| Literature DB >> 32585998 |
Hitomi Sasaki1, Yuzuru Kubohara2, Hirotaka Ishigaki3, Katsunori Takahashi3, Hiromi Eguchi1, Akihiro Sugawara1, Yoshiteru Oshima1, Haruhisa Kikuchi1.
Abstract
We report a protoilludane-type sesquiterpene, mucoroidiol, and a geranylated bicyclogermacranol, firmibasiol, isolated from Dictyostelium cellular slime molds. The methanol extracts of the fruiting bodies of cellular slime molds were separated by chromatographic methods to give these compounds. Their structures have been established by several spectral means. Mucoroidiol and firmibasiol are the first examples of more modified and oxidized terpenoids isolated from cellular slime molds. Mucoroidiol showed moderate osteoclast-differentiation inhibitory activity despite demonstrating very weak cell-proliferation inhibitory activity. Therefore, cellular slime molds produce considerably diverse secondary metabolites, and they are promising sources of new natural product chemistry.Entities:
Keywords: cellular slime molds; dictyostelid; natural products; terpenoids
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32585998 PMCID: PMC7356884 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25122895
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Structures of mucoroidiol (1) and firmibasiol (2).
NMR spectral data of mucoroidiol (1) a.
| 13C | (DEPT) | 1H | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 37.0 | CH2 | 1.23 (1H, dd, |
| 1.32–1.37 (1H, m) | |||
| 2 | 45.6 | CH | 1.84 (1H, dt, |
| 3 | 39.0 | C | |
| 4 | 31.7 | CH2 | 1.42–1.47 (1H, m) |
| 2.03 (1H, q, | |||
| 5 | 24.4 | CH2 | 1.33–1.37 (1H, m) |
| 2.14–2.21 (1H, m) | |||
| 6 | 40.2 | CH | 1.33–1.39 (1H, m) |
| 7 | 44.7 | CH | 1.60–1.63 (1H, m) |
| 8 | 30.3 | CH2 | 0.78 (1H, q, |
| 1.35–1.41 (1H, m) | |||
| 9 | 38.4 | CH | 2.10–2.16 (1H, m) |
| 10 | 42.8 | CH2 | 1.30–1.35 (1H, m) |
| 1.59 (1H, dd, | |||
| 11 | 41.7 | C | |
| 12 | 73.0 | CH2 | 3.34 (1H, d, |
| 3.37 (1H, d, | |||
| 13 | 26.5 | CH3 | 0.99 (3H, s) |
| 14 | 67.2 | CH2 | 3.32–3.37 (1H, m) |
| 3.51 (1H, dd, | |||
| 15 | 26.3 | CH3 | 1.11 (3H, s) |
a 600 MHz for 1H and 150 MHz for 13C in CDCl3.
Figure 2The structural elucidation of mucoroidiol (1). (A). Planar structure of 1 and representative correlations of 1H-1H COSY and HMBC spectra. (B). Relative structure of 1 and representative correlations of NOESY spectrum.
Scheme 1The plausible biosynthetic pathway of mucoroidiol (1).
NMR spectral data of firmibasiol (2) a.
| 13C | (DEPT) | 1H | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.1 | CH | 1.28 (1H, t, |
| 2 | 121.0 | CH | 4.88 (1H, d, |
| 3 | 137.2 | C | |
| 4 | 40.5 | CH2 | 1.80 (1H, t, |
| 2.07–2.11 (1H, m) | |||
| 5 | 26.7 | CH2 | 1.18–1.25 (1H, m) |
| 1.44–1.51 (1H, m) | |||
| 6 | 42.3 | CH | 1.41–1.45 (1H, m) |
| 7 | 76.0 | C | |
| 8 | 38.3 | CH2 | 1.18–1.27 (2H, m) |
| 9 | 21.3 | CH2 | 0.58 (1H, q, |
| 1.50–1.54 (1H, m) | |||
| 10 | 27.8 | CH | 0.66 (1H, ddd, |
| 11 | 20.1 | C | |
| 12 | 28.8 | CH3 | 1.04 (3H, s) |
| 13 | 15.1 | CH3 | 1.11 (3H, s) |
| 14 | 25.8 | CH3 | 1.07 (3H, s) |
| 15 | 17.3 | CH3 | 1.73 (3H, s) |
| 1′ | 30.2 | CH2 | 2.08–2.14 (2H, m) |
| 2′ | 123.1 | CH | 5.27 (1H, t, |
| 3′ | 136.2 | C | |
| 4′ | 40.0 | CH2 | 2.03 (2H, t, |
| 5′ | 26.8 | CH2 | 2.05–2.10 (2H, m) |
| 6′ | 124.3 | CH | 5.01 (1H, tq, |
| 7′ | 131.5 | C | |
| 8′ | 25.7 | CH3 | 1.68 (3H, d, |
| 9′ | 17.7 | CH3 | 1.60 (3H, s) |
| 10′ | 16.3 | CH3 | 1.63 (3H, s) |
a 600 MHz for 1H and 150 MHz for 13C in CDCl3.
Figure 3The structural elucidation of firmibasiol (2) (A). Planar structure of 2 and representative correlations of 1H-1H COSY and HMBC spectra. (B,C). Relative structure (side view (B) and top view (C)) of 2 and representative correlations of the NOESY spectrum.
Scheme 2The plausible biosynthetic pathway of firmibasiol (2).
Figure 4Osteoclastogenesis-suppressive activity of 2.
Antitumor and anti-bacterial activities of 1 and 2 a.
| IC50 (μM) vs. | MIC (μM) vs. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HeLa |
| |||
| Mucoroidiol ( | >40 | >100 | >100 | >100 |
| Firmibasiol ( | >40 | >100 | >100 | >100 |
a Half maximal (50%) inhibitory concentration (IC50) (versus HeLa cells) and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) (versus S. aureus and E. coli) of 1 and 2 were assessed as described in the Section 4.