| Literature DB >> 31861067 |
Christina Nord1, Jolanta J Levenfors1,2, Joakim Bjerketorp1,2, Christer Sahlberg3, Bengt Guss4, Bo Öberg2,5, Anders Broberg1.
Abstract
In the search for new microbial antibacterial secondary metabolites, two new compounds (1 and 2) were isolated from culture broths of Penicillium spathulatum Em19. Structure determination by nuclear magnetic resonance and mass spectrometry identified the compounds as 6,7-dihydroxy-5,10-dihydropyrrolo[1,2-b]isoquinoline-3-carboxylic acid (1, spathullin A) and 5,10-dihydropyrrolo[1,2-b]isoquinoline-6,7-diol (2, spathullin B). The two compounds displayed activity against both Gram-negative and -positive bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Acinetobacter baumannii, Enterobacter cloacae, Klebsiella pneumonia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. Compound 2 was more potent than 1 against all tested pathogens, with minimal inhibitory concentrations down to 1 µg/mL (5 µM) against S. aureus, but 2 was also more cytotoxic than 1 (50% inhibitory concentrations 112 and 11 µM for compounds 1 and 2, respectively, towards Huh7 cells). Based on stable isotope labelling experiments and a literature comparison, the biosynthesis of 1 was suggested to proceed from cysteine, tyrosine and methionine via a non-ribosomal peptides synthase like enzyme complex, whereas compound 2 was formed spontaneously from 1 by decarboxylation. Compound 1 was also easily oxidized to the 1,2-benzoquinone 3. Due to the instability of compound 1 and the toxicity of 2, the compounds are of low interest as possible future antibacterial drugs.Entities:
Keywords: Penicillium; antibacterial secondary metabolites; antibiotic resistance; dehydroalanine; isoquinoline alkaloids; secondary metabolism
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31861067 PMCID: PMC6943532 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24244616
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Structures of compounds 1, 2, 3, and asperphenamate.
NMR data for compounds 1–3 (acetone-d6, 600 and 150 MHz, 303 K).
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pos. | δC | δH, mult. (J in Hz) | δC | δH, mult. (J in Hz) | δC | δH, mult. (J in Hz) |
| 1 | 105.5 | 6.02, d (4.0) | 103.7 | 5.83, m | 108.8 | 6.92, d (4.3) |
| 2 | 119.0 | 6.97, d (4.0) | 108.6 | 6.04, dd (3.4, 2.7) | 125.8 | 7.64, d (4.3) |
| 3 | 121.6 | - | 118.9 | 6.76, dd (2.7, 1.7) | 120.8 | - |
| 5 | 43.4 | 5.54, s | 43.4 | 5.05, br s | 134.2 | 10.16, s |
| 5a | 120.6 | - | 121.0 | - | 119.6 | - |
| 6 | 142.7 | - | 142.6 | - | 179.1 | - |
| 7 | 143.5 | - | 143.3 | - | 181.4 | - |
| 8 | 115.0 | 6.81, d (8.1) | 114.9 | 6.77, d (8.0) | 129.3 | 6.48, d (10.0) |
| 9 | 119.2 | 6.67, d (8.1) | 119.4 | 6.65, d (8.0) | 144.5 | 7.71, d (10.0) |
| 9a | 124.7 | - | 126.3 | - | 126.7 | - |
| 10 | 28.4 | 3.97, s | 28.1 | 3.87, br s | 121.4 | 7.85, s |
| 10a | 136.9 | - | 128.2 | - | 137.8 | - |
| 11 | 162.4 | - | - | - | n.d.a | - |
a n.d.: not detected.
Figure 2Diagnostic HMBC (single headed arrows) and COSY (dashed double headed arrows) correlations of compounds 1 and 2.
Figure 3Proposed biosynthesis of compound 1 adapted from the biosynthesis of fumisoquin A–C [24]. R = SH for biosynthesis of compound 1 and R = OH for fumisoquin A–C.
Minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) against bacteria and fungi for compounds 1 and 2, compared to MIC for Meropenem (MEM) and Ciprofloxacin (CIP).
| MIC (μg/mL) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test Organisms | 1 | 2 | MEM | CIP |
| 15 | 5 | 0.5 | 0.06 | |
| 15 | 5 | 2 | 1 | |
| 15 | 5 | 1 | 0.03 | |
| 64 | 32 | 1 | 0.5 | |
| >64 | 64 | 1 | 0.25 | |
| 4 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.25 | |
| >64 | >64 | n.t.a | n.t. | |
| >64 | >64 | n.t. | n.t. | |
a not tested.