| Literature DB >> 30717119 |
Zhihui Wu1, Jiaqing Chen2, Xiaolin Zhang3, Zelin Chen4, Tong Li5, Zhigang She6, Weijia Ding7, Chunyuan Li8.
Abstract
Four new isocoumarin derivatives, botryospyrones A (1), B (2), C (3), and D (4), and a new natural tryptamine, (3aS, 8aS)-1-acetyl-1, 2, 3, 3a, 8, 8a-hexahydropyrrolo [2,3b] indol-3a-ol (5), were isolated from a marine mangrove endophytic fungus Botryosphaeria ramosa L29, obtained from the leaf of Myoporum bontioides. Their structures were elucidated using spectroscopic analysis. The absolute configurations of compounds 3, 4, and 5 were determined by comparison of their circular dichroism (CD) spectra with the calculated data. The inhibitory activities of compound 1 on Fusarium oxysporum, of compounds 2 and 3 on F. oxysporum and Fusarium graminearum, and of compound 5 on F. oxysporum, Penicillium italicum, and F. graminearum were higher than those of triadimefon, widely used as an agricultural fungicide. Compound 5 was produced after using the strategy we called "using inhibitory stress from components of the host" (UISCH), wherein (2R, 3R)-3, 5, 7-trihydroxyflavanone 3-acetate, a component of M. bontioides with weak growth inhibitory activity towards B. ramosa L29, was introduced into the culture medium.Entities:
Keywords: Botryosphaeria ramose; antifungal activity; isocoumarin; tryptamine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30717119 PMCID: PMC6410081 DOI: 10.3390/md17020088
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Figure 1Chemical structures of the isolated compounds 1–5.
1H (600MHz) and 13C NMR (150MHz) data for compounds 1 and 2.
| Position | 1 a | 2 a | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 166.7 | 166.4 | ||
| 3 | 153.7 | 153.9 | ||
| 4 | 6.38,s | 101.6 | 6.51,d(1.0) | 99.0 |
| 4a | 137.6 | 130.7 | ||
| 5 | 108.7 | 134.7 | ||
| 6 | 161.6 | 159.8 | ||
| 7 | 128.6 | 6.50,s | 98.6 | |
| 8 | 161.4 | 160.0 | ||
| 8a | 99.8 | 98.3 | ||
| 5-OCH3 | 3.93,s | 61.4 | ||
| 6-OCH3 | 3.78,s | 56.1 | ||
| 6-OH | 5.38,s | |||
| 7-OH | 6.42,s | |||
| 8-OH | 11.18,s | 10.99,s | ||
| 9 | 2.29,s | 19.6 | 2.27,d(1.0) | 19.6 |
| 10 | 2.18,s | 9.8 | ||
a Measured in CDCl3.
Figure 2Key HMBC and NOESY correlations for compounds 1–5.
1H (600MHz) and 13C NMR (150MHz) data for compounds 3 and 4.
| Position | 3 a | 4 a | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 171.5 | 166.5 | ||
| 3 | 5.33,d(4.8) | 84.2 | 5.30,d(3.0) | 82.5 |
| 4 | 4.17,m | 67.2 | 4.29,m | 67.2 |
| 4a | 146.5 | 149.8 | ||
| 5 | 6.68,s | 101.3 | 7.00,s | 99.8 |
| 6 | 155.0 | 163.8 | ||
| 7 | 110.7 | 119.5 | ||
| 8 | 162.7 | 157.1 | ||
| 8a | 104.1 | 110.8 | ||
| 6-OH | 9.42,s | |||
| 8-OH | 11.27,s | |||
| 6-OCH3 | 3.96,s | 55.8 | ||
| 8-OCH3 | 3.99,s | 61.2 | ||
| 9 | 1.18,d(4.8) | 17.8 | 1.22,d(6.6) | 18.1 |
| 10 | 2.09,s | 6.9 | 2.11,s | 7.8 |
a Measured in (CD3)2CO.
Figure 3Calculated and experimental ECD spectra for compounds 3, 4 and 5.
1H (600MHz) and 13C NMR (150MHz) data for compound 5.
| Position | 5 a | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| 2 | 3.30,m(10.2,6.6) | 47.0 |
| 3.71,m(10.2,3.0) | ||
| 3 | 2.47,m | 36.4 |
| 2.54,m | ||
| 3a | 86.6 | |
| 3b | 129.2 | |
| 4 | 7.30,d(7.2) | 123.4 |
| 5 | 6.81,dd (7.8,7.2) | 119.5 |
| 6 | 7.18,dd(7.8,7.2) | 130.7 |
| 7 | 6.64,d(7.8) | 110.2 |
| 7a | 149.6 | |
| 8 | -NH unobserved | |
| 8a | 5.32,s | 81.6 |
| 9 | 170.5 | |
| 10 | 2.03,s | 22.0 |
| 3a-OH | 5.28,s | |
a Measured in CDCl3.
Antifungal activity of compounds 1, 2, 3, and 5 measured as minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values.
| Compounds |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| MIC, µM | |||
|
| 112.6 | 450.4 | 900.0 |
|
| 105.8 | 211.7 | 211.7 |
|
| 223.0 | >900.0 | 223.0 |
|
| 28.6 | 57.3 | 28.6 |
| Triadimefon a | 340.4 | 170.2 | 510.7 |
a Positive control towards the test fungi.