| Literature DB >> 29615766 |
Yuben Qiao1, Xiaotian Zhang1,2, Yan He1,3, Weiguang Sun1, Wenya Feng1, Junjun Liu1, Zhengxi Hu1, Qianqian Xu1, Hucheng Zhu1, Jinwen Zhang2, Zengwei Luo1, Jianping Wang4, Yongbo Xue5, Yonghui Zhang6.
Abstract
Rising drug resistance limits the treatment options infected by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). A promising solution for overcoming the resistance of MRSA is to inhibit the penicillin-binding protein 2a (PBP2a). A novel terpene-polyketide hybrid meroterpenoid, aspermerodione (1), characterized by an unusual 2,6-dioxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane core skeleton, and a new heptacyclic analogue, andiconin C (2), were isolated and identified from the liquid cultures of endophytic fungus Aspergillus sp. TJ23. The structures and their absolute configurations of all chiral centers were elucidated via extensive spectroscopic analyses and electronic circular dichroism (ECD) calculations and determined via single-crystal X-ray diffraction analysis. Aspemerodione (1) was found to be a potential inhibitor of PBP2a, and work synergistically with the β-lactam antibiotics oxacillin and piperacillin against MRSA.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29615766 PMCID: PMC5882964 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-23817-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Structures of compounds 1 and 2.
1H NMR (400 MHz) and 13C NMR (100 MHz) spectroscopic data for compounds 1 and 2.
| No. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.27, d (10.0) | 155.4, CH | 3.62, t (7.1) | 84.1, CH |
| 2 | 5.87, d (10.0) | 126.2, CH | 2.76, overlap; 2.78, overlap | 40.0, CH2 |
| 3 | 204.2, C | 214.4, C | ||
| 4 | 44.3, C | 46.0, C | ||
| 5 | 2.33, m | 46.5, CH | 1.78, m | 41.6, CH |
| 6 | 1.67, m | 18.5, CH2 | 1.60, m; 1.71, m | 17.5, CH2 |
| 7 | 1.25, m; 1.62, m | 30.9, CH2 | 1.78, m; 1.93, m | 29.3, CH2 |
| 8 | 53.5, C | 57.1, C | ||
| 9 | 109.3, C | 1.96, d (6.6) | 65.1, CH | |
| 10 | 41.6, C | 45.5, C | ||
| 11 | 2.50, d (19.0) | 51.2, CH2 | 3.95, d (6.6) | 86.9, CH |
| 2.65, d (19.0) | ||||
| 12 | 1.46, overlap | 38.1, CH2 | 1.56, d (5.2) | 59.2, CH2 |
| 2.20, d (14.9) | 1.61, d (5.2) | |||
| 13 | 1.21, s | 18.9, CH3 | 0.90, s | 20.9, CH3 |
| 14 | 1.07, s | 21.2, CH3 | 1.01, s | 18.5, CH3 |
| 15 | 1.12, s | 28.3, CH3 | 1.14, s | 28.5, CH3 |
| 1′ | 4.03, d (9.1) | 67.2, CH2 | 4.71, d (10.4) | 70.3, CH2 |
| 4.69, d (9.1) | 5.93, d (10.4) | |||
| 2′ | 55.8, C | 59.7, C | ||
| 3′ | 84.1, C | 46.1, C | ||
| 4′ | 200.6, C | 211.2, C | ||
| 5′ | 50.8, C | 52.2, C | ||
| 6′ | 6.87, s | 145.3, CH | 7.08, s | 142.7, CH |
| 7′ | 130.3, C | 134.3, C | ||
| 8′ | 164.6, C | 166.9, C | ||
| 9′ | 1.45, s | 27.6, CH3 | 1.18, s | 13.6, CH3 |
| 10′ | 1.29, s | 22.3, CH3 | 1.31, s | 16.9, CH3 |
| OCH3-8′ | 3.73, s | 52.0, CH3 | ||
Figure 2Key HMBC and 1H–1H COSY correlations of compounds 1 and 2.
Figure 3Key NOESY correlations of compounds 1 and 2.
Figure 4Experimental and calculated ECD spectra of 1 recorded in MeOH.
Figure 5X-ray ORTEP drawing of compound 1.
Figure 6X-ray ORTEP drawing of compound 2.
Figure 7Experimental and calculated ECD spectra of 2 recorded in MeOH.
Figure 8Plausible biosynthetic pathway for compounds 1 and 2.
Combination susceptibility test of compounds 1 and 2 with various antibacterial antibiotics against MRSA in Checkerboard assay.
| Antibiotics | MIC ( | ∑FIC1+Ac | ∑FIC2+Ac | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antibiotic alone (A) | A + Cmpd | A + Cmpd | |||
| Oxacillin | 32 | 4b | 16 | 0.25* | >0.5 |
| Piperacillin | 64 | 4 | 32 | 0.375* | >0.5 |
| Chloramphenicol | 16 | 4 | 16 | 1.25 | ≥2.0 |
| Vancomycin | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | >1.0 | >1.0 |
aThe MIC of compounds 1 and 2 alone against MRSA were 32 μg/mL and >100 μg/mL, respectively.
The MIC of oxacillin combined with compound 1 against MRSA was 1 μg/mL (oxacillin and 1 were co-dosed at sub-MIC levels, both 1 μg/mL).
*Compound 1 was determined to work synergistically with oxacillin and piperacillin, with ∑FIC values of 0.25 and 0.375 However, it did not show any synergistic effect on other antibiotics.
c∑FIC = FICCmpd + FICAntibiotic; FICCmpd = [MICCmpd in combination]/[MICCmpd alone]; FICAntibiotic = [MICAntibiotic in combination]/[MICAntibiotic alone]. The combination is considered synergistic when the ∑FIC value is ≤0.5, accumulative or indifferent when the ∑FIC value is >0.5 but <2, and antagonistic when the ∑FIC is ≥2.
Predicted binding free energies of compound 1 with five PBPs of MRSA, which considered to be important or possible media for staphylococcal β-lactam resistance. (Surflx-Dock scores)a.
| PDB ID | Protein name | Compound 1 |
|---|---|---|
| 5TRO | PBP1 | 2.431 |
| 2ZC3 | PBP2 | 1.327 |
| 4CJN | PBP2a | 5.163* |
| 3PBR | PBP3 | 4.129 |
| 3HUM | PBP4 | 2.017 |
aDocking score/interaction potential of compounds with targets (kcal/mol).
*The docking scores predicted that PBP2a showed significantly higher binding affinity for 1 than other PBPs.
Figure 9MST confirmed that compound 1 maintained specific binding to MRSA PBP2a. The measurement of the affinity between compound 1 with PBP2a via MST in standard treated capillaries is shown in the resulting binding curve. From the resulting binding curve, Kd = 18.4 ± 1.29 µM for compound 1.
Figure 10Docking model of PBP2a in complex with compound 1. (A) Ribbon representation of PBP2a showing compound 1 (in green for carbons) bound to the allosteric site. The allosteric domain spans residues 27−326, where the N-terminal domain (residues 27−138) is shown in yellow and the remaining allosteric domain is light blue colored. The transpeptidase domain (residues 327−668) is shown in dark blue. (C) Key interactions of compound 1 at the allosteric site. Hydrogen-bond interactions with Asn104, Asn146 and Lys273 are shown as black dashed lines.
Figure 11TEM images of MRSA after 30 min of aspermerodione (1) treatment. (A) Untreated MRSA. The arrows indicate intact septa. (B) MRSA treated with the MIC of aspermerodione (32 μg/mL). The arrows indicate irregular membrane damage and disruption.