4.7 Article

Guided isolation of daphnane-type diterpenes from Daphne genkwa by molecular network strategies

期刊

PHYTOCHEMISTRY
卷 198, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2022.113144

关键词

Daphne genkwa; Thymelaeaceae; Daphnane-type diterpenoids; Molecular networking; Cytotoxic activity

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [82073736, 81872766]
  2. Key R&D Projects in Liaoning Province [2020JH2/10300058]
  3. Liaoning revitalization talents program [XLYC2002066, XLYC2007180]
  4. Program for Major Scientific and Medical Technology Problems of China Medicine Education Asso-ciation [2020KTS003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A molecular networking-guided study successfully isolated twelve daphnane-type diterpenoids, including four undescribed compounds, from Daphne genkwa Sieb. et Zucc. The structures of these compounds were determined through spectroscopic analyses, ECD calculations, and single-crystal X-ray diffraction analysis. The isolates demonstrated inhibitory activity against A549 cells, with IC50 values ranging from 7.77 to 20.56 μM, and a preliminary discussion on their structure-activity relationship was conducted. Further experiments revealed that five of these compounds appeared to inhibit A549 cell lines by inducing apoptosis.
A molecular networking-guided study on the Daphne genkwa Sieb. et Zucc led to the isolation of twelve daphnane-type diterpenoids including four undescribed compounds, yuanhuakines A-D. Their structures were elucidated by spectroscopic analyses, ECD calculations, and single-crystal X-ray diffraction analysis. All isolates were evaluated for their inhibitory activity against the A549, Hep3B, and MCF-7 cell lines. The majority of compounds inhibited A549 cells with IC50 values ranging from 7.77 to 20.56 mu M, and their structure-activity relationship is preliminarily discussed. Five of these compounds were selected for further experiments, and they appear to inhibit A549 cell lines by inducing apoptosis.

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