| Literature DB >> 35893130 |
Xinying Duan1, Li Zhang1, Hongyan Si1, Jie Song2, Peng Wang1, Shangxing Chen1, Hai Luo1, Xiaoping Rao3, Zongde Wang1, Shengliang Liao1.
Abstract
Control of fungal phytopathogens affecting crops and woodlands is an important goal in environmental management and the maintenance of food security. This work describes the synthesis of 37 camphor derivatives, of which 27 were new compounds. Their antifungal effects on six fungi were evaluated in vitro. Compounds 3a, 4a and 5k showed strong antifungal activity against Trametes versicolor, with EC50 values of 0.43, 6.80 and 4.86 mg/L, respectively, which were better than that of tricyclazole (EC50 118.20 mg/L) and close to or better than that of carbendazim (EC50 1.20 mg/L). The most potent compound, 3a, exhibited broad-spectrum antifungal activity towards six fungi with EC50 values within the range of 0.43-40.18 mg/L. Scanning electron microscopy demonstrated that compounds 3a, 4a and 5k gave irregular growth and shriveling of the mycelia. In vitro cytotoxicity evaluation revealed that the tested camphor derivatives had mild or no cytotoxicity for LO2 and HEK293T cell lines. Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) analysis revealed that the number of F atoms, relative molecular weight, the atomic orbital electronic population and total charge on the positively charged surfaces of the molecules of camphor derivatives have effects on antifungal activity. The present study may provide a theoretical basis for a high-value use of camphor and could be helpful for the development of novel potential antifungals.Entities:
Keywords: QSAR; antifungal activity; camphor; cytotoxicity; synthesis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35893130 PMCID: PMC9332567 DOI: 10.3390/jof8080762
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Fungi (Basel) ISSN: 2309-608X
Figure 1Synthetic routes of camphor derivatives.
Figure 2Photographs of antifungal experiments of compound 3a against six fungi.
EC50 values of camphor-based derivatives against six fungi a.
| Compd. | EC50 (mg/L) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PN | FV | CG | SS | FO | TV | |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | 597.01 | >1000 |
|
| 215.66 | 172.24 | 92.44 | 159.50 | 118.14 | 150.55 |
|
| 25.08 | 40.18 | 12.85 | 17.09 | 19.30 | 0.43 |
|
| 207.80 | 82.34 | 36.51 | 93.51 | 38.56 | 6.80 |
|
| 253.14 | 88.85 | 34.94 | 109.93 | 15.89 | 99.70 |
|
| 176.72 | 63.91 | 28.91 | 86.14 | 16.24 | 35.78 |
|
| 158.81 | 69.10 | 30.62 | 101.23 | 19.97 | 7.67 |
|
| 89.92 | 62.16 | 80.49 | 100.08 | 20.05 | 593.17 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | 74.00 | >1000 | 734.52 | 361.20 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | 771.99 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 |
|
| 79.78 | 34.39 | 65.66 | 69.47 | 29.85 | 101.99 |
|
| >1000 | 45.97 | 330.96 | >1000 | 899.39 | >1000 |
|
| 101.81 | 39.68 | 26.90 | 54.04 | 38.55 | 68.47 |
|
| 91.87 | 40.54 | 24.09 | 77.58 | 21.03 | 17.18 |
|
| 178.16 | 58.83 | 59.23 | 120.53 | 20.80 | 204.45 |
|
| 137.26 | 31.32 | 34.65 | / | 25.05 | 107.66 |
|
| 174.28 | 66.43 | 35.03 | 127.07 | 16.33 | 342.56 |
|
| >1000 | 206.14 | 136.85 | >1000 | 42.63 | 6.89 |
|
| 341.97 | 131.69 | 33.22 | 162.35 | 38.88 | 18.86 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | 52.24 | >1000 | 730.69 | 51.49 |
|
| 73.59 | 645.97 | 80.55 | 101.04 | 26.50 | >1000 |
|
| 112.39 | 723.36 | 82.85 | 76.73 | 56.45 | >1000 |
|
| >1000 | 125.46 | 371.75 | >1000 | >1000 | 4.42 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | 364.55 | >1000 | 486.83 | 11.30 |
|
| >1000 | 816.15 | 639.90 | >1000 | >1000 | 7.40 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | 769.85 | >1000 | >1000 | 40.93 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | 522.47 | >1000 | >1000 | 139.57 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | 101.56 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | 652.17 | >1000 | >1000 | 7.85 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | 233.73 | >1000 | >1000 | 12.37 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | / | / |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | 474.68 | >1000 | >1000 | 16.24 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | 489.08 | >1000 | >1000 | 4.86 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | 33.64 | >1000 | >1000 | 5.09 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | / | 294.86 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | 634.710 | >1000 | / | >1000 |
| tricyclazole | 80.58 | 185.93 | 79.39 | 268.37 | 66.78 | 118.20 |
| carbendazim | 1.49 | 0.55 | 0.20 | 4.67 | 0.45 | 1.20 |
Note: a PN, Phytophthora nicotianae; FV, Fusarium verticillioides; CG, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides; SS, Sphaeropsis sapinea; FO, Fusarium oxysporum; TV, Trametes versicolor. “/” means no antifungal activity.
Figure 3In vitro cytotoxicity of several camphor derivatives: (a) proportional viability of LO2 cells in response to 10 mg/L of compound; (b) proportional viability of HEK293T cells in response to 10 mg/L of compound; (c) photographic image of LO2 cells in response to 10 mg/L of compound; (d) photographic image of HEK293T cells in response to 10 mg/L of compound.
Figure 4Scanning electron micrographs of mycelial morphology of T. versicolor: (a) blank control, ×3000; (b) treated with compound 3a at 0.43 mg/L (EC50), ×3000; (c) treated with compound 4a at 6.80 mg/L (EC50), ×3000; (d) treated with compound 5k at 4.86 mg/L (EC50), ×3000. The red arrows point out the healthy mycelium and the damaged mycelium.
Figure 5Confirmation of the number of descriptors and prediction of antifungal activity against T. versicolor using model constructed. (a) Application of the “breaking point” rule; (b) experimental and predicted log50 EC50 values.
Details of the four-descriptor QSAR model.
| Descriptor | Regression | Standard Error (ΔX) | Descriptors | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1.757 | 1.904 | 0.922 | Intercept |
| 1 | 0.416 | 0.052 | 8.067 | NOF a |
| 2 | 0.903 | 0.1008 | 8.960 | RMW b |
| 3 | −11.104 | 2.862 | −3.880 | MAOEP c |
| 4 | 0.528 | 0.203 | 2.578 | FPSA-2 d |
Note: a Number of F atoms; b Relative molecular weight; c Minimum atomic orbital electronic population; d FPSA-2 Fractional PPSA (PPSA-2/TMSA) [Quantum-Chemical PC].
Internal validation of QSAR model.
| R2 | Rloo2 | Training Set | N | R2 (Fit) | Test Set | N | R2 (Fit) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.911 | 0.844 | A + B | 20 | 0.924 | C | 9 | 0.886 |
| B + C | 19 | 0.886 | A | 10 | 0.831 | ||
| A + C | 19 | 0.882 | B | 10 | 0.922 | ||
| Average | - | 0.897 | Average | - | 0.880 |
Figure 6Comparison of the experimental values log50 EC50 and predicted values log50 EC50 based on external validation.