| Literature DB >> 36135755 |
Qing Bu1, Min Yang2, Xian-Yun Yan1, Song-Wei Li2, Zeng-Yue Ge1, Ling Zhang1, Li-Gong Yao2, Yue-Wei Guo2,3,4,5, Lin-Fu Liang1.
Abstract
Three unusual diterpenes with rare sarsolenane and capnosane skeletons, namely mililatensols A-C (1-3), were isolated from the South China Sea soft coral Sarcophyton mililatensis, leading to the first record of sarsolenane and capnosane diterpenes from the title animal. The structures of compounds 1-3 were established by extensive spectroscopic analysis and comparison with the literature data. Moreover, the absolute configuration of 2 was determined by TDDFT ECD calculations. In an in vitro bioassay, none of the isolated compounds showed obvious anti-inflammatory activity on LPS-induced TNF-α release in RAW264.7 macrophages. In the preliminary virtual screening of inhibitory potential against SARS-CoV-2 by molecular docking, the results showed these three diterpenes were potential SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors.Entities:
Keywords: Sarcophyton mililatensis; anti-inflammatory activity; capnosane; sarsolenane; soft coral; stereochemistry
Year: 2022 PMID: 36135755 PMCID: PMC9503382 DOI: 10.3390/md20090566
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 6.085
Figure 1Structures of compounds 1–4.
1H NMR and 13C NMR data for compounds 1–3 a.
| No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 132.5, C | 142.8, C | 143.0, C | |||
| 2 | 3.73 td (3.4, 10.2) | 37.5, CH | 5.54 d (9.6) | 130.0, CH | 5.62 d (9.4) | 129.2, CH |
| 3 | 5.03 d (10.2) | 128.1, CH | 2.73 dd (9.6, 11.0) | 51.2, CH | 2.37 m | 50.8, CH |
| 4 | 130.0, C | 82.2, C | 83.0, C | |||
| 5 | 2.03 m | 38.2, CH2 | 1.76 m | 39.6, CH2 | 1.70 m; 1.80 m | 39.5, CH2 |
| 6 | 2.13 m | 25.4, CH2 | 1.37 m; 1.71 m | 23.6, CH2 | 1.30 m; 1.92 m | 24.9, CH2 |
| 7 | 4.95 t (7.4) | 127.6, CH | 2.05 m | 57.2, CH | 2.50 m | 57.9, CH |
| 8 | 131.3, C | 74.8, C | 74.5, C | |||
| 9 | 2.12 m; 2.41 d (12.4) | 48.2, CH2 | 1.61 m; 1.86 m | 34.2, CH2 | 1.59 m; 1.74 m | 34.2, CH2 |
| 10 | 4.37 dt (2.8, 9.4) | 68.4, CH | 2.05 m; 2.34 m | 23.0, CH2 | 2.01 m; 2.36 m | 23.0, CH2 |
| 11 | 5.20 d (9.4) | 126.8, CH | 5.29 dd (5.4, 10.0) | 127.9, CH | 5.24 dd (5.3, 10.1) | 128.2, CH |
| 12 | 139.4, C | 135.4, C | 135.0, C | |||
| 13 | 2.08 m; 2.28 m | 36.8, CH2 | 1.94 m; 2.25 m | 35.9, CH2 | 1.94 m; 2.24 m | 35.6, CH2 |
| 14 | 2.10 m; 2.63 m | 26.7, CH2 | 2.44 m; 2.81 dt (3.6,13.4) | 27.4, CH2 | 2.48 m; 2.52 m | 28.0, CH2 |
| 15 | 122.6, C | 141.3, C | 142.1, C | |||
| 16 | 1.67 s | 20.6, CH3 | 4.99 s; 5.09 s | 112.8, CH2 | 5. 00 s; 5.08 s | 113.0, CH2 |
| 17 | 1.69 s | 20.2, CH3 | 1.91 s | 21.9, CH3 | 1.91 s | 22.0, CH3 |
| 18 | 1.64 s | 16.3, CH3 | 1.12 s | 24.2, CH3 | 1.22 s | 26.8, CH3 |
| 19 | 1.64 s | 18.0, CH3 | 1.16 s | 31.9, CH3 | 1.19 s | 32.3, CH3 |
| 20 | 2.02 m; 2.30 m | 36.2, CH2 | 1.63 s | 18.8, CH3 | 1.66 s | 18.8, CH3 |
a Recorded at 600 and 125 MHz for 1H and 13C in CDCl3, respectively. Assignments were deduced by analysis of 1D and 2D NMR spectra.
Figure 2Selected key COSY and HMBC correlations for compounds 1–3.
Figure 3Selected key ROESY correlations for compounds 1–3.
Figure 4Comparison of experimental ECD spectrum (black) of 2 and predicted ECD spectrum (red) for 3S,4S,7R,8S−2 by TDDFT calculation at the B3LYP/6-311G(d) level.
Figure 5In silico binding modes of compounds 1–3 at SARS-CoV-2 Mpro crystal structure 6LU7: upper row—the clear combination of hydrogen bonds within the target pocket; middle row—surfaces of 6LU7 with combined compounds; lower row—two-dimensional ligand interaction diagrams of three compounds at the SARS-CoV-2 Mpro domain. Left list (A) represents docking results of 1; middle list (B) represents docking results of 2; right list (C) represents docking results of 3.
In silico molecular docking binding affinities of compounds 1–3 to SARS-CoV-2 Mpro crystal structure (PDB: 6LU7).
| Crystal Structure | Compound ID | Affinity Energy (kcal mol−1) |
|---|---|---|
| 6LU7 |
| −7.65 |
|
| −7.08 | |
|
| −7.03 |