| Literature DB >> 32265463 |
Jin-Tang Cheng1, Cong Guo1, Wen-Jin Cui1, Qing Zhang1, Shu-Hui Wang1, Qing-He Zhao1, De-Wen Liu1, Jun Zhang1, Sha Chen1, Chang Chen1, Yan Liu1, Zheng-Hong Pan2, An Liu3.
Abstract
Two rare N-β-D-glucopyranosyl-1H-indole-3-acetic acid conjugates, N-[2-(1-β-D-glucopyranosyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)acetyl]-L-glutamic acid (1) and N-[2-(1-β-D-glucopyranosyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)acetyl]-L-aspartic acid (2) were isolated from Ginkgo biloba. The structures were elucidated by analyses of HRMS and NMR spectroscopic data. In addition, a simplified and efficient synthetic route for compounds 1 and 2 is also disclosed to determine the absolute configurations of them. This concise syntheses of compounds 1 and 2 may facilitate studies of the biology of this type alkaloids. Compounds 1 and 2 were also tested for their cytotoxic and anti-inflammatory activities. The biological evaluation showed that compounds 1 and 2 led to the decrease of interleukin (IL)-6, nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 at mRNA level in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated murine macrophage RAW264.7 cells.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32265463 PMCID: PMC7138816 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-62884-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1The structures of compounds 1 and 2.
1H NMR (600 MHz) and 13C NMR (150 MHz) spectra of compounds 1 and 2 in methanol-d4 (δ in ppm, J in Hz).
| NO. | Ginkgoside A (1) | Ginkgoside B (2) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 125.8, CH | 7.37, s | 126.4, CH | 7.36, s |
| 3 | 110.7, C | 110.4, C | ||
| 4a | 129.7, C | 129.8, C | ||
| 4 | 120.0, CH | 7.53, dd (8.1, 3.2) | 120.0, CH | 7.62, dd (8.0, 3.2) |
| 5 | 121.2, CH | 7.07, t (6.8) | 121.2, CH | 7.07, t (7.4) |
| 6 | 123.2, CH | 7.17, t (7.1) | 123.6, CH | 7.17, t (7.7) |
| 7 | 111.7, CH | 7.53, dd (8.1, 3.2) | 111.6, CH | 7.62, dd (8.0, 3.2) |
| 7a | 138.7, C | 138.7, C | ||
| 8 | 33.5, CH2 | 3.71, s | 33.5, CH2 | 3.70, s |
| 9 | 174.7, C | 174.3, C | ||
| 10 | 53.6, CH | 4.43, m | 49.1, CH | 4.75, m |
| 11 | 28.2, CH2 | 2.17, d (6.8) 1.93, m | 37.0, CH2 | 2.82, m |
| 12 | 31.5, CH2 | 2.33, brs | ||
| COOH (1) | 175.7, C | 174.4, C | ||
| COOH (2) | 176.9, C | 174.5, C | ||
| 1′ | 86.9, CH | 5.43, d (8.8) | 86.7, CH | 5.43, d (9.0) |
| 2′ | 73.9, CH | 3.90, m | 73.9, CH | 3.92, dt (8.9, 1.7) |
| 3′ | 79.0, CH | 3.58, m | 79.3, CH | 3.61, m |
| 4′ | 71.7, CH | 3.50, t (9.0) | 71.3, CH | 3.51, m |
| 5′ | 80.7, CH | 3.55, m | 80.4, CH | 3.56, m |
| 6′ | 63.1, CH2 | 3.86, m 3.69, overlap | 62.8, CH2 | 3.86, dd (12.1, 1.6) 3.70, overlap |
Figure 2Key COSY and HMBC correlations of compounds 1 and 2.
Figure 3Synthesis of compounds 1 and 2.
Figure 4Anti-inflammatory activities of compounds 1 and 2. (A) IL-6, (B) iNOS and (C) COX-2. **P < 0.01 vs. the control group; ##P < 0.01 vs. the LPS-treated group. One-way ANOVA analysis was used to calculate P-values. The bars represent mean ± SD.