| Literature DB >> 34436296 |
Joana D M de Sá1, José A Pereira2,3, Tida Dethoup4, Honorina Cidade1,3, Maria Emília Sousa1,3, Inês C Rodrigues2, Paulo M Costa2,3, Sharad Mistry5, Artur M S Silva6, Anake Kijjoa2,3.
Abstract
Previously unreported anthraquinone, acetylpenipurdin A (4), biphenyl ether, neospinosic acid (6), dibenzodioxepinone, and spinolactone (7) were isolated, together with (R)-6-hydroxymellein (1), penipurdin A (2), acetylquestinol (3), tenellic acid C (5), and vermixocin A (8) from the culture of a marine sponge-associated fungus Neosartorya spinosa KUFA1047. The structures of the previously unreported compounds were established based on an extensive analysis of 1D and 2D NMR spectra as well as HRMS data. The absolute configurations of the stereogenic centers of 5 and 7 were established unambiguously by comparing their calculated and experimental electronic circular dichroism (ECD) spectra. Compounds 2 and 5-8 were tested for their in vitro acetylcholinesterase and tyrosinase inhibitory activities as well as their antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative reference, and multidrug-resistant strains isolated from the environment. The tested compounds were also evaluated for their capacity to inhibit biofilm formation in the reference strains.Entities:
Keywords: Neosartorya spinosa; Trichocomaceae; anthraquinones; anti-tyrosinase; antibacterial activity; antibiofilm activity; biphenyl ethers; marine sponge-associated fungus
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34436296 PMCID: PMC8401666 DOI: 10.3390/md19080457
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Figure 1Structures of (R)-6-hydroxymellein (1), penipurdin A (2), acetylquestinol (3), acetylpenipurdin A (4), tenellic acid C (5), neospinosic acid (6), spinolactone (7), and vermixocin A (8).
1H and 13C NMR (DMSO-d6, 500 and 125 MHz) and HMBC assignment for 4.
| Position | δC, Type | δH, | COSY | HMBC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 162.1, C | |||
| 2 | 125.1, CH | 7.15, d (1.5) | H-4 | C-1, 1′, 4, 9a |
| 3 | 146.6, C | |||
| 4 | 119.6, CH | 7.47, d (1.5) | H-2 | C-1′, 2, 9a, 10 |
| 4a | 132.6, C | |||
| 5 | 108.3, CH | 7.16, d (2.2) | H-7 | C-7, 8a, 10 |
| 6 | 166.6, C | |||
| 7 | 105.5, CH | 6.78, d (2.2) | H-5 | C-5, 6, 8a |
| 8 | 164.1, C | |||
| 8a | 112.2, C | |||
| 9 | 186.4, CO | |||
| 9a | 115.6, C | |||
| 10 | 183.0, CO | |||
| 10a | 137.2, C | |||
| OMe-8 | 56.7, CH3 | 3.89, s | C-8 | |
| 1′ | 41.5, CH2 | 2.92, m | H-2′ | C-2. 3, 4 |
| 2′ | 70.7, CH | 5.06, m | H2-1′, H3-3′ | C-3, CO (Ac) |
| 3′ | 20.0, CH3 | 1.20, d (6.3) | H-2′ | C-1′, 2′ |
| CO (Ac) | 170.2, CO | |||
| Me (Ac) | 21.4, CH3 | 1.94, s | ||
| OH-1′ | - | 13.40, s | C-1, 2, 9a |
Figure 2Model of one of the most abundant conformations of 5 (lowest B3LYP/6-31G/methanol energy conformer) in its ECD assigned (8S) configuration. Many other conformations have very similar energies to this one.
Figure 3Experimental methanol ECD spectrum of 5 (solid black line) and theoretical ECD spectra of its (S) (dot–dashed blue line) and (R) (dashed red line) computational conformers.
1H and 13C NMR (DMSO-d6, 300 and 75 MHz) and HMBC assignment for 6.
| Position | δC, Type | δH, ( | COSY | HMBC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 119.3, C | - | ||
| 2 | 155.1, C | - | ||
| 3 | 130.5, C | |||
| 4 | 128.5, CH | 7.25, d (8.7) | H-5 | C-2, 6, 8 |
| 5 | 110.3, CH | 6.32, d (8.7) | H-4 | C-1, 3, 6, 7 (w) |
| 6 | 154.8, C | - | ||
| 7 | 167.2, CO | - | ||
| 8 | 73.1, CH | 4.58, dd (9.2, 3.8) | H-9a, 9b | C-3, 9, 14 |
| 9a, b | 47.1, CH2 | 1.57, ddd (13.8, 9.2, 5.0) | C-8, 9, 11, 12 | |
| 10 | 24.9, CH | 1.71, m | H-9a, 9b, 11, 12 | |
| 11 | 23.7, CH3 | 0.88, d (6.6) | H-10 | C-9, 10, 12 |
| 12 | 22.2, CH3 | 0.92, d (6.6) | H-10 | C.9, 10, 11 |
| 13 | 62.8, OMe | 3.83, s | ||
| 14 | 63.9, CH2 | 3.25, q (7.0) | H-15 | C-8, 15 |
| 15 | 15.7, CH3 | 1.06, t (7.0) | H-14 | C-14 |
| 1′ | 129.8, C | - | ||
| 2′ | 142.3, C | - | ||
| 3′ | 150.9, C | - | ||
| 4′ | 124.2, CH | 7.14, d (2.0) | H-6′, 8′ | C-2′, 3′, 6′, 8′ |
| 5′ | 136.7, C | - | ||
| 6′ | 118.4, CH | 7.11, d (2.0) | H-4′, 6′ | C-2′, 3′ (w), 7′, 8′ |
| 7′ | 189.8, CHO | 10.15, s | C-1′, 5′ (w), 6′ | |
| 8′ | 21.0, CH3 | 2.31, s | H-4′, 6′ |
w = weak.
1H and 13C NMR (DMSO-d6, 500 and 125 MHz) and HMBC assignment for 7.
| Position | δC, Type | δH, ( | COSY | HMBC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 114.3, C | - | ||
| 2 | 157.9, C | - | ||
| 3 | 138.3, C | - | ||
| 4 | 132.8, CH | 7.67, d (8.6) | H-5 | C-1, 3, 6 |
| 5 | 115.6, CH | 7.21, d (8.6) | H-4 | C-2, 6, 8 |
| 6 | 160.2, C | - | ||
| 7 | 161.6, CO | - | ||
| 8 | 64.4, CH | 4.87, ddd (9.2, 4.9, 4.2) | H-9a, 9b, OH-8 | |
| 9a, b | 48.3, CH2 | 1.24, ddd (13.7, 9.2, 4.2) | H-8, 9b, 10 | |
| 10 | 24.8, CH | 1.72, m | H-9a, b, Me -11, 12 | |
| 11 | 23.9, CH3 | 0.86, d (6.7) | H-10 | C-9, 12 |
| 12 | 22.1, CH3 | 0.90, d (6.7) | H-10 | C-9, 11 |
| 13 | 63.1, OMe | 3.76, s | C-2 | |
| 1′ | 135.6, C | - | ||
| 2′ | 145.9, C | - | ||
| 3′ | 143.4, C | - | ||
| 4′ | 119.9, CH | 7.11, brs | C-2′, 3′, 6′ | |
| 5′ | 136.3, C | - | ||
| 6′ | 125.9, CH | 7.12, d (0.5) | C-2′, 4′, 7′,8′ | |
| 7′ | 57.9, CH2 | 4.72, d (5.8) | OH-7′ | C-1′, 2′, 6′ |
| 8′ | 20.9, CH3 | 2.28, s | C-4′, 5′, 6′ | |
| OH-7′ | 5.34, t (5.8) | H-7′ | C-7′ | |
| OH-8 | 5.13, d (4.9) | H-8 | C-9 |
Figure 4Model of the most abundant conformation of 7 (lowest B3LYP/6-31G/acetonitrile energy conformer) accounting for 48% of conformer population) in its ECD assigned (8S) configuration.
Figure 5Experimental ECD spectrum of 7 in acetonitrile (solid black line) and theoretical ECD spectra of its (S) (dot–dashed blue line) and (R) (dashed red line) computational models.
Figure 6Proposed biogenesis of 5 and 6.
Figure 7Proposed biogenesis of 7 and 8.
Antibacterial activity of 2 and 5–8 against Gram-positive reference and multidrug-resistant strains. MIC is expressed in µg/mL. Ceftazidime and kanamycin were used as positive controls.
| Compound | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| >64 | >64 | >64 | >64 |
|
| >64 | >64 | >64 | >64 |
|
| >64 | >64 | >64 | >64 |
|
| >64 | 64 | >64 | >64 |
|
| >64 | >64 | >64 | >64 |
|
| - | - | 8 | - |
|
| 32 | - | - | - |
MIC, minimal inhibitory concentration. CAZ, ceftazidime. KAN, kanamycin.
Percentage of biofilm formation for compounds that showed antibiofilm activity after 24 h incubation.
| Compound | Concentration (µg/mL) | Biofilm Biomass (% of Control) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 64 | 88.39 ± 0.09 *** | 75.89 ± 0.10 *** | 84.46 ± 0.10 *** |
|
| 64 | 83.89 ± 0.19 *** | - | 56.00 ± 0.06 *** |
Data are shown as mean ± SD of three independent experiments. One-sample t-test: *** p < 0.001 significantly different from 100%. MIC, minimal inhibitory concentration.
Figure 8Biofilm viability effect in S. aureus ATCC 29213 in the presence of 6 after 8 and 24 h of incubation. Where *** represent statistical significance of data as p < 0.001.
Figure 9Rhodamine-conA staining of S. aureus ATCC 29213 biofilm: (A) in the absence of 6 and (B) in the presence of 6 after 8 h incubation. Scale bar = 10 µm. Amplification 1000×.
Tyrosinase inhibitory activity of 2 and 5–8.
| Compounds | % Inhibition at 200 µM | IC50 (µM) |
|---|---|---|
|
| 11.56 ± 2.05 * | n.d. |
|
| 4.58 ± 0.07 *** | n.d. |
|
| n.a. | - |
|
| 5.33 ± 0.18 *** | n.d. |
|
| 53.1 ± 1.17 *** | 177.03 ± 8.17 ** |
| Kojic acid | 95.04 ± 0.018 **** | 14.00 ± 0.12 **** |
Results are given as mean ± SEM of three independent experiments performed in triplicate; n.a.: not active; n.d.: not determined; p < 0.05 (*); p < 0.01 (**); p < 0.001 (***); p < 0.0001 (****).