| Literature DB >> 30513840 |
Peng Zhang1, Xin Li2, Xiao-Long Yuan3, Yong-Mei Du4, Bin-Gui Wang5, Zhong-Feng Zhang6.
Abstract
An endophytic fungus Arthrinium arundinis TE-3 was isolated and purified from the fresh leaves of cultivated tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.). Chemical investigation on this fungal strain afforded three new prenylated diphenyl ethers (1-3) as well as three known analogues (4-6). Structure elucidation of the isolated compounds was carried out by analysis of 1D and 2D nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and high-resolution electrospray ionization mass spectroscopy (HRESIMS) spectra, as well as by comparison of those data with literature data. The absolute configuration of the stereogenic center at C-8 in 1 was assigned by comparison of the experimental and calculated ECD spectra. Compounds 1 and 2 showed selective antifungal activity against Mucor hiemalis with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of 8 and 4 μg/mL, respectively. Compounds 5 and 6 exhibited inhibitory activity against Alteraria alternata with an MIC value of 8 μg/mL. In the cytotoxic assay, 2, 5, and 6 displayed moderate in vitro cytotoxicity against the human monocytic cell line (THP-1 cell line), with IC50 values of 40.2, 28.3, and 25.9 μM, respectively. This study indicated that endophytic fungi possess great potential for exploring new bioactive secondary metabolites.Entities:
Keywords: Arthrinium arundinis; Nicotiana tabacum L.; antifungal activity; cytotoxicity; prenylated diphenyl ethers; tobacco-derived endophytic fungus
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30513840 PMCID: PMC6320909 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23123179
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Structures of compounds 1–6.
1H (500 MHz) and 13C-NMR (125 MHz) data of compounds 1–3 in DMSO-d6.
| No. | Compound 1 | Compound 2 | Compound 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 150.3, C | 152.3, C | 154.6, C | |||
| 2 | 112.5, C | 115.4, C | 6.10, s | 104.9, CH | ||
| 3 | 151.9, C | 162.2, C | 156.3, C | |||
| 4 | 6.51, s | 115.5, CH | 6.39, s | 105.9, CH | 6.39, s | 113.7, CH |
| 5 | 136.5, C | 139.5, C | 139.1, C | |||
| 6 | 124.4, C | 6.21, s | 111.8, CH | 121.9, C | ||
| 7 | 2.55, dd (17.0, 5.4) | 27.2, CH2 | 2.85, dd (8.2, 5.4) | 28.0, CH2 | 3.12, br d (6.8) | 25.1, CH2 |
| 8 | 3.52, dt (8.0, 5.4) | 68.3, CH | 4.51, dd (9.3, 8.2) | 89.8, CH | 4.95, t (6.8) | 123.2, CH |
| 9 | 77.1, C | 70.5, C | 130.7, C | |||
| 10 | 1.23, s | 25.9, CH3 | 1.08, s | 24.7, CH3 | 1.58, s | 25.9, CH3 |
| 11 | 1.08, s | 20.2, CH3 | 1.04 | 21.7, CH3 | 1.56, s | 18.0, CH3 |
| 12 | 2.18, s | 19.5, CH3 | 2.18, s | 21.6, CH3 | 2.18, s | 19.8, CH3 |
| 1′ | 159.0, C | 157.9, C | 159.2, C | |||
| 2′ | 5.91, s | 99.0, CH | 6.29, s | 101.3, CH | 6.23, s | 101.2, CH |
| 3′ | 158.9, C | 160.8, C | 160.8, C | |||
| 4′ | 6.20, s | 109.8, CH | 6.30, s | 110.6, CH | 6.45, s | 109.2, CH |
| 5′ | 140.3, C | 140.7, C | 140.5, C | |||
| 6′ | 6.06, s | 106.5, CH | 6.49, d | 109.7, CH | 6.22,s | 110.5, CH |
| 7′ | 2.14, s | 21.7, CH3 | 2.21, s | 21.7, CH3 | 2.20, s | 21.7, CH3 |
| 1″ | 3.05, br d (6.8) | 25.5, CH2 | 3.68, s | 55.6, CH3 | 3.67, s | 55.6, CH3 |
| 2″ | 4.92, t (6.8) | 122.9, CH | ||||
| 3″ | 130.9, C | |||||
| 4″ | 1.56, s | 25.9, CH3 | ||||
| 5″ | 1.56, s | 18.0, CH3 | ||||
| 8-OH | 5.07, d (4.8) | 9-OH: 4.56, s | ||||
| 3′-OH | 9.30, s | 3-OH: 9.26, br s | ||||
Figure 2Key COSY (bold blue lines) and HMBC (red arrows) correlations for compound 1.
Figure 3Experimental and calculated ECD spectra of compound 1.
MIC value of compounds 1–6 against plant-pathogenic fungi (μg/mL).
| No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 64 | − a | − | 32 | 8 | − |
|
| 32 | − | − | − | 4 | − |
|
| 16 | 32 | 64 | − | 64 | − |
|
| − | 16 | 64 | − | 64 | 32 |
|
| 8 | − | 64 | 32 | 16 | 64 |
|
| 8 | − | − | 16 | − | − |
| Pr b | 8 | 8 | 8 | 16 | 8 | 32 |
a MIC > 64 μg/mL; b Pr, positive control, prochloraz.