-based approaches[5−8,14−22] to induce all cryptic biosynthetic pathways for novel natural product
discovery. This could fundamentally change the way in which microbial
natural products are discovered.Polyketides and nonribosomal
peptides are two large families of microbial natural products.[5,8,18,19,22] While the majority of diterpenoids are of
plant origin, recent advances in genomics have revealed that the biosynthetic
capacity of diterpenes in bacteria may be underestimated.[31,32] Since the biosynthetic machineries for polyketides, nonribosomal
peptides, and diterpenoids in actinomycetes have been extensively
studied, it is now possible to survey the biosynthetic potential of
these natural products by scanning the bacterial genomes for the trademark
genes encoding their respective biosynthetic machineries.[5−8,14−22] Thus, elements of the biosynthetic machineries that are highly conserved
across the entire family of natural products, as exemplified by the
type I polyketide synthases (PKSs) for reduced polyketides, type II
PKSs for aromatic polyketides, ribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPSs)
for nonribosomal peptides, and diterpene synthases (DTSs) for diterpenoids,
respectively, provide unified paradigms for the synthesis of the characteristic
molecular scaffolds for each of these families. On the other hand,
variations among the biosynthetic machineries for a given class of
natural products, as exemplified by the various accessory domains
for type I PKSs and NRPSs and the myriad of tailoring enzymes associated
with each of the biosynthetic machineries, afford the remarkable structural
diversity within each of the natural product scaffolds. These features
could be exploited to survey the intrinsic biosynthetic potential,
thereby rapidly identifying the most promising strains and prioritizing
them for natural product discovery.As a proof of concept study,
we therefore reasoned that (i) genes
encoding biosynthetic enzymes of these four classes of natural products
could be amplified from pools of genomic DNA by PCR using pathway-specific
primers, (ii) the resultant products could be uniformly labeled by
PCR using unbiased “tag primers” to afford pools of
pathway-specific DNA probes, (iii) the biosynthetic potential for
the four targeted classes of natural products could then be surveyed
by probing a genomic DNA array of the strains using pools of the pathway-specific
probes, and (iv) strains with the greatest biosynthetic potential
could be identified, prioritized, and subjected to an emerging suite
of technologies to awaken the cryptic pathways for production and
subsequent isolation and characterization of the targeted classes
of natural products (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Biosynthetic potential-based
strain prioritization for natural
product discovery: (A) amplification of genes characteristic of representative
biosynthetic machinery from a pool of genomic DNA by PCR using pathway-specific
primers, (B) uniformly labeling the first-round PCR products by the
second-round PCR using unbiased “tag primers” to afford
a pool of pathway-specific DNA probes, (C) survey of the biosynthetic
machinery of the targeted class of natural products by screening a
genomic DNA array of the strains with the pool of pathway-specific
probes, (D) fermentation optimization of “hit” or “talented”
stains for production and isolation of the targeted natural products.
Five strains are depicted, with strains 1–4 harboring the biosynthetic
machineries of the targeted class of natural products. Position 6
of the genomic DNA array depicts a negative control.
Biosynthetic potential-based
strain prioritization for natural
product discovery: (A) amplification of genes characteristic of representative
biosynthetic machinery from a pool of genomic DNA by PCR using pathway-specific
primers, (B) uniformly labeling the first-round PCR products by the
second-round PCR using unbiased “tag primers” to afford
a pool of pathway-specific DNA probes, (C) survey of the biosynthetic
machinery of the targeted class of natural products by screening a
genomic DNA array of the strains with the pool of pathway-specific
probes, (D) fermentation optimization of “hit” or “talented”
stains for production and isolation of the targeted natural products.
Five strains are depicted, with strains 1–4 harboring the biosynthetic
machineries of the targeted class of natural products. Position 6
of the genomic DNA array depicts a negative control.Figure 1 depicts the design
of the method
to survey biosynthetic potential in microorganisms and application
of the method to prioritize strains for targeted natural product discovery.
We first selected 16 representative strains, known to produce the
four major classes of natural products, i.e., reduced polyketides
(six), aromatic polyketides (four), nonribosomal peptides (four),
and diterpenoids (two), to develop the method (Figure S1). The gene clusters encoding the biosynthetic machineries
for each of the 16 natural products have been cloned and characterized
(Table S2). PCR methods to amplify the
genes characteristic of each of the four representative biosynthetic
machineries, i.e., type I PKSs[33] for reduced
polyketides, type II PKSs[34] for aromaticpolyketides, NRPSs[33] for nonribosomal peptides,
and DTSs[35] for ditepenoids, have all been
developed. Figure S2A summarizes the sequence
alignments of genes encoding the selected type I PKSs, type II PKSs,
NRPSs, and DTSs, and the biosynthetic machinery-specific primers were
designed according to the conserved protein sequences (Table 1). Most importantly, we fused an AT-rich tag, taking
advantage of the high GC content of the actinomycete genome,[5] to the pathway-specific primers (Table 1), allowing us to prepare by a two-tiered PCR method
a pool of pathway-specific probes enriched with all possible variants
of the targeted biosynthetic machinery (Figure 1). Thus, genomic DNAs from the 16 strains were pooled and used as
templates to prepare each pool of the pathway-specific probes by the
two-tiered PCR method, yielding distinct products with the expected
sizes (Figure S2B). Ten randomly selected
clones from each pool of the probes were sequenced, and all of them
were confirmed to be the targeted pathway-specific genes, with eight
variants each for type I and type II PKSs, six variants for NRPSs,
and two variants for DTSs, respectively. Finally, the genomic DNAs
of the 16 strains were arrayed on a nylon membrane and screened with
each pool of pathway-specific probes. Six of the six reduced polyketide
producers, four of the four aromaticpolyketide producers, three of
the four nonribosomal peptide producers, and two of the two diterpenoid
producers were readily identified. While the DTS pool of probes hybridized
only to the two known diterpenoid producers, hybridizations using
the other three pools of probes revealed that many of the 16 strains,
in addition to being the producers of the known class of natural products,
are potential producers of the other two classes of natural products
as well (Figure S2C). These hybridization
results were further correlated with PCR amplification, using the
same set of primers but each of the 16 genomic DNAs individually as
a template (Figure S2D).
Table 1
Primers and Conditions for the Two-Tiered
PCR Method to Prepare a Pool of Pathway-Specific Probes and Use Them
to Survey Strains for Biosynthetic Potential of the Targeted Class
of Natural Products
The designer primers
consisted of
the pathway-specific sequences and the unbiased AT-rich tag (underlined).
S, C/G; W, A/T; I, inosine.
The designer primers
consisted of
the pathway-specific sequences and the unbiased AT-rich tag (underlined).
S, C/G; W, A/T; I, inosine.
Survey of 100 Strains for Biosynthetic Potential Yielding 16
Talented Natural Product Producers
We next randomly selected
100 strains from our actinomycete collection and applied the method
described above to survey their biosynthetic potential for the four
targeted classes of natural products. The genomic DNAs for each of
the 100 strains were individually prepared and arrayed on a nylon
membrane. Each pool of the four pathway-specific probes was similarly
prepared by the two-tiered PCR method (Figure 1), using the same set of primers (Table 1)
but with the pooled genomic DNAs from the 100 strains as templates.
Screening of the 100 strains with each pool of the probes revealed
great biosynthetic potentials for these strains to produce the four
targeted classes of natural products (Figure S3). As summarized in Figure 2, 36, 39, 38,
and 25 out the 100 strains were identified as potential producers
of reduced polyketides, aromatic polyketides, nonribosomal peptides,
and diterpenoids, respectively, with 16 of them as “talented”
strains that could have the potential to produce all four classes
of natural products.
Figure 2
Venn diagram summarizing the biosynthetic potential of
the four
targeted classes of natural products in the selected 100 strains upon
screening with each pool of probes. Sixteen “talented”
strains (highlighted in red) were found having the potential to produce
all four classes of natural products, and S. griseus CB00830 is one of the 16 talented strains.
Venn diagram summarizing the biosynthetic potential of
the four
targeted classes of natural products in the selected 100 strains upon
screening with each pool of probes. Sixteen “talented”
strains (highlighted in red) were found having the potential to produce
all four classes of natural products, and S. griseus CB00830 is one of the 16 talented strains.
S. griseus CB00830
Showcasing the Discovery
of Three Diterpenoids and Nine Additional Natural Products
S. griseus CB00830 was first cultured, on a small
scale (50 mL), in 10 different media for fermentation optimization
(Table S1), and crude extracts of the resultant
cultures were then subjected to TLC and HPLC analysis. On the basis
of metabolite profiles, which varied significantly among the 10 media
examined, medium E was then selected for large-scale fermentation
(5 L) and natural product isolation. The crude extract was subjected
to a series of chromatographies, affording 12 natural products, and
their structures were elucidated on the basis of MS and NMR spectroscopic
analyses, unveiling three diterpenoids (1–3), four nonribosomal peptides (4–7), two chloroanthranilates (8 and 9), and three polyketides (10–12)
(Figure 3).
Figure 3
Structures of the 12 natural products
isolated from S.
griseus CB00830: the three diterpenoids viguiepinol (1) and oxaloterpins E (2) and C (3), the four nonribosomal peptides grisechelins A (4),
B (5), C (6), and D (7), the
two biosynthetically associated metabolites 4-chloroanthranilamide
(8) and methyl 4-chloroanthranilate (9),
and the three polyketides dinactin (10), feigrisolide
C (11), and seco-dinactin (12).
Structures of the 12 natural products
isolated from S.
griseus CB00830: the three diterpenoidsviguiepinol (1) and oxaloterpins E (2) and C (3), the four nonribosomal peptidesgrisechelins A (4),
B (5), C (6), and D (7), the
two biosynthetically associated metabolites 4-chloroanthranilamide
(8) and methyl 4-chloroanthranilate (9),
and the three polyketidesdinactin (10), feigrisolide
C (11), and seco-dinactin (12).Compound 1 was obtained as a colorless
oil. High-resolution
electrospray ionization (HRESI)MS analysis afforded an [M –
H2O + H]+ ion at m/z 271.2421, establishing the molecular formula of 1 as C20H32O (calculated [M –
H2O + H]+ ion at m/z 271.2425). The 1H NMR spectrum showed resonances
attributed to (i) four tertiary methyl groups at δH 1.07 (s, 3H, H3-18), δH 0.99 (s, 3H,
H3-20), δH 0.97 (s, 3H, H3-17),
and δH 0.87 (s, 3H, H3-19), (ii) aliphatic
moieties between δH 1.20 and 2.50, and (iii) double
bonds or oxygen-linked methine groups between δH 4.00
and 6.00 (Table S3). These chemical shifts
and coupling patterns, in combination with 20 carbon signals in the 13C NMR spectrum (Table S3), suggested
a characteristic diterpenoid chemical skeleton of 1,
whose identity as viguiepinol (Figure 3) was
finally confirmed by 1H–1H COSY, HSQC,
and HMBC experiments (Figure S4).[36,37]Compound 2 was obtained as a white powder. HRESIMS
analysis afforded an [M + Na]+ ion at m/z 354.2400, establishing the molecular formula
of 2 as C21H33NO2 (calculated
for [M + Na]+ ion at m/z 354.2408). The 1H, 13C, 1H–1H COSY, HSQC, and HMBC spectra showed that the only difference
between 1 and 2 was an extra carbamoyl group
attached at the C-3 oxygen atom in 2 (Table S3 and Figure S4), and 2 was thus identified
as oxaloterpin E (Figure 3).[36]Compound 3 was obtained as a white powder.
HRESIMS
analysis afforded an [M + Na]+ ion at m/z 398.2297, establishing the molecular formula
of 3 as C22H33NO4 (calculated
[M + Na]+ ion at m/z 398.2306).
Similarly, the 1H, 13C, 1H–1H COSY, HSQC, and HMBC spectra revealed that the only difference
between 2 and 3 was an N-hydroxyoxalyl amide group attached at the C-3 oxygen atom in 3, replacing the carbamoyl group in 2 (Table S3 and Figure S4), and 3 was
hence identified as oxaloterpin C (Figure 3).[26]Compound 4 was
obtained as a yellow powder. HRESIMS
analysis of 4 afforded an [M + H]+ ion at m/z 395.0406, with the characteristic 3:1
ratio for the isotope ions at m/z 395.0406 and m/z 397.0374 for
one chlorine atom, establishing the molecular formula of 4 as C16H15ClN4O2S2 (calculated for [M + H]+ ion at m/z 395.0402). The 1H and 1H–1H COSY spectra of 4 showed resonances
attributed to (i) an aliphatic −CH2CHCH–
coupling system at δH 3.62 (1H, dd, J = 11.0, 9.4 Hz, H-3′a), δH 3.32 (1H, t, J = 10.9 Hz, H-3′b), δH 5.29 (1H,
dt, J = 9.2, 5.6 Hz, H-4′), and δH 4.98 (1H, dd, J = 11.6, 5.7 Hz, H-6′)
and (ii) an aliphatic ABX coupling system at δH 3.21
(1H, dd, J = 10.0, 6.5 Hz, H-8′a), δH 2.80 (1H, dd, J = 9.8, 9.0 Hz, H-8′b),
and δH 3.74 (1H, ddd, J = 11.7,
8.8, 6.4 Hz, H-9′) (Figure 4A and Table 2). The chemical shifts and coupling patterns of
these two coupling systems in the 1H NMR spectrum, in combination
with the correlated carbon signals at δC 175.2 (C-1′),
δC 32.5 (C-3′), δC 79.7 (C-4′),
δC 72.5 (C-6′), δC 37.3 (C-8′),
δC 65.9 (C-9′), and δC 171.9
(C-11′) established by HSQC and HMBC experiments (Figure 4A and Table 2), suggested
a C-1′ and C-9′ disubstituted thiazolinylthiazolidinyl
moiety in 4, similar to that in the siderophore pyochelin
produced in Pseudomonas aeruginosa.[38−42] However, the carboxylic acid moiety at C-9′ in pyochelin
was substituted by an amide moiety in 4, as supported
by the two amide signals at δH 7.58 (1H, br s) and
δH 7.32 (1H br s), and the −N-CH3 group in pyochelin was replaced by −N-H at δH 3.12 (1H, t, J = 11.6 Hz, 10′-NH) in 4 as supported by the correlations between H-6′ and
10′-N-H and between H-9′ and 10′-N-H in the 1H–1H COSY spectrum (Figure 4A).
Figure 4
Key COSY, HMBC, and NOESY correlations supporting (A) the structures
of grisechelins A (4), B (5), C (6), and D (7), 4-chloroanthranilamide (8), and methyl 4-chloroanthranilate (9) and (B) the relative
configuration of grisechelin A (4).
Table 2
1H (700 MHz) and 13C (175 MHz)
NMR Data for Grisechelins A (4) and D (7) in d6-DMSO and Grisechelins
B (5) and C (6) in CDCl3a
grisechelin
A (4)
grisechelin
B (5)
grisechelin
C (6)
grisechelin
D (7)
position
δC, type
δH (J in Hz)
δC, type
δH (J in Hz)
δC, type
δH (J in Hz)
δC, type
δH (J in Hz)
2
138.0, C
138.4, C
139.2, C
139.6, C
3
151.5, C
152.0, C
150.2, C
150.2, C
4
119.4, CH
7.96, br s
119.1, CH
7.67, s
119.3,
CH
7.70, s
120.3, CH
8.03,
s
4a
128.9, C
132.7, C
128.7, C
129.2, C
5
128.5, CH
7.95, d (8.9)
127.5, CH
7.68, d (8.8)
127.6, CH
7.68, d (8.8)
129.1, CH
7.97, d
(8.8)
6
129.3, CH
7.65, dd (8.9, 2.1)
129.6, CH
7.50, dd
(8.8, 2.1)
128.8, CH
7.47, dd (8.8, 2.1)
129.3, CH
7.65, dd (8.5, 1.4)
7
131.9, C
129.0,
C
132.8, C
132.5, C
8
127.3, CH
8.04, d (2.1)
128.5, CH
8.11, d (2.0)
127.9, CH
8.07, d
(2.0)
127.5, CH
8.08, br s
8a
141.7,
C
142.6, C
142.8, C
142.5, C
1′
175.2, C
177.0, C
170.5, C
169.8, C
3′
32.5, CH2
3.62, dd (11.0, 9.4)
32.0, CH2
3.50, dd (10.9, 9.3)
117.8, CH
7.49 br s
134.9, CH
9.01, s
3.32, t (10.9)
3.40, dd (10.9, 8.3)
4′
79.7, CH
5.29, dt (9.2, 5.6)
79.0, CH
5.08, m
156.3, C
154.4, C
6′
72.5, CH
4.98, dd (11.6, 5.7)
64.3, CH2
4.08, br d (11.5)
61.0, CH2
4.94 br s
185.1, CH
10.07, s
3.96, br d (11.5)
8′
37.3, CH2
3.21, dd (10.0, 6.5)
2.80,
dd (9.8, 9.0)
9′
65.9, CH
3.74, ddd (11.7, 8.8, 6.4)
11′
171.9, C
3-OH
12.20, s
11.90, br s
11.72, br s
11.54, br s
10′-NH
3.12, t (11.6)
CONH2
7.58, br s
7.32, br s
Assignments
were based on COSY,
HMBC, HSQC, and NOESY experiments.
Key COSY, HMBC, and NOESY correlations supporting (A) the structures
of grisechelins A (4), B (5), C (6), and D (7), 4-chloroanthranilamide (8), and methyl 4-chloroanthranilate (9) and (B) the relative
configuration of grisechelin A (4).Assignments
were based on COSY,
HMBC, HSQC, and NOESY experiments.After excluding the thiazolinylthiazolidinyl carboxamide
moiety,
there were nine additional carbon signals in the 13C spectrum,
all of which were characteristic of aromaticcarbons (Table 2). HSQC and HMBC experiments established these nine
carbon signals correlated with the aromatic ABX coupling systems at
δH 7.95 (1H, d, J = 8.9 Hz, H-5),
δH 7.65 (1H, dd, J = 8.9, 2.1 Hz,
H-6), and δH 8.04 (1H, d, J = 2.1
Hz, H-8) and the aromatic singlet signal at δH 7.96
(1H, br s, H-4) in the 1H NMR spectrum (Figure 4A). These chemical shifts and coupling patterns,
in combination with the yellow color of the compound, suggested a
C-2, C-3, and C-7 trisubstituted quinoline moiety in 4. The substitution of the thiazolinylthiazolidinyl carboxamide moiety
at C-2 was supported by the correlation of H-4′ with C-2, the
substitution of the hydroxyl group at C-3 was supported by correlations
of 3-OH with C-2, C-3, and C-4, and this finally enabled the assignment
of the Cl at C-7, consistent with the chemical shifts of C-7 at δC 131.9, C-6 at δC 129.3, and C-8 at δC 127.3, as well as correlations of C-7 with H-5 and H-8 (Figure 4A and Table 2). Taken together, 4 was identified as a new natural product, named grisechelin
A, featuring a chlorinated quinoline and a thiazolinylthiazolidinyl
carboxamide (Figure 3).The stereochemistry
of 4 was established by a NOESY
experiment. The correlation of H-6′ with H-9′ indicated
H-6′ was on the same side of the reduced thiazole ring as H-9′.
Due to the considerable spatial steric effect between the thiazoline
and thiazolidine rings, the angle between the H-6′–C-6′–C-4′
plane and the H-4′–C-4′–C-6′ plane
should be nearly 180°, positioning H-4′ and H-6′
in an opposite orientation (Figure 4B). Accordingly,
H-6′ correlated only with H-3′b, while H-4′ yielded
stronger correlations with H-3′a than H-3′b. This was
also consistent with the lack of correlations between 10′-N-H
and H-3′a or H-3′b, indicating 10′-N-H took different
sides of the H-6′–C-6′–C-4′ plane
from H-3′a and H-3′b (Figure 4B). Taken together, the relative configuration at C-4′, C-6′,
and C-9′ in 4 was assigned as R, R, and R, respectively (Figure 3).Compound 5 was obtained as
a yellow powder. HRESIMS
analysis of 5 afforded an [M + H]+ ion at m/z 295.0306, with the similar 3:1 ratio
for the isotope ions at m/z 295.0306
and m/z 297.0275, establishing the
molecular formula of 5 as C13H11ClN2O2S (calculated for the [M + H]+ ion at m/z 295.0307). The 1H and 1H–1H COSY spectra of 5 showed similar resonances to 4 attributed to
one aromatic ABX coupling system at δH 7.68 (1H,
d, J = 8.8 Hz, H-5), δH 7.50 (1H,
dd, J = 8.8, 2.1 Hz, H-6), and δH 8.11 (1H, d, J = 2.0 Hz, H-8) and one aromatic
singlet signal at δH 7.67 (1H, s, H-4) (Figure 4A and Table 2). While the
aliphatic ABX coupling system of 4 disappeared in 5, the aliphatic −CH2CHCH– coupling
system in 4 was replaced by a −CH2CHCH2– coupling system at δH 3.50 (1H,
dd, J = 10.9, 9.3 Hz, H-3′a), δH 3.40 (1H, dd, J = 10.9, 8.3 Hz, H-3′b),
δH 5.08 (1H, m, H-4′), δH 4.08 (1H, br d, J = 11.5 Hz, H-6′a), and
δH 3.96 (1H, br d, J = 11.5 Hz,
H-6′b) (Table 2). These comparisons
between 4 and 5 indicated 5 had the same chlorinated quinoline moiety as 4 but
had only the C-1′ and C-4′ disubstituted thiazolidine
moiety in the structure. The substitution of the thiazolidine moiety
at C-2 was similarly supported by the correlation of H-4′ with
C-2, while the assignment of a hydroxymethyl group at C-4′
was based on its chemical shift at δC 64.3 (C-6′)
and correlations between H-3′ and C-4′ and between H-3′
and C-6′ (Figure 4). Taken together, 5 was identified as a new natural product, named grisechelin
B, featuring a chlorinated quinoline and a thiazolidine, whose configuration
at C-4′ was not assigned but assumed to be the same as 4 (Figure 3).Compound 6 was obtained as a yellow powder. HRESIMS
analysis of 6 afforded an [M + H]+ ion at m/z 293.0152 with the similar 3:1 ratio
for the isotope ions at m/z 293.0152
and m/z 295.0121. This established
the molecular formula of 6 as C13H9ClN2O2S (calculated for the [M + H]+ ion at m/z 293.0151), which differed
from 5 by two hydrogens. Comparisons between 5 and 6 in the 1H and 1H–1H COSY spectra showed that the only difference was that the
−CH2CHCH2– coupling system in 5 was replaced by one aromatic methine signal at δH 7.49 (1H, br s, H-3′) and one aliphatic methylene
signal at δH 4.94 (2H, br s, H-6′) in 6, hence the assignment of a C-4′ hydroxymethyl-substituted
thiazole moiety to 6 (Table 2).
HSQC and HMBC experiments (Figure 4) finally
established 6 as a new natural product, named grisechelin
C, featuring a chlorinated quinoline and a thiazole (Figure 3).Compound 7 was obtained as
a yellow powder. HRESIMS
analysis of 7 afforded an [M + H]+ ion at m/z 290.9998 with the similar 3:1 ratio
for the isotope ions at m/z 290.9998
and m/z 292.9969. This established
the molecular formula of 7 as C13H7ClN2O2S (calculated for the [M + H]+ ion at m/z 290.9994), which differed
from 6 by two hydrogens. Comparisons of the 1H and 1H–1H COSY spectra of 6 and 7 showed that the only differences were that the
aromatic methine signal in thiazole ring of 6 was shifted
downfield to δH 9.01 (1H s, H-3′) and the
aliphatic methylene signal in 6 was replaced by an aldehyde
signal at δH 10.07 (1H, s, H-6′) in 7, respectively, indicating that the C-6′ hydroxymethyl
group in 6 was replaced by an aldehyde group in 7 (Table 2). HSQC and HMBC experiments
(Figure 4) finally confirmed the assignment
of 7 as a new natural product, named grisechelin D, featuring
a chlorinated quinoline and a thiazole carbaldehyde (Figure 3).Compounds 8, 9, 10, and 11 were identified as 4-chloroanthranilamide
(8),[43] methyl 4-chloroanthranilate
(9),[43] dinactin (10),[44,45] and feigrisolide C (11)[46] on the basis of MS and NMR spectroscopic analysis
(Tables S4 and S5). Although 8 and 9 have been synthesized previously,[43] this is the first time to our knowledge that
they have been isolated as microbial natural products.Compound 12 was obtained as a yellow oil. HRESIMS
analysis of 12 yielded the [M + H]+ and [M
+ Na]+ ions at m/z 783.4871
and 805.4688, respectively, establishing the molecular formula of 12 as C42H70O13 (calculated
for the [M + H]+ and [M + Na]+ ions at m/z 783.4892 and m/z 805.4712). Comparisons between 10 and 12 in the 1H, 13C, and 1H–1H COSY spectra showed that they were very similar except the
overlapped proton or carbon chemical shifts between the two symmetrical
units in 10 were split in 12 (Table S5). The most significant split signals
occurred at C-1/C-1′, C-16/C-16′, and C-20/C-20′,
as exemplified by C-1/C-1′ at δC 174.3 in 10 to C-1 at δC 175.9 and C-1′ at
δC 174.5 in 12, H-16/H-16′ at
δH 4.92 (1H, m) in 10 to H-16 at δH 4.87 (1H, m) and H-16′ at δH 3.78
(1H, m) in 12, C-16/C-16′ at δC 73.1 in 10 to C-16 at δC 73.5 and
C-16′ at δC 70.3 in 12, and C-20/C-20′
at δC 27.3 in 10 to C-20 at δC 30.0 and C-20′ at δC 27.5 in 12, respectively. These spectroscopic data indicated the ester
linkage at C-1 in 10 was hydrolyzed in 12, which was supported by the disappearance of the HMBC correlation
between H-16′ and C-1 in 12 (Figure S5). Taken together, 12 was identified
as seco-dinactin, a new analogue of the macrotetrolide family,[44,45] resulting from hydrolysis of 10 at the C-1 position
(Figure 3).
Streptomyces griseus CB00830 Demonstrating
the Utility of Biosynthetic Potential-Based Strain Prioritization
for Natural Product Discovery
We chose S. griseus CB00830 to showcase natural product discovery on the basis that
(i) it was identified as a diterpenoid producer and diterpenoids of
bacterial origin are underrepresented among known natural products
and (ii) it was one of the talented strains that could produce all
four classes of the targeted natural products. Upon fermentation optimization
in 10 different media, we indeed isolated three diterpenoids, 1–3, from S. griseus CB00830
(Figure 3). All diterpenoids are derived from
geranylgeranyl diphosphate (GGDP), and DTSs catalyze the critical
steps in diterpenoid biosynthesis by morphing GGDP into one of the
many diterpenoid scaffolds, further transformations of which by pathway-specific
tailoring enzymes afford vast structural diversity known for diterpenoid
natural products.[31,32] The three diterpenoids 1–3 had been isolated previously from Streptomyces sp. KO-3988, the biosynthesis of which from
GGDP had been confirmed to be catalyzed by two DTSs, an ent-copalyl diphosphate (ent-CPP) synthase and a pimaradiene
synthase.[36,47] We have cloned the genes that encode the
GGDP synthase, ent-CPP synthase, and pimaradiene
synthase from S. griseus CB00830, which show high
sequence identities to their homologues from Streptomyces sp. KO-3988 (Figure S6). Taken together,
these findings support our DTS-based strain prioritization strategy
for diterpenoid discovery. Fermentation optimization of the other
talented strains already identified in this study or application of
our strategy to identify additional diterpenoid producers holds great
promise in accelerating the discovery and isolation of additional
bacterial diterpenoid natural products.[32]S. griseus CB00830 as a nonribosomal peptide
and polyketide producer is supported by the isolation of compounds 4–9 and 10–12, respectively (Figure 3). Thus, the biosynthesis
of 4, in analogy to pyrochelin,[48,49] could be proposed to be catalyzed by an NRPS consisting of at least
three modules: (i) an initiation module that specifies 7-chloro-3-hydroxyquinaldic
acid as the starter unit and (ii) two extension modules that incorporate
two molecules of l-cysteine as the extender units to afford
the nonribosomal peptide backbone of 4 (Figure 5). Compounds 5–7 could be viewed as shunt metabolites of 4, terminated
from the NRPS biosynthetic machinery prematurely before the incorporation
of the second l-cysteine residue. Quinaldic acid-containing
nonribosomal peptide natural products are rare but known, and at least
two distinct pathways have been proposed for their biosynthesis, both
of which originated from tryptophan.[50,51] To our knowledge,
however, 4 is the first natural product that contains
a 7-chloro-3-hydroxyquinaldic acid moiety, hence providing an exciting
opportunity to investigate its biosynthesis. It is tempting to speculate
that the 7-chloro-3-hydroxyquinaldic acid moiety of 4 could originate from 7-chlorotryptophan, in biosynthetic analogy
to the 3-hydroxyquinaldic acid moiety of thiocoraline from tryptophan
in Micromonospora sp. ML1 (Figure 5).[50] Compounds 8 and 9 could be then viewed as degradation products of 7-chlorotryptophan,
though they could equally be shunt metabolites of chorismate metabolism
via the intermediacy of anthranilic acid (Figure 5).[52] Similarly, isolation of compounds 10–12 is consistent with the prediction
of S. griseus CB00830 as a polyketide producer. We
have previously established the polyketide origin of 10 with 11 and 12 as putative biosynthetic
intermediates.[44,45] Both 11 and 12 therefore could be viewed as shunt metabolites for 10 biosynthesis, although 12 could also be a
degradation metabolite of 10.
Figure 5
Proposed pathway for
grisechelin A (4) biosynthesis
in S. griseus CB00830, featuring 7-chlorotryptophan
and 7-chloro-3-hydroxyquinaldic acid as key intermediates and a NRPS
biosynthetic machinery incorporating 7-chloro-3-hydroxyquinaldic acid
and two molecules of l-cysteine to afford the nonribosomal
peptide backbone, as supported by the isolation of shunt metabolites
grisechelins B (5), C (6), and D (7), 4-chloroanthranilamide (8), and methyl 4-chloroanthranilate
(9) from the same strain. “–S-Enz”
depicts biosynthetic intermediates covalently tethered to the peptidyl
carrier protein of the NRPS.
Proposed pathway for
grisechelin A (4) biosynthesis
in S. griseus CB00830, featuring 7-chlorotryptophan
and 7-chloro-3-hydroxyquinaldic acid as key intermediates and a NRPS
biosynthetic machinery incorporating 7-chloro-3-hydroxyquinaldic acid
and two molecules of l-cysteine to afford the nonribosomal
peptide backbone, as supported by the isolation of shunt metabolites
grisechelins B (5), C (6), and D (7), 4-chloroanthranilamide (8), and methyl 4-chloroanthranilate
(9) from the same strain. “–S-Enz”
depicts biosynthetic intermediates covalently tethered to the peptidyl
carrier protein of the NRPS.Our method was effective in identifying potential producers
of
aromatic polyketides (39), reduced polyketides (36), and nonribosomal
peptides (38) from the 100 strains examined (Figure 2), and these findings were consistent with the actinomycete
genomes sequenced to date, each of which was shown to encode multiple
type I and II PKSs as well as NRPSs.[5,8] In retrospect,
type I and II PKSs and NRPSs might not be the best choice of probes
to survey biosynthetic potential of a strain due to their universal
distribution in actinomycetes, hence the likelihood of high hit rates.
In contrast, 25 of the 100 strains were identified as potential diterpenoid
producers (Figure 2), and this was unexpected
because only a very small number of diterpenoids have been characterized
from actinomycetes.[31,32] The latter finding highlights
that variations and future application of this method may be most
productive in surveying strains for potential producers of natural
products of underrepresented scaffolds or with specifically defined
structural features.
Experimental Section
General
Experimental Procedures
Optical rotations were
measured with an AUTOPOL IV automatic polarimeter (Rudolph Research
Analytical). UV spectra were collected with a NanoDrop 2000C spectrophotometer
(Thermo Scientific). Circular dichroism spectrum was measured with
a J-815 CD spectrometer (JASCO). NMR data were recorded on a Bruker
Ultra Shield 700 instrument. HRESIMS analysis was carried out on a
Thermo Finnigan LTQ Orbitrap mass spectrometer. MPLC separation was
conducted on Biotage Isolera One using a Biotage SNAP Cartridge HP-Sil
column (25 g). HPLC was carried out on a Varian semipreparative HPLC
system using a Prostar 330 detector and a GRACE Apollo C18 column (250 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 μm) for analysis and an Alltima
C18 column (250 mm × 10.0 mm, 5 μm) for purification.
Fermentation was carried out in a New Brunswick Scientific Innova
44 incubator shaker for small scale (50 mL in 250 mL baffled Erlenmeyer
flasks) or a New Brunswick BioFlo/CelliGen 115 fermentor for large
scale (5 L in a 14 L vessel).
Bacterial Strains, Plasmids,
Biochemicals, Chemicals, and Media
Escherichia coli DH5α was used as the host
for common subcloning and plasmid preparation.[53] The 16 strains used to develop and validate the method
are summarized in Table S2. The actinomycete
collection at The Scripps Research Institute consists of strains isolated
from various unexplored and underexplored ecological niches as exemplified
in early publications.[23−30] Actinomycete strain cultivation and genomic DNA preparation followed
standard protocols.[54] Taq 2X Master Mix
(New England BioLabs Inc.) was used for PCR amplification, and QIAquick
Gel extraction kit and QIAprep Spin miniprep kit (Qiagen) were used
for PCR product recovery and plasmid extraction, respectively. Common
biochemical and chemicals were purchased from standard commercial
sources and used directly. Diaion HP-20 resins were purchased from
Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation. Sephadex LH-20 was from GE Healthcare.
Primer Design and Preparation of a Pool of Probes by the Two-Tiered
PCR Method
The designer primers, consisting of the pathway-specific
sequences for the targeted classes of natural products and unbiased
AT-rich tags, are summarized in Table 1. The
pathway-specific PCR primers for type I PKSs,[33] type II PKSs,[34] NRPSs,[33] and DTSs[35] were similarly designed
according to literature protocols (Figure S2A), and an 18 bp AT-rich tag sequence was added at the 5′ end
of each pathway-specific primer to form the designer primers for the
first round of PCR. The primers for the second round of PCR were identical
to the 18 bp AT-rich tag sequences (Table 1).For the first round of PCR, 1 μg of genomic DNA mixture
containing an equal amount for each genome was used as a template
in a 50 μL PCR reaction. Only 10 cycles were used for the first
round of PCR to retain product diversity (Table 1). The resultant products were recovered by 1% agar gel and used
as the template of the second round of PCR. The second-round PCR used
35 cycles to ensure that all variants of the first-round PCR products
were well represented as a pool of probes. The final PCR products
were cloned into pGEM-T and pGEM-T Easy Vector Systems for sequencing
to validate the accuracy and diversity.
Survey of Biosynthetic
Potential within a Collection of Strains
The genomic DNA
of individual strains was denatured in boiling
water for 5 min and quickly chilled in ice to obtain single-stranded
DNA. Approximately 2 μg of resultant DNA was dotted onto an
Amersham Hybond-N+ membrane (GE Healthcare), dried, and
cross-linked according to standard protocols.[53] The probe labeling and hybridization procedures followed DIG-High
Prime DNA labeling and detection starter kit I (Roche). Approximately
500 ng of PCR products was used for each labeling, and a final concentration
of 25 ng/mL of the probes was used in each hybridization process (Table 1). Upon completion of the hybridization process,
the final blots were documented by photography.
Fermentation
Optimization and Natural Product Isolation from S. griseus CB00830
The CB00830 strain, collected
from the Nagqu prefecture of Tibet, China, was assigned as an S. griseus species on the basis of polyphasic taxonomy (Figure S7) and preserved as a spore suspension
in 20% glycerol at −80 °C. S. griseus CB00830 was first cultured in TSB at 28 °C and 250 rpm for
2 days to prepare the seed inoculum. This seed culture was then used
to inoculate 10 different media (50 mL in 250 mL baffled Erlenmeyer
flasks) (Table S1), each of which was fermented
at 28 °C and 250 rpm for 7 days. After fermentation, Diaion HP-20
resins (5%) were added to each of the cultures, and the resultant
slurries of resins and cell mass were agitated for 4 h at room temperature.
Upon centrifugation, the supernatants were discarded, and the pelleted
resins and cell mass were collected, washed with water, and extracted
with MeOH to recover all natural products present in the fermentation.
These crude extracts were finally subjected to TLC and HPLC analysis
to compare metabolite profiles.For large-scale fermentation,
the same seed culture (500 mL) was used to inoculate 5 L of medium
E (Table S1), and the fermentation was
carried out in a 14 L vessel fermentor at 250 rpm, 28 °C for
7 days. After fermentation, 200 g of Diaion HP-20 resins was added
into the culture and stirred overnight, and the resin and cell mass
then were harvested by centrifugation. The resin and cell pellet were
washed with water and extracted with 95% ethanol, and the ethanol
extracts were concentrated in a vacuum to afford the crude extract.The crude extract was resuspended in water, followed by extraction
with EtOAc. The EtOAc extract was subjected to MPLC, using a Biotage
SNAP Cartridge HP-Sil column (25 g), eluted with a linear gradient
of MeOH in CH2Cl2 from 0% to 90%, to afford
90 fractions. Fractions 4–6 were combined and subjected to
preparative TLC (SiO2), eluted with CHCl3, to
yield 9 (7.9 mg). Fractions 11–13 were combined
and subjected sequentially to preparative TLC (SiO2), eluted
with CHCl3, and Sephadex LH-20 column chromatography, eluted
with CHCl3/MeOH (1:1), to afford 1 (3.6 mg)
and 7 (2.5 mg), respectively. Fractions 22–26
were combined and subjected to Sephadex LH-20 column chromatography,
eluted with CHCl3/MeOH (1:1), to afford compound 2 (3.9 mg). Fractions 27–31 were combined and subjected
sequentially to Sephadex LH-20 column chromatography, eluted with
CHCl3/MeOH (1:1), and preparative HPLC (C18),
eluted with CH3CN/H2O (67:33), to afford compounds 5 (0.9 mg) and 6 (1.1 mg), respectively. Fraction
33 was subjected to Sephadex LH-20 column chromatography, eluted with
CHCl3/MeOH (1:1), to afford compound 10 (140.1
mg). Fraction 39, at room temperature for 3 days, precipitated out
a yellow powder, which was collected and washed with CHCl3 to afford 4 (5.5 mg). Fractions 43 and 44 were combined
and subjected sequentially to Sephadex LH-20 column chromatography,
eluted with CHCl3/MeOH (1:1), and preparative HPLC (C18), eluted with CH3CN/H2O (85:15), to
afford 3 (4.4 mg). Fractions 64–67 were combined
and subjected to Sephadex LH-20 column chromatography, eluted with
CHCl3/MeOH (1:1), to afford compounds 8 (0.7
mg) and 12 (4.2 mg). Finally, fractions 73–79
were combined and subjected sequentially to SiO2 column
chromatography, eluted with CHCl3/MeOH (30:1), and Sephadex
LH-20 column chromatography, eluted with CHCl3/MeOH (1:1),
to afford 11 (6.5 mg).
Grisechelin A (4):
yellow powder; UV (CHCl3) λmax (log ε) 248 (4.41), 301 (3.73),
377 (3.50) nm; circular dichroism spectrum (see Figure S13); 1H and 13C NMR (see Table 2); HRESIMS for the [M + H]+ ion at m/z 395.0406 (calculated [M + H]+ ion for C16H15ClN4O2S2 at m/z 395.0402).
Grisechelin B (5):
yellow powder; UV (CHCl3) λmax (log ε) 248 (4.33), 306 (3.66),
375 (3.51) nm; 1H and 13C NMR (see Table 2); HRESIMS for the [M + H]+ ion at m/z 295.0306 (calculated [M + H]+ ion for C13H11ClN2O2S at m/z 295.0307).
Grisechelin
C (6):
yellow powder; UV (CHCl3)
λmax (log ε) 247 (4.08), 325 (3.69),
377 (3.70) nm; 1H and 13C NMR (see Table 2); HRESIMS for the [M + H]+ ion at m/z 293.0152 (calculated [M + H]+ ion for C13H9ClN2O2S
at m/z 293.0151).
Grisechelin
D (7):
yellow powder; UV (CHCl3)
λmax (log ε) 242 (4.51), 322 (4.10),
372 (4.08) nm; 1H and 13C NMR (see Table 2); HRESIMS for the [M + H]+ ion at m/z 290.9998 (calculated [M + H]+ ion for C13H7ClN2O2S
at m/z 290.9994).
seco-Dinactin
(12):
yellow oil; [α]27D +4.5 (c 0.4, CHCl3); 1H and 13C NMR (see Table S5); HRESIMS for the [M + H]+ and [M + Na]+ ions
at m/z 783.4871 and m/z 805.4688 [M + Na]+, respectively
(calculated [M + H]+ and [M + Na]+ ions for
C42H70O13 at m/z 783.4892 and m/z 805.4712,
respectively).
Authors: Zhiguo Yu; Sanja Vodanovic-Jankovic; Nathan Ledeboer; Sheng-Xiong Huang; Scott R Rajski; Michael Kron; Ben Shen Journal: Org Lett Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 6.005
Authors: Brad Tebbets; Zhiguo Yu; Douglas Stewart; Li-Xing Zhao; Yi Jiang; Li-Hua Xu; David Andes; Ben Shen; Bruce Klein Journal: Med Mycol Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 4.076
Authors: Michael W Mullowney; Eoghainín Ó hAinmhire; Urszula Tanouye; Joanna E Burdette; Van Cuong Pham; Brian T Murphy Journal: Mar Drugs Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 5.118