| Literature DB >> 28825643 |
Chun-Xue You1,2, Shan-Shan Guo3, Wen-Juan Zhang4, Zhu-Feng Geng5, Jun-Yu Liang6, Ning Lei7, Shu-Shan Du8, Zhi-Wei Deng9.
Abstract
Sixteen compounds were isolated from the leaves and stems of Murrayatetramera Huang. Based on the NMR and MS spectral results, the structures were determined. It was confirmed that the isolated compounds included three new compounds (9, 10 and 13) and one new natural product (8), which were identified asmurratetra A (9), murratetra B (10), murratetra C (13) and [2-(7-methoxy-2-oxochromen-8-yl)-3-methylbut-2-enyl]3-methylbut-2-enoate (8), respectively. Meanwhile, the repellent activity against Tribolium castaneum was investigated for 13 of these isolated compounds. The results showed that the tested compounds had various levels of repellent activity against T. castaneum. Among them, compounds 1 (4(15)-eudesmene-1β,6α-diol), 11 (isoferulic acid) and 16 (2,3-dihydroxypropyl hexadecanoate) showed fair repellent activity against T. castaneum. They might be considered as potential leading compounds for the development of natural repellents.Entities:
Keywords: M. tetramera; T. castaneum; chemical constituents; grey relational analysis; repellent activity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28825643 PMCID: PMC6152413 DOI: 10.3390/molecules22081379
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Chemical structures of compounds 1–16; * represents new compound, # represents new natural product, & represents first isolated compound from Murraya genus.
Figure 2The key COSY and HMBC correlation signals of the new compounds.
Repellent activity of isolated compounds from M. tetramera against T. castaneum.
| Treatment | PR% (Mean ± SE) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration (µg/cm2) | ||||||||||
| 2 h | 4 h | |||||||||
| 78.63 | 15.73 | 3.15 | 0.63 | 0.13 | 78.63 | 15.73 | 3.15 | 0.63 | 0.13 | |
| Compound | 96 ± 4 ab ** | 82 ± 7 bc | 76 ± 9 ab | 80 ± 6 a | 70 ± 8 a | 94 ± 7 a | 76 ± 9 abc | 74 ± 3 ab | 70 ± 8 a | 60 ± 8 a |
| Compound | 88 ± 7 b | 64 ± 9 cd | −92 ± 9 f | −84 ± 12 e | −72 ± 12 f | 80 ± 10 ab | 56 ± 7 cd | −74 ± 9 e | −52 ± 4 d | −66 ± 7 f |
| Compound | 56 ± 7 c | 50 ± 6 de | 52 ± 7 bcd | 46 ± 9 b | 40 ± 8 bc | 48 ± 9 c | 58 ± 7 bcd | 56 ± 9 ab | 52 ± 7 ab | 48 ± 9 ab |
| Compound | 54 ± 4 c | 50 ± 6 de | 64 ± 9 abc | 58 ± 7 ab | 30 ± 6 c | 56 ± 9 bc | 46 ± 4 d | 62 ± 7 ab | 64 ± 9 a | 40 ± 6 abcd |
| Compound | −30 ± 8 d | −34 ± 9 f | −20 ± 10 e | −26 ± 9 d | 22 ± 7 cd | −42 ± 7 c | −58 ± 9 bcd | −16 ± 7 d | −20 ± 8 c | 20 ± 6 d |
| Compound | 46 ± 9 c | 40 ± 8 de | 34 ± 7 cd | 58 ± 7 ab | 64 ± 7 ab | 42 ± 7 c | 50 ± 8 d | 26 ± 4 c | 32 ± 7 b | 30 ± 8 bcd |
| Compound | 88 ± 7 b | 82 ± 9 bc | 66 ± 7 abc | 62 ± 7 ab | 38 ± 9 bc | 92 ± 7 a | 74 ± 9 abc | 64 ± 9 ab | 58 ± 7 a | 46 ± 7 abc |
| Compound | 32 ± 7 c | 30 ± 6 e | 22 ± 4 d | 16 ± 9 c | 18 ± 7 cd | 46 ± 9 c | 16 ± 4 e | 14 ± 7 c | −18 ± 7 c | −10 ± 8 e |
| Compound | 50 ± 6 c | 46 ± 9 de | 42 ± 9 cd | −26 ± 9 d | −16 ± 9 e | 54 ± 7 bc | 48 ± 7 d | 52 ± 7 b | −30 ± 8 c | −10 ± 6 e |
| Compound | 86 ± 7 b | 90 ± 6 ab | 62 ± 7 abc | 58 ± 7 ab | 24 ± 7 cd | 86 ± 9 a | 80 ± 6 ab | 76 ± 7 a | 70 ± 6 a | 22 ± 7 cd |
| DEET * | 100 ± 0 a | 98 ± 3 a | 78 ± 14 a | 66 ± 10 ab | 8 ± 5 d | 96 ± 3 a | 82 ± 8 a | 68 ± 5 ab | 54 ± 8 a | 22 ± 8 cd |
* Data from Yang et al. [28]. ** Means in the same column followed by the different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05) in ANOVA and Tukey’s tests. PR was subjected to an arcsine square-root transformation before ANOVA and Tukey’s tests.
Figure 3The tree-type figure for separation procedure.