| Literature DB >> 31165062 |
Weimao Zhong1,2, Junfeng Wang1, Xiaoyi Wei3, Tingdan Fu4, Yuchan Chen5, Qi Zeng1,2, Zhonghui Huang1,2, Xinan Huang4, Weimin Zhang5, Si Zhang1, Lijuan Long1, Fazuo Wang1.
Abstract
Three pairs of new spirocyclic alkaloid enantiomers eurotinoids A-C (1-3), as well as a known biogenetically related racemate dihydrocryptoechinulin D (4) were isolated from a marine-derived fungus Eurotium sp. SCSIO F452. Their structures were determined by spectroscopic analyses and electronic circular dichroism (ECD) calculations. Compounds 1 and 2 represent the first two "meta" products from a non-stereoselective [4 + 2] Diels-Alder cycloaddition presumably between an enone group of a diketopiperazine alkaloid and a diene group of a benzaldehyde derivative via a new head-to-tail coupling mode biosynthetically, while 3 and 4 were "ortho" products. Their enantiomers exhibited different antioxidative and cytotoxic activities. The modes of action were investigated by a preliminary molecular docking study.Entities:
Keywords: Diels-Alder cycloaddition; Eurotium sp. SCSIO F452; antioxidative and cytotoxic activities; molecular docking; spirocyclic alkaloid enantiomers
Year: 2019 PMID: 31165062 PMCID: PMC6536037 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2019.00350
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.221
Figure 1Structures of enantiomers 1–4.
1H and 13C NMR Data for 1–3 (700, 175 MHz, TMS, δ in ppm, J in Hz).
| 1 | 10.36 br s | 10.30 br s | 12.04 br s | |||
| 2 | 145.1 | 145.1 | 144.3 | |||
| 3 | 104.4 | 104.7 | 103.9 | |||
| 3a | 127.3 | 127.3 | 125.4 | |||
| 4 | 119.7 | 7.26 d (7.8) | 119.9 | 7.27 d (8.0) | 119.2 | 7.16 d (7.9) |
| 5 | 120.7 | 7.06 overlap | 120.5 | 7.02 dt (7.5, 1.0) | 119.2 | 6.86 dt (7.5, 0.8) |
| 6 | 122.1 | 7.10 overlap | 122.1 | 7.10 dt (7.5, 1.0) | 120.6 | 7.04 dt (7.5, 0.8) |
| 7 | 112.4 | 7.40 d (8.1) | 112.4 | 7.40 d (8.1) | 111.5 | 7.40 d (8.1) |
| 7a | 136.2 | 136.2 | 135.0 | |||
| 8 | 111.4 | 7.11 s | 111.7 | 7.09 s | 111.3 | 7.05 s |
| 9 | 126.1 | 126.8 | 124.4 | |||
| 10 | 161.5 | 162.2 | 161.8 | |||
| 11 | 6.53 s | 6.91 s | 7.93 s | |||
| 12 | 61.2 | 61.1 | 59.6 | |||
| 13 | 168.7 | 168.0 | 167.4 | |||
| 14 | 8.04 s | 8.16 s | 9.01 s | |||
| 15 | 40.0 | 40.1 | 39.0 | |||
| 16 | 145.9 | 6.16 dd (17.4, 10.6) | 146.0 | 6.16 dd (17.4, 10.6) | 145.2 | 6.07 dd (17.6, 10.5) |
| 17 | 112.4 | 5.11 dd (17.4, 0.8) | 112.4 | 5.12 dd (17.4, 1.2) | 111.7 | 5.02 dd (17.6, 1.1) |
| 5.08 dd (10.6, 0.8) | 5.09 dd (10.6, 1.2) | 5.05 dd (10.5, 1.1) | ||||
| 18 | 27.9 | 1.56 s | 28.0 | 1.56 s | 27.5 | 1.48 s |
| 19 | 27.9 | 1.59 s | 27.9 | 1.58 s | 27.7 | 1.46 s |
| 20 | 118.4 | 118.4 | 117.3 | |||
| 21 | 155.5 | 155.5 | 153.3 | |||
| 22 | 128.8 | 128.7 | 127.2 | |||
| 23 | 126.5 | 7.06 s | 126.4 | 7.07 s | 125.4 | 7.00 s |
| 24 | 147.8 | 147.7 | 146.9 | |||
| 25 | 129.2 | 129.6 | 128.5 | |||
| 26 | 22.9 | 3.14 m | 21.6 | 3.13 m | 20.9 | a 2.96 m |
| b 3.02 m | ||||||
| 27 | 38.9 | a1.91 m | 38.7 | 1.77 m | 35.3 | a 1.48 overlap |
| b1.84 m | b 1.74 overlap | |||||
| 28 | 34.5 | 2.59 m | 32.2 | 2.71 m | 40.0 | 2.44 m |
| 29 | 131.1 | 5.95 dt (10.1, 2.9) | 130.8 | 5.83 br d (10.1) | 125.3 | 5.84 m |
| 30 | 129.6 | 5.54 dt (10.1, 2.6) | 129.7 | 5.77 dd (10.1, 4.7) | 133.0 | 5.69 d (10.3) |
| 31 | 36.7 | 2.96 overlap | 41.8 | 2.57 m | 29.0 | 2.60 m |
| 32 | 38.5 | 2.30 dd (13.8, 8.2) | 31.0 | 2.05 overlap | 34.3 | 1.80 dd (13.9, 9.8) |
| 2.18 dd (13.8, 1.8) | 1.97 dd (14.4, 6.3) | 1.71 overlap | ||||
| 33 | 16.1 | 1.07 d (7.2) | 17.8 | 1.15 d (7.0) | 25.8 | 1.03 d (7.0) |
| 34 | 197.4 | 10.36 s | 197.4 | 10.37 s | 197.1 | 10.22 s |
| 35 | 27.6 | 3.22 d (7.3) | 27.7 | 3.26 d (7.4) | 26.7 | 3.19 d (7.4) |
| 36 | 122.6 | 5.26 br t (7.3) | 122.7 | 5.26 br t (7.4) | 121.7 | 5.24 br t (7.4) |
| 37 | 133.4 | 133.6 | 132.5 | |||
| 38 | 25.8 | 1.70 s | 25.9 | 1.72 s | 25.6 | 1.70 s |
| 39 | 17.7 | 1.67 s | 17.8 | 1.69 s | 17.6 | 1.66 s |
| OH-21 | 11.98 s | 11.95 s | 11.74 s | |||
| OH-24 | 8.21 s | 8.10 s | 9.09 s | |||
.
.
Figure 2Key 1H–1H COZY, HMBC, and NOESY correlations of compound 1.
Figure 3Comparison between experimental and calculated ECD spectra of 1–3 in MeCN.
Figure 4Key NOESY correlations of compound 2.
Figure 5Key 1H–1H COZY, HMBC, and NOESY correlations of compound 3.
Scheme 1Proposed biosynthetic pathway of compounds 1–4.
Antioxidative activities against DPPH and cytotoxic activities against two tumor cell lines of compounds (±)-1–(±)-4.
| (+)- | 14.3 | >200 | >200 |
| (–)- | 18.5 | >200 | >200 |
| (+)- | 5.8 | >200 | >200 |
| (–)- | 23.5 | >200 | >200 |
| (+)- | 9.8 | >200 | >200 |
| (–)- | 24.9 | >200 | >200 |
| (+)- | 3.7 | 51.7 ± 2.8 | 49.9 ± 2.0 |
| (–)- | 6.1 | 97.3 ± 1.8 | 98.7 ± 1.0 |
| Vc | 23.0 | ||
| Taxol | 6.0 ± 0.3 | 11.1 ± 1.1 | |
Positive control: Vc.
Positive control: Taxol; The results were mean ±SD (SD = standard deviation).
Figure 6The electrostatic potential and hydrogen-bonds of compounds (±)-1–(±)-4 and the bioactive pockets of 5FNO. (Purple represented stronger electrostatic potential; red represented the residues to form hydrogen-bonds).