152 Journal of Natural Products, 2006, Vol. 69, No. 1
Notes
chromatography on Sephadex LH-20 eluting with MeOH-H2O (1:1).
The fractions containing 1 were combined and dried in vacuo. The
residue was redissolved in H2O and further purified by vacuum liquid
chromatography on an ODS phase eluting with MeOH-H2O mixtures
(from 0% to 20% MeOH). The fractions eluting with 10% MeOH were
dried to yield pure 1 in its salt form (37.5 mg). For acquiring NMR
spectra the salt of 1 (5.7 mg) was dissolved in H2O (5 mL), acidified
with 2 M HCl, and extracted immediately with EtOAc (2 × 5 mL).
The combined EtOAc phases were dried, and the resulting free acid of
1 was dissolved in DMSO-d6.
Figure 1. ROESY (left) and HMBC correlations (right) for 2.
Scheme 1. Decarbonylation-Decarboxylation of 1 to 2
Pachydermin (1): yellow amorphous solid; UV (H2O + 0.05% TFA/
1
MeCN (54:46)) λmax (rel int) 203 (86), 254 (42), 357 (100); H NMR
(DMSO-d6, 500 MHz) δ 9.88 (1H, bs, NH), 7.74 (1H, d, J ) 2.0 Hz,
H-7), 7.49 (1H, dd, J ) 8.7, 2.0 Hz, H-11), 7.05 (1H, d, J ) 8.7 Hz,
H-10), 6.41 (1H, s, H-5); 13C NMR (DMSO-d6, 75 MHz) δ 179.3 (C,
C-12), 177.0 (C, C-3), 170.3 (C, C-13), 165.7 (C, C-1), 153.2 (C, C-9),
130.9 (C, C-4), 130.8 (CH, C-7), 129.9 (CH, C-11), 126.3 (C, C-6),
120.4 (C, C-8), 116.8 (CH, C-10), 106.4 (CH, C-5), 99.4 (C, C-2); for
HMBC data, see Supporting Information; ESIMS (pos.) m/z 310.1 [M
+ H]+, 332.1 [M + Na]+, 348.1 [M + K]+; ESIMS (neg.) m/z 307.9
[M - H]-; HRESIMS (pos.) m/z 310.0150 [M + H]+ (calcd for C13H9-
ClNO6, 310.0118).
Preparation of 2. Compound 1 (4.5 mg) was dissolved in HCl (2
M; 5 mL) and heated to 80 °C. After 15 min the reaction mixture was
cooled and extracted with EtOAc (2 × 5 mL). After evaporating the
solvent to dryness the major product was isolated by semipreparative
HPLC (Phenomenex Luna C18, 10 × 250 mm, 5 µm; solvents: A
H2O, B MeCN; linear gradient: 0 min 25% B, 15 min 65% B; 5 mL
min-1). Compound 2 was eluted at 7 min and yielded a yellow
amorphous solid (2.0 mg). NMR and HPLC analysis showed it to be
a mixture of two tautomers, 2 and 2′, in a 2:1 ratio.
Compound 2: UV (H2O + 0.05% TFA/MeCN (52:48)) λmax (rel
1
int) 204 (82), 243 (48), 341 (100); H NMR (DMSO-d6, 500 MHz) δ
11.74 (1H, s, 3-OH), 10.50 (1H, s, 9-OH), 9.53 (1H, s, NH), 7.67 (1H,
bs, H-7), 7.43 (1H, d, J ) 8.5 Hz, H-11), 7.03 (1H, d, J ) 8.5 Hz,
H-10), 6.17 (1H, s, H-5), 5.04 (1H, s, H-2); 13C NMR (DMSO-d6, 500
MHz; extracted from HSQC and HMBC data) δ 172.7 (C, C-1), 165.6
(C, C-3), 152.4 (C, C-9), 131.6 (C, C-4), 130.1 (CH, C-7), 129.0 (CH,
C-11), 126.4 (C, C-6), 119.9 (C, C-8), 116.5 (CH, C-10), 104.1 (CH,
C-5), 92.1 (CH, C-2); for HMBC and ROESY data, see Figure 1 and
Supporting Information; HRESIMS pos. (mixture of 2 and 2′) m/z
238.0220 [M + H]+ (calcd for C11H9ClNO3, 238.0271).
be assumed that the direct product of the reaction is the enol 2 and
not the ketone 2′. This supports the elimination mechanism
proposed.
While the 3-chloro-4-hydroxyphenyl residue is common to
various fungal5,8 and bacterial9 natural products, the oxalylated
tetramic acid moiety is a unique structural feature of 1. In contrast
to pachydermin (1) itself, the degradation product 2 exhibits mild
antibacterial activity against Bacillus subtilis. In an agar diffusion
assay it caused an inhibition zone of 1 mm around a disk loaded
with 40 µg of substance. It remains to be investigated if 2 is formed
also in vivo, e.g., as a response to injury of the fruiting body or
predatory attack.
Compound 2′: UV (H2O + 0.05% TFA/MeCN (58:42)) λmax (rel
1
int) 202 (100), 222 (36), 280 (6); H NMR (DMSO-d6, 500 MHz) δ
11.04 (1H, s, NH), 10.64 (1H, s, 9-OH), 7.77 (1H, bs, H-7), 7.51 (1H,
d, J ) 8.5 Hz, H-11), 7.06 (1H, d, J ) 8.5 Hz, H-10), 6.29 (1H, s,
H-5), 3.27 (2H, s, H-2); 13C NMR (DMSO-d6, 500 MHz; extracted
from HSQC and HMBC data) δ 195.4 (C, C-3), 171.7 (C, C-1), 153.1
(C, C-9), 132.9 (C, C-4), 130.4 (CH, C-7), 129.6 (CH, C-11), 125.2
(C, C-6), 120.2 (C, C-8), 116.5 (CH, C-10), 104.2 (CH, C-5),
39.1 (CH2, C-2); for HMBC and ROESY data, see Supporting
Information.
Experimental Section
Acknowledgment. This work was supported by a Fellowship within
the Postdoctoral Program of the German Academic Exchange Service
(DAAD). We thank Messrs. A. Pinkert, F. Patuel, and N. Cummings
for assistance with collecting the fungus, Mr. B. Clark for mass
spectrometric analysis, and Ms. G. Ellis for bioactivity assays.
General Experimental Procedures. UV data were extracted from
the diode array detector signal from the HPLC; only relative intensities
of absorption maxima are given. NMR spectra were recorded on a
1
Varian INOVA AS-500 spectrometer (500 and 125 MHz for H and
13C NMR, respectively), using the signals of the residual solvent protons
and the solvent carbons as internal references (δH 2.60 and δC 39.6
ppm for DMSO-d6). For HRESIMS and LC-MS detection a Micromass
LCT TOF mass spectrometer was used. Solvents for extraction and
isolation were distilled prior to use. Antimicrobial activity against
Bacillus subtilis was measured using a standard protocol.10
Supporting Information Available: Tabulated NMR data of
compounds 1, 2, and 2′ and photographs of the investigated fungus
References and Notes
Fungus. Fruiting bodies of Chamonixia pachydermis (Boletaceae)
were collected in Nothofagus forest at Bealey Spur, New Zealand, in
May 2005, and unambiguously identified by their spore shape and
fruiting body morphology.3 A voucher specimen (F-5832) has been
deposited at the School of Biological Sciences.
Extraction and Isolation. The fresh fruiting bodies (280 g wet wt)
were extracted with MeOH (2 × 1 L). The solvent was evaporated to
dryness, and the residue was taken up in H2O (250 mL), extracted first
with EtOAc (2 × 250 mL) and then with n-BuOH (8 × 150 mL). The
combined n-BuOH phases were evaporated and subjected to gel
(1) Lang, G.; Blunt, J. W.; Cummings, N. J.; Cole, A. L. J.; Munro, M.
H. G. J. Nat. Prod. 2005, 68, 810-811.
(2) Nicholas, G. M.; Blunt, J. W.; Munro, M. H. G. J. Nat. Prod. 2001,
64, 341-344.
(3) Beaton, G.; Pegler, D. N.; Young, T. W. K. Kew Bull. 1985, 40,
573-598.
(4) Steglich, W.; Thilmann, A.; Besl, H.; Bresinsky, A. Z. Naturforsch.
C 1977, 32, 46-48.
(5) Davis, R. A.; Watters, D.; Healy, P. C. Tetrahedron Lett. 2005, 46,
919-921.