4.7 Article

Targeted Isolation of Asperheptatides from a Coral-Derived Fungus Using LC-MS/MS-Based Molecular Networking and Antitubercular Activities of Modified Cinnamate Derivatives

期刊

JOURNAL OF NATURAL PRODUCTS
卷 84, 期 1, 页码 11-19

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.0c00804

关键词

-

资金

  1. Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1706210, 41906090, 41776141, 41322037, 81874300]
  2. Program of Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province of China [ZR2019BD047]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [201841004]
  4. Marine S&T Fund of Shandong Province for Pilot National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (Qingdao) [2018SDKJ0403-2]
  5. Taishan Scholars Program, China [tsqn20161010]
  6. Syngenta

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several new cycloheptapeptides were isolated from a coral-derived fungus using MS/MS-based molecular networking. Their structures and antitubercular activities were investigated, showing potential as a new class of antitubercular agents.
Under the guidance of MS/MS-based molecular networking, four new cycloheptapeptides, namely, asperheptatides A-D (1-4), were isolated together with three known analogues, asperversiamide A-C (5-7), from the coral-derived fungus Aspergillus versicolor. The planar structures of the two major compounds, asperheptatides A and B (1 and 2), were determined by comprehensive spectroscopic data analysis. The absolute configurations of the amino acid residues were determined by advanced Marfey's method. The two structurally related trace metabolites, asperheptatides C and D (3 and 4), were characterized by ESI-MS/MS fragmentation methods. A series of new derivatives (8-26) of asperversiamide A (5) were semisynthesized. The antitubercular activities of 1, 2, and 5-26 against Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Ra were also evaluated. Compounds 9, 13, 23, and 24 showed moderate activities with MIC values of 12.5 mu M, representing a potential new class of antitubercular agents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据