Chemical analysis of an Australian marine sediment-derived Aspergillus sp. (CMB-M081F) yielded the new diketomorpholine (DKM) shornephine A (1) together with two known and one new diketopiperazine (DKP), 15b-β-hydroxy-5-N-acetyladreemin (2), 5-N-acetyladreemin (3), and 15b-β-methoxy-5-N-acetyladreemin (4), respectively. Structure elucidation of 1-4 was achieved by detailed spectroscopic analysis, supported by chemical degradation and derivatization, and biosynthetic considerations. The DKM (1) underwent a facile (auto) acid-mediated methanolysis to yield seco-shornephine A methyl ester (1a). Our mechanistic explanation of this transformation prompted us to demonstrate that the acid-labile and solvolytically unstable DKM scaffold can be stabilized by N-alkylation. Furthermore, we demonstrate that at 20 μM shornephine A (1) is a noncytotoxic inhibitor of P-glycoprotein-mediated drug efflux in multidrug-resistant human colon cancer cells.
Chemical analysis of an Australian marine sediment-derived Aspergillus sp. (CMB-M081F) yielded the new diketomorpholine (DKM) shornephine A (1) together with two known and one new diketopiperazine (DKP), 15b-β-hydroxy-5-N-acetyladreemin (2), 5-N-acetyladreemin (3), and 15b-β-methoxy-5-N-acetyladreemin (4), respectively. Structure elucidation of 1-4 was achieved by detailed spectroscopic analysis, supported by chemical degradation and derivatization, and biosyntheticconsiderations. The DKM (1) underwent a facile (auto) acid-mediated methanolysis to yield seco-shornephine A methyl ester (1a). Our mechanistic explanation of this transformation prompted us to demonstrate that the acid-labile and solvolytically unstable DKM scaffold can be stabilized by N-alkylation. Furthermore, we demonstrate that at 20 μM shornephine A (1) is a noncytotoxic inhibitor of P-glycoprotein-mediated drug efflux in multidrug-resistant humancolon cancercells.
Diketopiperazines (DKPs)
are well represented among natural products,
particularly fungal metabolites, with structural diversity extending
across fused heterocycles, prenylation, polythio-bridging, dimerization,
nitration, halogenation, oxidation, and more. Typically viewed as
products of nonribosomal peptide synthases,[1] the recent discovery of a DKPcyclase[2] suggests a more complex biosynthetic landscape. Indeed, the diverse
structural and biological properties exhibited by natural DKPs have
attracted much attention, encouraging efforts to probe biosynthetic
pathways, develop innovative syntheses, and apply DKPs in human and
animal health.[3] The 2010 release by Pfizer
Animal Health of a new class of anthelmintic inspired by the Penicillium DKPparaherquamide (6) (the first
in over two decades) is illustrative of this potential.[4] By contrast, reports of the closely related diketomorpholine
(DKM) motif are rare, with accounts of the DKM scaffold being rare
across natural products, synthetic, and medicinal chemistry.This report describes our investigation of an Australian marine
sediment-derived Aspergillus sp. (CMB-M081F), leading
to the isolation of a new DKM, shornephine A (1), plus
its methanolysis product seco-shornephine A methyl
ester (1a), and three biosynthetically related DKPs,
15b-β-hydroxy-5-N-acetyladreemin (2), 5-N-acetyladreemin (3), and 15b-β-methoxy-5-N-acetyladreemin (4) (Figure 1). Structures were assigned to 1–4 on the basis of detailed spectroscopic analysis, chemical
degradation and derivatization, and consideration of biosynthetic
relationships. To explore the mechanism behind the solvolysis of 1, we reviewed all known DKM natural products (7–16) (Figure 5), and assessed
the chemical stability of a range of syntheticDKMs (17–26) (Figure 6). We also
investigated the biological properties of 1 against prokaryotic,
eukaryotic, and mammaliancells.
Figure 1
Aspergillus sp. (CMB-M081F) metabolites 1–4 and methanolysis product 1a.
Figure 5
Known DKM natural products 7–16.
Figure 6
Synthetic DKMs 17–26: (a) HBTU,
DIPEA, DMF, rt, h; (b) p-TsOH, toluene, microwave
140 °C, 300 W, 3 min.
Results and Discussion
Aspergillus sp. (CMB-M081F), isolated from a marine
sediment collected in 2007 at an intertidal depth of 1 m near Shorncliffe,
Queensland, Australia, was noteworthy in that cultivations were especially
slow at producing secondary metabolites. For example, HPLC-DAD-ESIMS
analysis of EtOAc extracts derived from 2-week agar plate cultivations
failed to detect any secondary metabolites, with peaks corresponding
to 1–4 only appearing post 5-weeks
(Supporting Information, Figure S1). To
investigate 1–4 further, we subjected
a scaled up (15 plate) cultivation to solvent extraction, partitioning,
trituration, and C8 reversed-phase HPLC (H2O/MeOH)
fractionation, to yield 1a and 2–4, with the unexpected isolation of 1a (m/z 489) rather than 1 (m/z 457) being attributed to methanolysis
during fractionation. Detailed spectroscopic analysis readily identified 2 (C28H28N4O4,
Δmmu +1.3) and 3 (C28H28N4O3, Δmmu −0.4) as the known DKP fungal
metabolites 15b-β-hydroxy-5-N-acetylardeemin[5] and 5-N-acetylardeemin,[6] respectively, with 4 (C29H30N4O4, Δmmu +0.4) being
identified as the new homologue 15b-β-methoxy-5-N-acetylardeemin (Supporting Information, Figures S10–S15). Supportive of this latter assignment,
the NMR (CDCl3) data for 4 exhibited resonances
for a 15b-β-OMe moiety (δH 2.70; δC 52.1), positioned by HMBCcorrelations from the OMe to C-15β,
and ROESY correlations from the OMe to H-16α and H-17. A detailed
account of the structure elucidation, chemistry, and biology of 1 and its methanolysis product 1a is presented
below.Aspergillus sp. (CMB-M081F) metabolites 1–4 and methanolysis product 1a.HRESI(+)MS analysis of 1a returned an adduct ion ([M
+ Na]+) consistent with a molecular formula (C26H30N2O6, Δmmu +0.6) requiring
13 double-bond equivalents (DBE). The 13C NMR (DMSO-d6) data for 1a (Table 1) revealed resonances for three ester/amidecarbonyls
(δC 172.5, 173.5 and 179.7) and 14 sp2 carbons (δC 113.8 to 143.5), accounting for 10
DBE and requiring that 1a be tricyclic. Further analysis
of the NMR data revealed COSY correlations diagnostic for five isolated
spin systems (Figure 2) and 1H NMR
resonances indicative of a methyl ester (δH 3.38)
and two isolated deshielded exchangeable protons (δH 9.50 and 10.20). A series of HMBCcorrelations permitted assembly
of the complete planar structure for 1a as shown (Figure 2). On the basis of this assignment, we hypothesized
that 1a was a methanolysis artifact of solvolytically
unstable DKM natural product (i.e., shornephine A (1)).
Table 1
1H NMR
(600 MHz) and 13C (150 MHz) Data of Shornephine A (1) and seco-Shornephine A Methyl Ester (1a)
pos
δH, mult (J in Hz) for 1 in CDCl3
δCa
pos
δH, mult (J in Hz) for 1a in DMSO
δCa
1
167.7
1
172.5
2
4.32, d (11.1)
57.3
1-OMe
3.38, s
52.1
3
a 3.26, d (13.7)
36.9
2
3.79, ddd (9.7, 8.0, 5.4)
49.8
b 2.81, dd (13.7, 11.1)
2-NH
7.35, d (8.0)
4
88.5
3
a 2.32, dd (14.2, 5.4)
32.8
4-OH
2.07, br s
b 2.24, dd (14.2, 9.7)
5
131.5
4
55.8
6
6.91, d (7.7)
117.1
5
130.0
7
6.69b,
m
117.3e
6
6.56, d (7.4)
117.0
8
6.67b, m
121.2e
7
6.78, dd (8.0,
7.4)
121.4
6
6.91, d (7.7)
117.1
8
6.70, d (8.0)
115.6
9
141.4
9
141.5
9-OH
d
9-OH
9.50, br s
10
135.9
10
131.0
11-NH
6.34, s
11-NH
10.20, br s
12
94.9
12
179.7
13
44.9
13
42.3
14
6.39, dd (17.3,
10.6)
144.1
14
6.04, dd (17.4, 10.8)
143.5
15
a 5.18, d (17.3)
113.1
15
a 5.07, dd (10.8, 0.6)
113.8
b 5.11, d (10.6)
b 4.99,
dd (17.4, 0.6)
16
1.38, s
22.9
16
1.01, s
22.1
17
1.38, s
25.8
17
0.93, s
21.8
1′
165.9
1′
173.5
2′
4.76, dd (8.8, 1.6)
78.5
2′
3.90, dd
(9.6, 3.3)
72.5
3′
a 3.32, d (15.1)
34.4
2′-OH
5.53, br s
b 2.92, dd (15.1, 8.8)
3′
a 2.79, dd
(13.8, 3.3)
40.4
b 2.61, dd (13.8, 9.6)
4′
136.2
4′
138.8
5′/9′
7.20b
126.7f
5′/9′
7.22, d (7.2)
129.7
6′/8′
7.20b
129.3f
6′/8′
7.26, ddd
(7.2, 7.2, 0.6)
128.2
7′
7.20b
128.5
7′
7.18, td (7.2,
0.6)
126.3
13C
NMR assignments supported
by gHSQC and gHMBC data.
Overlapping signals.
Not
observed.
Assignments
are interchangeable.
Figure 2
Diagnostic
2D NMR correlations for 1 and 1a.
Diagnostic
2D NMR correlations for 1 and 1a.13C
NMR assignments supported
by gHSQC and gHMBC data.Overlapping signals.Not
observed.Assignments
are interchangeable.To
test this hypothesis, we repeated the cultivation and employed
an alternative isolation strategy, involving sequential trituration
with hexane and CH2Cl2, followed by HPLC with
an H2O/MeCN gradient, to yield 1−4. HRESI(+)MS analysis of 1 returned an adduct
ion ([M + Na]+, C25H26N2O5, Δmmu −0.3) consistent with a DKM, while
1D NMR (CDCl3) data (Table 1) confirmed
replacement of the methyl ester and 2′-H hydroxyl methine resonances
in 1a, with a deshielded 2′-H lactone methine
(δH 4.76) in 1. As predicted, exposure
of 1 to MeOH resulted in methanolysis to 1a. Further examination of the 2D NMR data for 1 revealed
an ABC heterocyclic ring system similar to that exhibited by cometabolite
ardeemins 2–4, but bearing 4-OH,
9-OH, and a C-12 reverse isoprene moiety. Diagnostic ROESY correlations
positioned H-2, H-2′, H-3α, 4-OH, H3-16, and
H3-17 on the same (α) face of the heterocyclic scaffold
and defined the relative configuration for 1 (Figure 2). Analytical acid hydrolysis of 1 (50
μg) followed by esterification of the hydrolysate with (R)-α-methoxy-α-(trifluoromethyl)phenylacetic
acid (R-Mosher acid) returned an ester identical
with that obtained from authentic (S)-phenyllactic
acid (Supporting Information, Figure S2).
The observations outlined above confirmed the structures for 1 and 1a as indicated (Figure 1). As the mechanism behind the methanolysis of 1 to 1a was not immediately obvious, we elected to explore
this matter further. We hypothesize (Figure 3) that 1 undergoes an auto (C-9 phenol) acid-catalyzed
dehydration to yield a C-4 carbocation, which engages in a 1,2-sigmatropic
rearrangement and H2O addition to yield seco-shornephine A (1b). Our failure to detect 1b suggests that this intermediate is solvolytically very unstable
and rapidly transforms to the methyl ester 1a. Curiously, 1 appeared to be stable to direct solvolysis as no trace of
the methanolysis product 1ccould be detected (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Proposed mechanism for methanolysis of 1.
Proposed mechanism for methanolysis of 1.This mechanistic proposal is interesting
on two levels. First,
it highlights a simple nonenzymatic transformation that could have
implications in our understanding of the biosynthesis (and biomimetic
synthesis) of DKPs such as notoamide C (5),[7] itself biosynthetically related to paraherquamide
(6)[4] (Figure 4), a topic that has attracted much recent attention.[2,8−10] Second, it suggests that with suitable functionalization
(e.g., 1), the DKM moiety can be rendered stable to direct
solvolysis, which has implications for the possible use of DKMs in
drug discovery.
Figure 4
Biosynthetic relationship between notoamide C (5)
and paraherquamide (6).
Biosynthetic relationship between notoamide C (5)
and paraherquamide (6).To explore this latter issue further, we reviewed the literature
on known DKM natural products, noting it was limited to the fungal
metabolites lateritin (7) from Gibberella lateritium,(11) bassiatin (8) from Beauveria bassiana (K-717),[12] three homologous DKMs 9–11 from Fusarium sporotrichioides,(13) the
DKM 12 from the Thai Sea hareBursatella leachii,(14) the fungal mollenines A and B (13 and 14) from Eupenicillium molle,[15] and javanicunines A and B (15 and 16) from Eupenicillium javanicum(16) (Figure 5). On close examination, we
noted that 7–16 were all N-alkylated, and none were solvolytically unstable. Consistent
with these observations, while shornephine A (1) is N-alkylated and stable to direct solvolysis (i.e., does
not form 1c), the seco form 1b is not N-alkylated and is rapidly transformed into 1a. To test the hypothesis that solvolytically unstable DKMs
can be stabilized by N-alkylation, we prepared the
syntheticDKMs 17–24 and the N-methylated analogues 25 and 26. As predicted, on exposure to MeOH, 17–24 underwent rapid (t1/2 <
10 min) methanolysis, while 25 and 26 proved
stable even after 48 h.Known DKM natural products 7–16.SyntheticDKMs 17–26: (a) HBTU,
DIPEA, DMF, rt, h; (b) p-TsOH, toluene, microwave
140 °C, 300 W, 3 min.The Aspergillus sp. (CMB-M081F) metabolites 1–4 and the methanolysis artifact 1a were not cytotoxic (IC50 > 30 μM) against
Gram-negative bacteria Escherichiacoli (ATCC 11775)
and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 10145), Gram-positive
bacteria Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 9144 and ATCC
25923) and Bacillus subtilis (ATCC 6633 and ATCC
6051), the fungus Candida albicans (ATCC 90028),
or humancolon (SW620 and SW620 Ad300) or cervical (KB-3–1
and KB-V1) cancercell lines (Supporting Information, Figures S36 and S38).Systemic administration of chemotherapeutic
agents (anticancer
drugs) is often used for the treatment of humancancers. While clinically
successful, this mode of treatment is compromised by multidrug resistant
(MDR) cancers that exhibit either high intrinsic or acquired resistance
to multiple chemotherapeutic agents. Factors that contribute to MDR
include overexpression of membrane spanning adenosine triphosphate
binding cassette (ABC) transporter proteins such as P-glycoprotein
(P-gp) and associated accelerated drug efflux. Although P-gp inhibitors
offer the prospect of reversing the MDR phenotype, no P-gp inhibitors
have yet advanced to the clinic.[17] To evaluate
the P-gp inhibitory properties of 1 and related syntheticDKMs we employed a Calcein AM assay. In this assay, a nonfluorescent
reagent calcein AM diffuses into the cellular cytoplasm of P-gp overexpressing
humancolon cancer (SW620 Ad300) cells, where it undergoes hydrolysis
to yield the fluorescent dye calcein. Significantly, calcein AM is
a P-gp substrate and the hydrolyzed product calcein is not. In response
to functioning P-gp, calcein AM is effluxed prior to hydrolysis, leading
to reduced intracellular fluorescence. In the presence of a P-gp inhibitor,
calcein AM efflux is blocked and calcein AM undergoes hydrolysis to
calcein, leading to increased intracellular fluorescence. Intracellular
calcein fluorescence is quantified by cell flow cytometry to arrive
at a fluorescence arbitrary ratio (FAR), which measures intracellular
calcein fluorescence in cells exposed to a putative P-gp inhibitor,
with that from cells not exposed to an inhibitor. The larger the FAR
value then (in principle) the more effective the P-gp inhibitor.[17] Importantly, all test DKMs were determined to
be stable to solvolysis for the 45 min duration of the calcein AM
assay. Using this approach we established the P-gp inhibitory properties
of 1 (FAR 35.5), 19 (FAR 52.9), 23 (FAR 41.5) and 24 (FAR 40.5) (positive control verapamil
FAR = 72.5) (Supporting Information, Figure
S37). This observation raises the prospect that the hitherto largely
overlooked DKM scaffold may be engineered to deliver a clinically
useful inhibitor of P-gp mediated drug efflux. If achieved, such an
outcome would greatly improve the prognosis for MDR cancerchemotherapy.
Experimental Section
Collection and Isolation
of Aspergillus sp.
(CMB-M081F)
Strain CMB-M081F was isolated from marine sediment
collected collected in 2007 at an intertidal depth of 1 m near Shorncliffe,
Queensland, Australia. The freshly collected sediment was sealed in
a Falcon tube (50 mL) and transferred at rt to the laboratory, where
it was stored in the dark at −30 °C for 1 week. A sample
(1 g) was thawed, suspended in sterile 0.9% saline (8 mL), and subjected
to heat-shock (60 °C for 30 min), and an aliquot (100 μL)
was used to prepare three 10-fold serial dilutions. Aliquots (50 μL)
from the saline solution and serial dilutions were applied to M1 agar
plates (comprising 2% agar in artificialocean sea salt (3.3%; 25
mL), starch (1%), yeast extract (0.4%), peptone (0.2%), and rifampicin
(0.0005%) and incubated at 27 °C for 4–5 weeks. Pure strains
of individual bacterial and fungal colonies, including CMB-M081F,
were obtained by standard microbiological techniques and were grown
to dense colonies on single agar plates. Taxonomic analysis identified
CMB-M081F as an Aspergillus sp. (Supporting Information, section 1.1).
Analytical Cultivation
and Chemical Analysis of Aspergillus sp. (CMB-M081F)
A single colony of Aspergillus sp. (CMB-M081F)
applied to an M1 agar plate was incubated at 27
°C for 5 weeks, after which the agar was diced and extracted
with EtOAc (100 mL), and the organic phase was concentrated in vacuo. The extract (5.6 mg) was analyzed by HPLC-DAD-ESI(±)MS
(Zorbax SB-C8 5 μm 150 × 4.6 mm column, 1 mL/min
gradient elution from 90% H2O:MeCN to 100% MeCN over 15
min with isocratic 0.05% HCO2H modifier) to reveal noteworthy
peaks at 11.1 min (m/z 435 [M +
H]+, 1), 12.2 min (m/z 485 [M + H]+, 2), 12.4 min (m/z 469 [M + H]+, 3), and 12.8 min (m/z 499 [M + H]+, 4) (Supporting Information, Figure S1).
Preparative Cultivation and Fractionation
of Aspergillus sp. (CMB-M081F)
Method 1:
Fifteen M1 agar plates were cultivated
and processed as described above to yield an extract (83.7 mg) that
was sequentially triturated (10 mL aliquots) to yield hexane (33.8
mg), CH2Cl2 (25.9 mg) and MeOH (7.8 mg) soluble
fractions. The CH2Cl2 solubles were fractionated
by semipreparative reversed-phase HPLC (Zorbax SB-C8 5
μm 250 × 9.4 mm column, 3 mL/min gradient elution from
90% H2O/MeOH to 100% MeOH over 30 min) to yield seco-shornephine A methyl ester (1a) (tR = 23.9 min, 1.5 mg, 1.8%), 15b-β-hydroxy-5-N-acetylardeemin (2) (tR = 25.5 min, 1.9 mg, 2.2%), 5-N-acetylardeemin
(3) (tR = 27.0 min, 2.1 mg,
2.5%), and 15b-β-methoxy-5-N-acetylardeemin
(4) (tR = 28.0 min, 2.5 mg,
3.0%). Method 2: Ten M1 agar plates were cultivated and processed
as described above to yield an extract (60.2 mg) that was sequentially
partitioned into hexane (2 mg) and CH2Cl2 (60
mg) soluble fractions. The CH2Cl2 solubles were
fractionated by semipreparative reversed-phase HPLC (Zorbax SB-C8 5 μm column 250 × 9.4 mm column, 3 mL/min gradient
elution from 90% H2O/MeCN to 100% MeCN over 30 min) to
yield shornephine A (1) (tR = 23.9 min, 2.0 mg, 1.8%), 15b-β-hydroxy-5-N-acetylardeemin (2) (tR =
25.5 min, 1.5 mg, 2.2%), 5-N-acetylardeemin (3) (tR = 27.0 min, 1.9 mg, 2.5%),
and 15b-β-methoxy-5-N-acetylardeemin (4) (tR = 28.0 min, 1.5 mg, 3.0%).
(Note: All % yields were determined on a mass-to-mass measure against
the crude EtOAc extract.)
Characterization of Aspergillus sp. (CMB-M081F)
Metabolites and Solvolysis Products
Shornephine A (1):
pale yellow oil; [α]D22 +22
(c 0.05, CHCl3); UV (MeCN) λmax (log ε): 210 (4.54), 242
(3.79), 301 (3.37) nm; NMR (CDCl3) see Table 1 and Supporting Information Table
S1 and Figures S6 and S7; HRMS(ESI-TOF) m/z [M + Na]+ calcd for C25H26N2O5Na+ 457.1734, found 457.1731.
seco-Shornephine A methyl ester (1a):
pale yellow oil; [α]D23 −73
(c 0.02, CHCl3); UV (MeCN) λmax (log ε): 218 (3.94), 256 (3.75), 310 (3.59) nm; NMR
(DMSO-d6) see Table 1 and Supporting Information Table S2 and
Figures S8–S9; HRMS(ESI-TOF) m/z [M + Na]+ calcd for C26H30N2O6Na+ 489.2009, found 489.2015.
15b-β-Hydroxy-5-N-acetyladreemin (2):[5,6]
pale yellow oil; [α]D23 −19
(c 0.05, MeOH);
NMR (CDCl3) see Supporting Information Table S3 and Figures S10–S11; HRMS(ESI-TOF) m/z [M + Na]+ calcd for C28H28N4O4Na+ 507.2003,
found 507.2016.
5-N-Acetyladreemin (3):[5,6]
pale yellow oil; [α]D23 −21
(c 0.05, MeOH); NMR (CDCl3) see Supporting Information Table S4 and Figures S12–S13;
HRMS(ESI-TOF) m/z: [M + Na]+ calcd for C28H28N4O3Na+ 491.2054, found 491.2050.
15b-β-Methoxy-5-N-acetyladreemin (4):
pale yellow
oil; [α]D23 −16 (c 0.05, MeOH); UV (MeCN) λmax (log ε) 219 (3.97),
259 (3.78), 307 (3.62) nm; NMR
(CDCl3) see Supporting Information Table S5 and Figures S14–S15; HRMS(ESI-TOF) m/z [M + Na]+ calcd for C29H30N4O4Na+ 521.2159,
found 521.2163.
Synthesis of DKMs 17–26
The DKMs 17–26 were all prepared
using a common two-step method. Step 1: An amino acid methyl ester
(1 equiv) was treated with HBTU (1.2 equiv) and DIPEA (2.8 equiv)
in the presence of either (S)-phenyllactic acid (1
equiv) or (S)-mandelic acid (1 equiv), in anhydrous
DMF (5 mL). The resulting reaction mixture was stirred at rt for 3
h under argon, concentrated in vacuo, and partitioned between EtOAc
(2 × 50 mL) and 1 M HCl (50 mL), and the combined organic layers
were dried with anhydrous MgSO4 and concentrated in vacuo.
Step 2: The amide product from step 1 (1 equiv) was treated with p-TsOH (1.5 equiv) in anhydrous toluene (5 mL), heated in
a microwave reactor at 140 °C/300 W for 3 min, and concentrated
in vacuo, and the residue was purified by C8 reversed-phase
HPLC (H2O/MeCN). Overall yields: 17 (75%), 18 (72%), 19 (75%), 20 (75%), 21 (65%), 22 (65%), 23 (62%), 24 (69%), 25 (50%), and 26 (41%).
Solutions
of 1 (100 μg in 100 μL MeOH) were stirred
at rt for 30 min, 8 and 24 h, respectively, after which they were
analyzed by HPLC-DAD-ESIMS (Zorbax SB-C8 5 μm 150
× 4.6 mm column, 1.0 mL/min, gradient elution 90% H2O:MeCN to 100% MeCN over 15 min with isocratic 0.05% HCO2H modifier) (Supporting Information, Figure
S3).
Mosher Ester Analysis of Shornephine A (1)
A solution of 1 (50 μg) in 6 M HCl (200 μL)
was stirred overnight in a sealed vial at 110 °C, after which
it was evaporated to dryness under N2 at 40 °C. DiastereomericMosher ester derivatives were prepared for both the hydrolysate of 1, and an authentic sample of (S)-phenyllactic
acid, according to protocol of Hoye et al.[18] Briefly, samples of analyte in dry CH2Cl2 (150
μL) were treated with 3 eq. of either (R)-α-methoxy-α-trifluoromethylphenylacetic
acid [R-MTPA-OH] or (S)-α-methoxy-α-(trifluoromethyl)phenylacetic
acid [S-MTPA-OH] in dry CH2Cl2 (150 μL), followed by 3 equiv of dicyclohexylcarbodiimide
(DCC) and 4-(dimethylamino)pyridine (DMAP) in dry CH2Cl2 (200 μL). The resulting mixtures were stirred at rt
overnight, after which they were filtered, dried under N2 at 40 °C, redissolved in MeOH (100 μL), and analyzed
by HPLC-ESIMS (Zorbax SB-C8 5 μm 150 × 4.6 mm
column, 1.0 mL/min, gradient elution from 90% H2O/MeCN
to 100% MeCN over 15 min followed by a 5 min hold at 100% MeCN, with
isocratic 0.05% HCO2H modifier) (Supporting
Information, Figure S2).
Methanolysis of DKMs 7–26
Solutions of 7–26 (100 μg
in 100 μL of MeOH) were treated as described above for the methanolysis
of 1 (Supporting Information, Figures S4 and S5).
Authors: Jennifer M Finefield; Thomas J Greshock; David H Sherman; Sachiko Tsukamoto; Robert M Williams Journal: Tetrahedron Lett Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 2.415
Authors: Shengying Li; Jennifer M Finefield; James D Sunderhaus; Timothy J McAfoos; Robert M Williams; David H Sherman Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Denise O Guimarães; Warley S Borges; Noemi J Vieira; Laiani F de Oliveira; Carlos H T P da Silva; Norberto P Lopes; Luis G Dias; Rosa Durán-Patrón; Isidro G Collado; Mônica T Pupo Journal: Phytochemistry Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 4.072
Authors: J P Karwowski; M Jackson; R R Rasmussen; P E Humphrey; J B Poddig; W L Kohl; M H Scherr; S Kadam; J B McAlpine Journal: J Antibiot (Tokyo) Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Matthew T Robey; Rosa Ye; Jin Woo Bok; Kenneth D Clevenger; Md Nurul Islam; Cynthia Chen; Raveena Gupta; Michael Swyers; Edward Wu; Peng Gao; Paul M Thomas; Chengcang C Wu; Nancy P Keller; Neil L Kelleher Journal: ACS Chem Biol Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 5.100
Authors: Kattia Núñez-Montero; Damián Quezada-Solís; Zeinab G Khalil; Robert J Capon; Fernando D Andreote; Leticia Barrientos Journal: Biomolecules Date: 2020-04-27
Authors: Zeinab Y Al Subeh; Huzefa A Raja; Joanna E Burdette; Joseph O Falkinham; Scott E Hemby; Nicholas H Oberlies Journal: Phytochemistry Date: 2021-06-20 Impact factor: 4.004