| Literature DB >> 36235256 |
Tatapudi Kiran Kumar1,2, Bandi Siva1, Ajay Anand1, Komati Anusha1, Satish Mohabe3,4, Araveeti Madhusudana Reddy3, Françoise Le Devehat5, Ashok Kumar Tiwari1,2, Joël Boustie5, Katragadda Suresh Babu1,2.
Abstract
In this study, we propose ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with quadrupole/time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UPLC-QToF-MS/MS)-guided metabolite isolation as a choice analytical approach to the ongoing structure-activity investigations of chemical isolates from the edible lichen, Ramalina conduplicans Vain. This strategy led to the isolation and identification of a new depside (5) along with 13 known compounds (1-4, 6-14), most of which being newly described in this lichen species. The structures of the isolates were established by detailed analysis of their spectral data (IR, NMR, and Mass). The acetone extract was further analyzed by UPLC-Q-ToF-MS/MS in a negative ionization mode, which facilitated the identification and confirmation of 18 compounds based on their fragmentation patterns. The antioxidant capacities of the lichen acetone extract (AE) and isolates were measured by tracking DPPH and ABTS free radical scavenging activities. Most isolates displayed marked radical scavenging activities against ABTS while moderate activities were observed against DPPH radical scavenging. Except for atranol (14), oxidative DNA damage was limited by all the tested compounds, with a marked protection for the novel isolated compound (5), as previously noted for the acetone extract (p < 0.001). Furthermore, compound (4) and acetone extract (AE) have inhibited intestinal α-glucosidase enzyme significantly (p < 0.01). Although some phytochemical studies were already performed on this lichen, this study provided new insights into the isolation and identification of bioactive compounds, illustrating interest in future novel analytical techniques.Entities:
Keywords: DNA damage; R. conduplicans; antioxidant; lichen; secondary metabolites; α-glucosidase inhibition
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36235256 PMCID: PMC9570585 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27196720
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1TIC of (A) R. conduplicans acetone extract and (B) enriched fraction-4.
Figure 2Isolated compounds (1–14) from Ramalina conduplicans Vain.
NMR data of compound 5 (400 & 100 MHz, acetone-d) *.
| S no | 1H NMR of 5 | 13C NMR of 5 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | -- | 107.35 |
| 2 | -- | 166.10 |
| 3 | 6.46 (d, | 112.07 |
| 4 | -- | 166.10 |
| 5 | 6.40 (d, | 100.65 |
| 6 | -- | 149.91 |
| 7 | -- | 170.47 |
| 1′ | 6.53 (d, | 110.80 |
| 2′ | -- | 151.36 |
| 3′ | -- | 154.12 |
| 4′ | -- | 143.54 |
| 5′ | 6.51 (d, | 105.49 |
| 6′ | -- | 150.38 |
| 1″ | 3.0–2.93 (m, 2H) | 40.06 |
| 2″ | 1.82–1.68 (m, 2H) | 26.58 |
| 3″ | 0.93 (t, | 15.60 |
| 1‴ | 2.62–2.51 (m, 2H) | 37.69 |
| 2‴ | 1.67–1.59 (m, 2H) | 32.89 |
| 3‴ | 1.41–1.30 (m, 2H) | 33.25 |
| 4‴ | 1.41–1.30 (m, 2H) | 24.18 |
| 5‴ | 0.93 (t, | 15.30 |
| OMe-7′ | 3.81 (s, 3H) | 57.31 |
| OMe-8 | 3.86 (s, 3H) | 56.83 |
* = values are assigned with the comparison of sekikaic acid data and COSY/NOESY correlations.
Figure 3Key COSY and NOESY correlations of compound 5.
Figure 4MS/MS spectrum and proposed fragmentation of compound 5.
Free radical scavenging activities of AE and compounds (1–14) of Ramalina conduplicans.
| Compound Name (Code) | DPPH Assay | ABTS Assay |
|---|---|---|
| Sekikaic acid ( | 37.75 ± 0.65 | 99.05 ± 0.00 (2.45) |
| 4- | 36.78 ± 1.57 | 98.57 ± 0.00 (1.40) |
| Homosekikaic acid ( | 38.28 ± 1.22 | 98.10 ± 0.00 (2.81) |
| Hyperhomosekikaic acid ( | 27.32 ± 0.34 | 79.52 ± 1.02 (17.44) |
| Compound | 46.29 ± 3.70 | 100.48 ± 0.68 (0.44) |
| 2,4-dimethyldivaric acid ( | 29.67 ± 0.89 | 100.20 ± 0.34 (2.46) |
| Divaricatic acid ( | 8.57 ± 1.65 | 99.28 ± 1.02 (2.09) |
| Decarboxydivaricatic acid ( | 17.17 ± 1.74 | 100.28 ± 0.00 (0.75) |
| Decarboxystenosporic acid ( | 13.04 ± 0.73 | 96.7 ± 0.5 (2.41) |
| Methyl divaricatinate ( | 6.50 ± 0.76 | 100.0 ± 1.0 (2.90) |
| Divaricatinic acid ( | ND | 100.0 ± 0.5 (2.63) |
| Olivetolic acid ( | 41.94 ± 1.11 | 92.7 ± 0.0 (0.13) |
| Divarinolmonomethylether ( | 21.12 ± 1.21 | 51.7 ± 2.5 (0.57) |
| Atranol ( | 74.66 ± 2.59 (18.65) | 88.9 ± 7.3 (2.05) |
| Acetone Extract (AE) | 50.64 | 97.3 |
| Ascorbic Acid | 93.25 ± 1.23 (3.96) | 99.02 ± 0.03 (0.47) |
ND = Not determined. The activity is expressed as % scavenging with regard to ascorbic acid scavenging activity. The SC50 is indicated for the most active compounds.
Figure 5In vitro DNA damage assay. Compounds (1–14) and R. conduplicans. AE were incubated with DNA and Fenton’s Reagent and DNA damage was recorded with Agarose Gel electrophoresis. Respective graphical representation. ### p < 0.001; vs. control (DMSO + DNA). *** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05; vs.DMSO + DNA + FR, One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test was used to calculate values. Values are represented as mean ± SD, n = 3. AE = Acetone Extract, FR = Fenton’s Reagent.
Figure 6Intestinal α-glucosidase inhibitory assay. Compounds (1–8), (11–14), and acetone extract (AE) were incubated with α-glucosidase enzyme and the release of p-nitrophenol was determined. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01; vs. Acarbose. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test was applied to compare differences. Values are represented as mean ± SD, n = 3. AE = Acetone Extract. Activity was not detected for compounds 9 and 10.