| Literature DB >> 27128890 |
Wenxia Gong1, Yuzhi Zhou2, Xiao Li3, Xiaoxia Gao4, Junsheng Tian5, Xuemei Qin6, Guanhua Du7,8.
Abstract
Seven phthalides, including a new dimeric one named tokinolide C (7), were isolated from Angelicae Sinensis Radix and characterized. The structures of these compounds were elucidated on the basis of comprehensive analysis of spectroscopic data and comparison with literature data. All of the compounds were evaluated for their cytotoxic activities against the A549, HCT-8, and HepG2 cancer cell lines. Riligustilide (4) showed cytotoxicity against three cancer cell lines, with IC50 values of 13.82, 6.79, and 7.92 μM, respectively. Tokinolide A (6) and tokinolide C (6) exerted low cytotoxicity in these cancer cell lines, while the remaining compounds were inactive. Flow cytometry analysis was employed to evaluate the possible mechanism of cytotoxic action of riligustilide (4). We observed that compound 4 was able to arrest the cell cycle in the G1, S phases and induce apoptosis in a time-dependent manner in HCT-8 cell lines. In addition, these compounds were evaluated for neuroprotective effect against SH-SY5Y cells injured by glutamate. The result showed that ligustilide (1), Z-butylidenephthalide (3) and tokinolide A (6) exhibited significant neuroprotective effects.Entities:
Keywords: Angelicae Sinensis Radix; cytotoxicity activity; flow cytometry; neuroprotective effect; phthalides
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27128890 PMCID: PMC6273808 DOI: 10.3390/molecules21050549
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Chemical structures of the isolated compounds 1–7.
1H, 13C and HMBC correlation data for tokinolide A (6) a.
| Position | δc, Type | δH, ( | HMBC | Position | δc, Type | δH, ( | HMBC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 169.5, qC | 1′ | 175.4, qC | ||||
| 3 | 149.0, qC | 3′ | 151.4, qC | ||||
| 3a | 151.4, qC | 3a′ | 48.2, qC | ||||
| 4 | 17.8, CH2 | 2.56 m, 2.40 m | 5, 3a, 7a | 4′ | 29.7, CH2 | 1.94 m, 2.03 m | 5′, 7, 3a′, 7a′ |
| 5 | 20.1, CH2 | 1.70 m, 2.12 m | 4, 6, 7, 7a′ | 5′ | 21.0, CH2 | 2.10 m | 7′, 3a′, 4′, 6′ |
| 6 | 40.2, CH | 2.90 m | 4, 5, 7, 1′,7a′ | 6′ | 131.1, CH | 6.11 m | 4′, 5′, 7a′ |
| 7 | 34.1, CH | 3.23 d (9.4) | 4′, 6, 3a, 7a, 3a′ | 7′ | 124.6, CH | 6.00 d (9.8) | 5′, 3a′, 7a′ |
| 7a | 125.3, qC | 7a′ | 46.4, qC | ||||
| 8 | 112.1, CH | 5.21 t (7.9) | 3, 3a, 10 | 8′ | 106.9, CH | 4.66 dd (7.1, 8.3) | 3′,3a′, 10′ |
| 9 | 27.9, CH2 | 2.36 m | 3, 8, 10, 11 | 9′ | 27.2, CH2 | 2.08 m, 1.90 m | 3′, 8′, 10′, 11′ |
| 10 | 22.4, CH2 | 1.49 m | 8, 9, 11 | 10′ | 22.5, CH2 | 1.25 m | 8′, 9′,11′ |
| 11 | 13.7, CH3 | 0.95 t (7.4) | 9, 10 | 11′ | 13.5, CH3 | 0.80, (7.4) | 9′,10′ |
a Data obtained on a Varian 600 MHz instrument in CDCl3.
Figure 2Selected HMBC correlations of compound 6 and 7.
1H, 13C, HMBC and NOESY correlation data for tokinolide C (7) a.
| Position | δc, Type | δH, ( | HMBC (H → C) | NOESY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 168.7, qC | |||
| 3 | 148.9, qC | |||
| 3a | 153.5, qC | |||
| 4 | 19.0, CH2 | 2.21 m, 2.57 m | 3, 5, 6, 3a, 7a | 8, 9 |
| 5 | 21.9, CH2 | 1.98 m | 6, 3a | 6, 4′ |
| 6 | 37.1, CH | 2.99 dt (10.4, 8.5) | 5, 7, 3a′ | 5, 4′, 7′ |
| 7 | 37.0, CH | 3.39 d (8.5) | 6, 3a, 7a, 7a′ | |
| 7a | 124.5, qC | |||
| 8 | 112.2, CH | 5.24 t (7.9) | 3, 3a, 10 | 4, 9, 10, 11 |
| 9 | 27.2, CH2 | 2.37 m | 3, 8, 10, 11 | 4, 8, 10, 11 |
| 10 | 22.34, CH2 | 1.51 m | 8, 9, 11 | 8, 9, 11 |
| 11 | 13.56, CH3 | 0.96 t (7.4) | 9, 10 | 8, 9, 10 |
| 1′ | 176.9, qC | |||
| 3′ | 153.4, qC | |||
| 3a′ | 48.5, qC | |||
| 4′ | 24.1, CH2 | 1.77 m, 1.88 m | 6, 3′, 6′, 7a′ | 6′, 7′, 8′, 6, 5 |
| 5′ | 20.6, CH2 | 1.86 m | 3a′, 4′, 6′ | 8′ |
| 6′ | 133.8, CH | 6.11 ddd (9.9) | 4′, 5′, 7a′ | 4′, 7′ |
| 7′ | 121.0, CH | 5.77 dd (1.7, 9.9) | 4′, 3a′ | 4′, 6, 5 |
| 7a′ | 48.3, qC | |||
| 8′ | 103.9, CH | 4.88 t (7.9) | 3′, 3a′, 10′ | 4′, 9′, 10′, 11′ |
| 9′ | 28.0, CH2 | 2.18 m | 3′, 8′, 10′,11′ | 8′, 10′, 11′ |
| 10′ | 22.6, CH2 | 1.44 m | 8′, 9′, 11′ | 8′, 9′, 11′ |
| 11′ | 13.7, CH3 | 0.92 t (7.4) | 9′, 10′ | 8′, 9′, 10′ |
a Data obtained on a Varian 600 MHz instrument in CDCl3.
Figure 3Key NOE correlations for compound 7.
Cytotoxic activities of the compounds against three human cancer lines.
| Compound | IC50 (μM) a | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| A549 | HCT-8 | HepG2 | |
|
| >80 | >80 | >80 |
|
| >80 | >80 | >80 |
|
| >80 | >80 | >80 |
|
| 13.82 ± 2.23 | 6.79 ± 1.14 | 7.92 ± 1.38 |
|
| >80 | >80 | >80 |
|
| 47.63 ± 4.51 | 55.84 ± 5.99 | 30.92 ± 2.36 |
|
| 34.34 ± 3.80 | 27.79 ± 3.42 | 32.54 ± 2.69 |
|
| 0.28 ± 0.05 | 1.55 ± 0.45 | 0.65 ± 0.11 |
Values are the mean ± S.D. for three separate experiments; a Compound concentration required to inhibit cell growth by 50%. Cells were treated with test samples (1–80 μM) for 24 h; b Doxorubicin was used as positive control, and DMSO was negative control.
Figure 4Riligustilide induced apoptosis against HCT-8 cells. (A) Representative apoptotic profile of HCT-8 cells treated with 10 μM RLG for 24 and 48 h by flow cytometry assay; (B) Statistical analysis of cell apoptotic rate after the treatment of RLG. The data are expressed as the means ± S.D. of three independent experiments with similar results. Student’s t-test was used for two group comparison. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 vs. the control. “+” represents that 10 μM RLG was added, “−” represents control.
Figure 5Effect of riligustilide on the cell cycle in HCT-8 cells. Cells were treated with riligustilide (5 μM) for 24 and 48 h. Then the cells were fixed and stained with PI to analyze DNA content by flow cytometry. (A) Representative histograms of one cell cycle analysis; (B) DNA content of the gated cells ± S.D. of three independent experiments. Student’s t-test was used for two group comparison. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 vs. the control. “+” represents that 10 μM RLG was added, “−” represents control.
Survival rate of SH-SY5Y cells injured by glutamate a.
| Group | Cell Survival Rate (% of Control) | Inhibition (% of Model) |
|---|---|---|
| Control | 100 ± 9.4 | |
| Model | 60.2 ± 2.3 ## | |
| MK-801 b | 72.8 ± 5.9 ** | 31.7 |
|
| 71.0 ± 4.1 ** | 27.2 |
|
| 63.6 ± 4.9 | 8.3 |
|
| 67.0 ± 2.1 * | 17.0 |
|
| 50.7 ± 7.0 | −24.0 |
|
| 59.3 ± 4.2 | −2.4 |
|
| 69.0 ± 7.6 * | 22.2 |
|
| 62.5 ± 2.0 | 5.6 |
a All the compounds were tested at 10 μM; ## p < 0.01 vs. control; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 vs. model group. One-way analysis of variance was used, n = 3; b MK-801 was used as positive control.
The effects of compounds 1–7 on SH-SY5Y survival rate a.
| Group | Cell Survival Rate (% of Control) | Group | Cell Survival Rate (% of Control) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 100.0 ± 10.5 |
| 57.4 ± 4.9 ** |
|
| 99.6 ± 5.9 |
| 97.9 ± 5.2 |
|
| 96.6 ± 2.3 |
| 90.9 ± 14.8 |
|
| 100.8 ± 13.8 |
| 93.0 ± 5.4 |
a All the compounds were tested at 10 μM for 48 h; ** p < 0.01 vs. control; One-way analysis of variance was used, n = 3.