| Literature DB >> 35957756 |
Shou-Mao Shen1,2, Qing Yang2,3, Yi Zang2, Jia Li2,4,5, Xueting Liu6, Yue-Wei Guo1,2,4.
Abstract
One new aromadendrane-type sesquiterpenoid, namely ximaocavernosin P [(+)-1], and three new cadinane-type sesquiterpenoids, namely (+)-maninsigin D [(+)-4], (+)- and (-)-ximaocavernosin Q [(+)- and (-)-5], together with five related known ones [2, 3, (-)-4, 6, and 7], were isolated from the Hainan sponge Acanthella cavernosa. Compounds 4 and 5 were isolated as racemic forms, which were further separated to the corresponding enantiomers [(+)-4/(-)-4 and (+)-5/(-)-5], respectively, by using chiral-phase HPLC. The structures of new compounds were elucidated by extensive spectroscopic analysis and comparison with the reported data. In addition, the absolute configuration of optically pure (+)-1 and 2 were determined by time-dependent density functional theory/electronic circular dichroism (TDDFT-ECD) calculations or X-ray diffraction analysis. A plausible biosynthetic pathway of these sesquiterpenoids and their internal correlation were proposed and discussed. In an in vitro bioassay, (+)-aristolone (3) exhibited promising anti-inflammatory activity by the inhibition of LPS-induced TNF-α and CCL2 release in RAW 264.7 macrophages.Entities:
Keywords: Acanthella cavernosa; anti-inflammatory; biosynthetic pathway; chiral separation; marine sponge; sesquiterpenoid
Year: 2022 PMID: 35957756 PMCID: PMC9344550 DOI: 10.3762/bjoc.18.91
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Beilstein J Org Chem ISSN: 1860-5397 Impact factor: 2.544
Figure 1Chemical structures of compounds 1–8.
Figure 2ORTEP drawing of 2 (displacement ellipsoids are drawn at the 50% probability level).
1H (J in Hz) and 13C NMR data of compounds (+)-1, 4, and 5.
| no. | (+)- |
|
|
|||||
|
|
||||||||
| δHa,b | δCa,c | δHb,d | δCc,d | δCa,e | δHb,d | δCc,d | δCa,e | |
|
|
||||||||
| 1 | – | 163.7 s | – | 142.8 s | 141.7 | – | 140.4 s | 139.0 |
| 2 | 4.92 d (4.8) | 74.5 d | 7.47 d (8.4) | 126.6 d | 125.6 | 7.44 d (7.8) | 127.2 d | 125.8 |
| 3a | 1.92 overlap | 41.7 t | 7.08 dd (8.4, 1.8) | 129.2 d | 129.0 | 7.08 dd (7.8, 1.8) | 129.0 d | 128.9 |
| 3b | 1.56 dd (13.2, 4.8) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 4 | 2.68 m | 33.8 d | – | 137.6 s | 137.5 | – | 137.8 s | 137.9 |
| 5 | 2.73 dd (9.6, 9.6) | 43.7 d | 7.28 brs | 127.4 d | 126.0 | 7.33 brs | 127.9 d | 126.7 |
| 6 | 0.80 dd (10.6, 9.6) | 32.1 d | – | 140.9 s | 139.9 | – | 142.1 s | 140.6 |
| 7 | 0.68 m | 22.6 d | – | 75.0 s | 74.3 | – | 75.2 s | 74.5 |
| 8a | 2.38 dd (14.4, 11.4) | – | 1.92 ddd (15.6, 10.8, 3.0) | 28.4 t | 27.9 | 2.26 ddd (13.8, 10.2, 3.0) | 28.3 t | 26.9 |
| 8b | 2.84 dd (14.4, 4.8) | 42.1 t | 1.84 m | – | – | 1.70 ddd (13.8, 8.0, 3.0) | – | – |
| 9a | – | – | 2.09 ddd (15.6, 10.8, 3.0) | 35.6 t | 35.6 | 2.00 ddd (13.8, 10.2, 3.0) | 36.2 t | 35.0 |
| 9b | – | 201.9 s | 1.81 m | – | – | 1.92 ddd (13.8, 8.0, 1.2) | – | – |
| 10 | – | 134.1 s | – | 71.5 s | 71.0 | – | 70.3 s | 69.5 |
| 11 | – | 25.9 s | 2.41 m | 38.4 d | 37.2 | 2.35 m | 38.5 d | 37.6 |
| 12 | 1.07 s | 28.3 q | 0.62 d (6.6) | 16.5 q | 16.2 | 0.71 d (6.6) | 17.0 q | 16.5 |
| 13 | 1.19 s | 16.1 q | 1.08 d (6.6) | 18.9 q | 18.7 | 1.08 d (6.6) | 19.1 q | 18.9 |
| 14 | 1.94 d (1.8) | 14.8 q | 1.40 s | 30.2 q | 29.7 | 1.54 s | 31.2 q | 30.6 |
| 15 | 1.05 d (6.6) | 15.3 q | 2.31 s | 21.4 q | 21.4 | 2.32 s | 21.3 q | 21.5 |
aRecorded in CDCl3, chemical shifts refer to CHCl3 (δH 7.26, δC 77.2); brecorded at 600 MHz; crecorded at 125 MHz; drecorded in CD3OD, chemical shifts refer to CD3OD (δH 3.31, δC 49.0); erecorded at 150 MHz.
Figure 3Experimental and calculated ECD curves of (+)-1.
Figure 41H-1H COSY, key HMBC correlations, and NOESY correlations of compound 5.
Figure 5Experimental ECD curves of compounds (+)-4, (−)-4 (top), (+)-5, and (−)-5 (bottom).
Scheme 1Proposed cyclization pathway of terpene intermediates and plausible post-modifications of compounds 1–7.
Figure 6Compound 3 reduced the mRNA levels of TNF-α (left) and CCL2 (right) in LPS-stimulated RAW264.7 macrophages. Data were normalized by DMSO group and are presented as means ± standard errors of the mean (n = 3). ###p < 0.001 vs the control group; ***p < 0.001 vs the DMSO group.