| Literature DB >> 31480589 |
Ya-Hui Zhang1,2, Ce Geng3, Xing-Wang Zhang3, Hua-Jie Zhu2, Chang-Lun Shao1,4, Fei Cao5, Chang-Yun Wang6,7,8.
Abstract
Identification and analysis of the whole genome of the marine-derived fungus Penicillium brasilianum HBU-136 revealed the presence of an interesting biosynthetic gene cluster (BGC) for non-ribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPS), highly homologous to the BGCs of indole-diketopiperazine derivatives. With the aid of genomic analysis, eight indole-diketopiperazines (1-8), including three new compounds, spirotryprostatin G (1), and cyclotryprostatins F and G (2 and 3), were obtained by large-scale cultivation of the fungal strain HBU-136 using rice medium with 1.0% MgCl2. The absolute configurations of 1-3 were determined by comparison of their experimental electronic circular dichroism (ECD) with calculated ECD spectra. Selective cytotoxicities were observed for compounds 1 and 4 against HL-60 cell line with the IC50 values of 6.0 and 7.9 μM, respectively, whereas 2, 3, and 5 against MCF-7 cell line with the IC50 values of 7.6, 10.8, and 5.1 μM, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: Penicillium brasilianum; biosynthetic gene cluster (BGC); cytotoxicities; indole-diketopiperazine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31480589 PMCID: PMC6781160 DOI: 10.3390/md17090514
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Figure 1(A) The biosynthetic gene cluster of cyclotryprostatin from Penicillium brasilianum (ctp). (B) Proposed biosynthetic pathway of the isolated indole-diketopiperazines.
Figure 2Chemical structures of compounds 1–8.
1H NMR Data (δ) of 1–3 (500 MHz, CDCl3, J in Hz).
| No. | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.86, s | 7.97, s | |
| 4 | 7.50, d (8.7) | 7.48, d (8.4) | 7.58, d (7.6) |
| 5 | 6.45, dd (8.7, 2.0) | 6.80, dd (8.4, 2.0) | 7.17, dtd (8.0, 7.6, 0.9) |
| 6 | 7.17, dtd (8.0, 7.6, 0.9) | ||
| 7 | 6.27, d (2.0) | 6.86, d (2.0) | 7.37, d (7.6) |
| 8 | 4.70, s | 5.02, s | 4.79, s |
| 12 | 4.38, dd (10.7, 6.3) | ||
| 13 | 2.35, m | 2.40, m | 2.50, m |
| 2.27, m | 1.98, m | 2.01, m | |
| 14 | 2.15, m | 2.10, s | 2.12, m |
| 2.00, m | 1.98, m | 2.01, m | |
| 15 | 3.74, m | 3.80, m | 3.76, m |
| 3.54, m | 3.70, m | 3.71, m | |
| 18 | 4.83, d (9.5) | 6.36, d (9.6) | 6.68, d (9.7) |
| 19 | 4.79, d (9.5) | 5.33, d (9.6) | 5.57, d (9.7) |
| 21 | 1.56, s | 2.04, s | 1.80, s |
| 22 | 1.79, s | 1.77, s | 2.07, s |
| 8-OH | 4.96, brs | ||
| 12-OH | 5.14, brs | ||
| 6-OCH3 | 3.85, s | 3.82, s | |
| 9-OH | 8.51, brs | ||
| 8-OCH3 | 3.30, s | 3.38, s |
13C NMR Data (δ) of 1–3 (125 MHz, CDCl3).
| No. | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 75.0, C | 132.7, C | 135.2, C |
| 3 | 200.6, C | 104.8, C | 105.7, C |
| 3a | 112.4, C | 122.5, C | 128.5, C |
| 4 | 127.4, CH | 118.9, CH | 118.2, CH |
| 5 | 110.8, CH | 110.1, CH | 120.7, CH |
| 6 | 169.7, C | 156.6, C | 122.3, CH |
| 7 | 94.9, CH | 95.3, CH | 111.3, CH |
| 7a | 165.4, C | 137.1, C | 135.9, C |
| 8 | 73.9, CH | 74.9, CH | 76.8, CH |
| 9 | 86.1, C | 85.7, C | 84.9, C |
| 11 | 167.4, C | 166.3, C | 167.2, C |
| 12 | 90.2, C | 86.7, C | 60.1, CH |
| 13 | 35.1, CH2 | 36.5, CH2 | 29.8, CH2 |
| 14 | 21.3, CH2 | 19.2, CH2 | 22.3, CH2 |
| 15 | 45.3, CH2 | 45.4, CH2 | 46.0, CH2 |
| 17 | 166.0, C | 165.9, C | 166.0, C |
| 18 | 55.7, CH | 49.3, CH | 49.2, CH |
| 19 | 119.4, CH | 122.8, CH | 123.6, CH |
| 20 | 142.4, C | 138.2, C | 138.2, C |
| 21 | 26.1, CH3 | 18.4, CH3 | 26.2, CH3 |
| 22 | 18.8, CH3 | 26.1, CH3 | 18.4, CH3 |
| 6-OCH3 | 56.0, CH3 | 55.8, OCH3 | |
| 8-OCH3 | 57.0, OCH3 | 56.8, OCH3 |
Figure 31H-1H COSY and key HMBC correlations of 1 and 2. In order to assign the relative configuration of 1, its NOESY experiment was carried out.
Figure 4The key NOESY correlations of 1.
Figure 5Experimental ECD of 1 and 4, and calculated ECD of (2S,8S,9R,12R,18S)-1.
Figure 6Experimental ECD of 2, 3 and 5, and calculated ECD of (8S,9S,12R,18S)-2.