| Literature DB >> 36135742 |
Guifa Zhai1,2, Senhua Chen1,3, Hongjie Shen1,3, Heng Guo1, Minghua Jiang1,3, Lan Liu1,3,4.
Abstract
There has been a tremendous increase in the rate of new terpenoids from marine-derived fungi being discovered, while new monoterpenes were rarely isolated from marine-derived fungi in the past two decades. Three new monoterpenes, diaporterpenes A-C (1-3), and one new α-pyrones, diaporpyrone A (6), along with nine known polyketides 4, 5, and 7-13 were isolated from the ascidian-derived fungus Diaporthe sp. SYSU-MS4722. Their planar structures were elucidated based on extensive spectroscopic analyses (1D and 2D NMR and HR-ESIMS). The absolute configurations of 1 and 3 were identified by an X-ray crystallographic diffraction experiment using Cu-Ka radiation, and those of compound 2 were assigned by calculating NMR chemical shifts and ECD spectra. It afforded an example of natural epimers with different physical properties, especially crystallization, due to the difference in intermolecular hydrogen bonding. Compounds 9, 10, and 13 showed moderate total antioxidant capacity (0.82 of 9; 0.70 of 10; 0.48 of 13) with Trolox (total antioxidant capacity: 1.0) as a positive control, and compounds 5 and 7 showed anti-inflammatory activity with IC50 values of 35.4 and 40.8 µM, respectively (positive control indomethacin: IC50 = 35.8 µM).Entities:
Keywords: Diaporthe sp.; antioxidant and anti-inflammatory; ascidian-derived fungus; monoterpenes; α-pyrones
Year: 2022 PMID: 36135742 PMCID: PMC9504586 DOI: 10.3390/md20090553
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 6.085
Figure 1Chemical structures of compounds 1–13.
1H and 13C NMR spectroscopic data of 1–3 (CD3OD).
| No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 214.3, C | 211.9, C | 170.1, C | |||
| 2 | 50.0, CH2 | 1.97, dd (0.6, 18.1) | 49.6, CH2 | 1.97, d (17.7) | 108.9, C | |
| 3 | 73.9, C | 71.9, C | 130.4, CH | 7.88, d (8.4) | ||
| 4 | 39.0, CH | 2.23, dd (4.3, 8.1) | 38.1, CH | 2.24, dd (4.4, 7.8) | 126.7, CH | 7.49, d (8.4) |
| 5 | 16.1, CH2 | 0.96, dd (4.6, 4.7) | 15.7, CH2 | 1.32, dd (4.6, 4.7) | 152.9, C | |
| 6 | 47.7, C | 50.3, C | 126.7, CH | 7.49, d (8.4) | ||
| 7 | 68.9, C | 68.5, C | 130.4, CH | 7.88, d (8.4) | ||
| 8 | 27.2, CH3 | 1.32, s | 29.2, CH3 | 1.28, s | 75.7, C | |
| 9 | 27.8, CH3 | 1.40, s | 28.0, CH3 | 1.39, s | 71.6, CH2 | 3.52, q (11.2) |
| 10 | 25.6, CH3 | 1.40, s | 27.2, CH3 | 1.41, s | 26.0, CH3 | 1.42, s |
Figure 2Key 1H-1H COSY (red line) and HMBC (blue arrow) correlations of compounds 1–3.
Figure 3X-ray crystallographic analysis of 1 and 3.
Figure 4Key NOE (dash arrow) correlations of compound 2.
Figure 5Values of the absolute deviation (|Δδ| = |δcalcd − δexptl|) for the possible structure of 2.
Figure 6Experimental and predicted ECD spectra of 2 (in MeOH).
Figure 7Single crystal molecular packing properties of 1.
Figure 8Key HMBC (blue arrow) and NOE (red dash arrow) correlations of compound 6.
1H (400 MHz) and 13C (100 MHz) NMR spectroscopic data of 6 (CD3OD).
| No. | 6 | |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 167.2, C | |
| 3 | 102.8, C | |
| 4 | 166.8, C | |
| 5 | 103.3, CH | 6.45, s |
| 6 | 158.1, C | |
| 7 | 142.7, C | |
| 8 | 121.4, CH | 6.60, d (1.3) |
| 9 | 169.7, C | |
| 10 | 8.7, CH3 | 1.88, s |
| 11 | 13.5, CH3 | 2.30, s |
| 12 | OH | |