| Literature DB >> 35745028 |
Ying-Shi Li1,2, Bao-Chen Yang2, Shu-Min Zheng2, Yong-Xian Cheng2,3, Hong-Hua Cui1.
Abstract
Ferulasinkins A-D (1-4), four new norlignans, were isolated from the resins of Ferula sinkiangensis, a medicinal plant of the Apiaceae family. All of them were obtained as racemic mixtures, chiral HPLC was used to produce their (+)- and (-)-antipodes. The structures of these new compounds, including their absolute configurations, were elucidated by spectroscopic and computational methods. This isolation provides new insight into the chemical profiling of F. sinkiangensis resins beyond the well-investigated structure types such as sesquiterpene coumarins and disulfides. Compounds 2a and 3a were found to significantly inhibit the invasion and migration of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cell lines via CCK-8 assay. On the other hand, the wound-healing assay also demonstrated that compounds 4a and 4b could promote the proliferation of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs). Notably, the promoting effects of 4a and 4b were observed as more significant versus a positive control using basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF).Entities:
Keywords: Apiaceae; Ferula sinkiangensis; antitumor; ferulasinkins; norlignans; plant resins; wound healing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35745028 PMCID: PMC9228879 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27123907
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1The structures of compounds 1–4 from F. sinkiangensis.
1H (600 MHz) and 13C (150 MHz) NMR data of 1 and 2 in MeOD (δ in ppm, J in Hz).
| No. | 1 | 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | 134.2, s | 133.9, s | ||
| 2 | 7.01 (d, 1.9) | 111.7, d | 7.03 (d, 1.9) | 111.7, d |
| 3 | 148.8, s | 148.6, s | ||
| 4 | 147.0, s | 147.3, s | ||
| 5 | 6.78 (d, 8.1) | 115.8, d | 6.78 (d, 8.1) | 115.0, d |
| 6 | 6.89 (dd, 8.1, 1.9) | 121.0, d | 6.85 (dd, 8.1, 1.9) | 121.0, d |
| 7 | 4.61 (d, 7.0) | 78.1, d | 4.53 (d, 7.7) | 78.1, d |
| 8 | 4.40 (dt, 7.0, 6.5) | 83.8, d | 4.57 (m) | 83.3, d |
| 9 | Ha: 1.91 (ddd, 13.1, 6.1, 6.5); | 37.6, t | Ha: 1.99 (ddd, 13.4, 9.3, 4.6); | 38.7, t |
| 1′ | 133.9, s | 130.7, s | ||
| 2′ | 6.99 (d, 1.9) | 110.8, d | 7.05 (d, 1.9) | 112.3, d |
| 3′ | 148.9, s | 148.9, s | ||
| 4′ | 147.3, s | 146.8, s | ||
| 5′ | 6.75 (d, 8.1) | 115.9, d | 6.76 (d, 8.1) | 115.0, d |
| 6′ | 6.84 (dd, 8.1, 1.9) | 119.8, d | 6.81 (dd, 8.1, 1.9) | 121.0, d |
| 7′ | 4.68 (d, 3.6) | 89.8, d | 4.87 (d, 3.2) | 86.2, d |
| 8′ | 4.02 (td, 6.6, 3.6) | 79.2, d | 4.22 (t, 3.8) | 75.1, d |
| 3-OCH3 | 3.84 (s) | 56.3, q | 3.86 (s) | 56.3, q |
| 3′-OCH3 | 3.86 (s) | 56.3, q | 3.86 (s) | 56.3, q |
Figure 2Key 2D NMR correlations of compounds 1–4.
Figure 3Comparison of the calculated ECD and experimental spectra in MeOH. (A) The calculated ECD spectra of (7R, 8R, 7′R, 8′R)-1 and (7S, 8S, 7′S, 8′S)-1 at B3LYP/6-31G level, σ = 0.30 eV; shift = 3 nm. (B) The calculated ECD spectra of (7R, 8R, 7′S, 8′S)-2 and (7S, 8S, 7′R, 8′R)-2 at B3LYP/6-31G level, σ = 0.22 eV; shift = 11 nm. (C) The calculated ECD spectra of (7S, 8S, 7′R, 8′S)-3 and (7R, 8R, 7′S, 8′R)-3 at B3LYP/6-31G level, σ = 0.25 eV; shift = 18 nm. (D) The calculated ECD spectra of (7S, 8R, 7′R, 8′R)-4 and (7R, 8S, 7′S, 8′S)-4 at B3LYP/6-31G level, σ = 0.20 eV; shift = 0 nm.
1H (600 MHz) and 13C (150 MHz) NMR data of 3 and 4 in MeOD (δ in ppm, J in Hz).
| No. | 3 | 4 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | 134.1, s | 134.6, s | ||
| 2 | 7.02 (d, 1.9) | 111.8, d | 7.04 (d, 1.9) | 111.6, d |
| 3 | 148.9, s | 148.9, s | ||
| 4 | 147.0, s | 147.0, s | ||
| 5 | 6.79 (t, 8.1) | 115.9, d | 6.78 (d, 8.0) | 115.8, d |
| 6 | 6.86 (dd, 8.1, 1.9) | 121.1, d | 6.86 (dd, 8.0, 1.9) | 120.6, d |
| 7 | 4.64 (d, 7.3) | 78.1, d | 4.77 (d, 4.4) | 75.9, d |
| 8 | 4.39 (td-like, 7.2, 6.2) | 83.6, d | 4.39 (dt, 6.3, 4.4) | 83.7, d |
| 9 | Ha: 2.04 (dt, 13.1, 7.2); | 37.5, t | Ha: 2.22 (ddd, 13.0, 8.7, 6.3); | 36.0, t |
| 1′ | 133.7, s | 133.9, s | ||
| 2′ | 6.95 (d, 1.9) | 110.6, d | 7.02 (d, 1.9) | 110.9, d |
| 3′ | 148.9, s | 148.7, s | ||
| 4′ | 147.3, s | 146.9, s | ||
| 5′ | 6.76 (d, 8.1) | 115.9, d | 6.74 (d, 8.0) | 115.7, d |
| 6′ | 6.82 (dd, 8.1, 1.9) | 119.7, d | 6.80 (dd, 8.0, 1.9) | 120.0, d |
| 7′ | 4.68 (d, 5.4) | 87.7, d | 4.60 (d, 3.9) | 89.5, d |
| 8′ | 4.12 (td-like, 6.2, 5.5) | 79.1, d | 4.05 (dt, 7.0, 3.9) | 79.1, d |
| 3-OCH3 | 3.87 (s) | 56.3, q | 3.83 (s) | 56.3, q |
| 3′-OCH3 | 3.85 (s) | 56.3, q | 3.83 (s) | 56.3, q |
Figure 4Inhibitory effects of all optically active compounds on TNBC cell lines. (A) Treatment of compounds on HCC1806 and MDA-MB-231 cell lines did not affect cell viability. (B–E) Effects of compounds on migration situation of TNBC cell lines were evaluated by wound-healing experiments (40 μM compounds or DMSO). The data are means ± standard error of the mean (SEM); n ≥ 3. * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01 and *** p ≤ 0.001 versus the vehicle group (one-way ANOVA).
Figure 5Promoting effects of all optically active compounds on HUVECs. (A) Effects of compounds on proliferation situation of HUVECs were evaluated by CCK-8 assay (40 μM compounds or DMSO). (B,C) Treatment of compounds on HUVECs did not affect cell migration. The data are means ± SEM; n ≥ 3. **** p ≤ 0.0001 versus the vehicle group (one-way ANOVA). Basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) (100 ng/mL) was used as a positive control.