S. Sang et al. / Tetrahedron 58 (2002) 10095–10102
10097
and four major oxidation products (2–5) were isolated and
identified on the basis of their spectral data (Fig. 1).
respectively. All of these indicated that the carbonyl at C-3
was enolized and the oxygen was attached to C-19. The
proton and carbon shifts at position 18 (d 92.1, d 4.42)
C
H
Compound 2, a yellow amorphous solid, was assigned the
molecular formula of C H O determined by HRFAB-MS
were deshielded relative to those of a secondary alcohol and,
when considered with the molecular formula, suggested
12,13
that a hydroperoxyl group was present at this position.
3
þ
8 50 8
m/z 635.3581 [MþH] (calcd for C H O , 635.3584), as
3
8 51 8
1
3
well as from its C NMR data. The molecular formula
indicated fourteen degrees of unsaturation, which showed
Compound 2 gave a positive peroxide reaction with
1
4
FeSCN. The a configuration for this hydroperoxyl group
was supported by the large J17,19 coupling constant (dd,
J¼7.2, 9.6 Hz). Thus, the structure of 2 was deduced as
shown (Fig. 1). The complete interpretation of the NMR
data was based on the results of COSY, TOCSY, HMQC
and HMBC.
1
that 2 had the same unsaturation as 1. The H NMR
spectrum of 2 showed the presence of three AMX pattern
aromatic protons at d 7.39 (d, J¼1.8 Hz), 7.26 (dd, J¼1.8,
8
oxygenated methine at d 4.42 ppm; two isopentenyl groups
.4 Hz), and 6.79 (d, J¼8.4 Hz) ppm, respectively; one
[
two vinylic protons at d 4.97, t, J¼6.0 Hz, and 4.87, t,
J¼6.0 Hz; and four vinylic methyl groups at d 1.64 (for two
methyl signals), 1.59, and 1.57 ppm, respectively], one
isopropenyl group [two singlets of 2H at d 4.48 and 4.44,
together with a methyl singlet at d 1.44], and four methyl
groups on saturated carbons [four methyl singlets at d 1.15,
Compound 3, a yellow amorphous solid, had a molecular
formula of C H O determined by APCIMS (m/z
3
8
50
6
þ
same as the molecular formula of 1. The H NMR spectrum
13
[MþH] 603) as well as its C NMR data, which was the
1
of 3 also showed the presence of three AMX pattern
aromatic protons at d 7.42 (d, J¼1.8 Hz), 7.00 (dd, J¼1.8,
8.4 Hz), and 6.66 (d, J¼8.4 Hz) ppm, respectively; three
isopentenyl groups [three vinylic protons at d 5.10, t,
J¼6.0 Hz, 4.90, t, J¼6.0 Hz, and 4.85, t, J¼6.0 Hz; and five
singlet methyl groups at d 1.71, 1.65, 1.62, and 1.56 (for two
methyl groups), respectively], and four methyl groups on
saturated carbons [four methyl singlets at d 1.22, 1.15, 0.97
and 0.94], in addition to methylene and methine protons
[a complex multiplet of 12H in the region of d 3.10–1.45].
1
protons [a complex multiplet of 12H in the region of d
.09, 1.08 and 1.04], in addition to vinylic and methine
1
2
.80–1.45]. Thus the significant difference in the H NMR
spectrum of 2 compared to 1 was the absence of the double
bond of one isopentenyl group. As mentioned above, 2 had
the same unsaturation as 1. All of these suggested that there
was one more ring in 2 than in 1. The above findings were in
1
3
agreement with the C NMR spectrum of 2. It also showed
the presence of two isopentenyl groups [two methine
carbons of trisubstituted olefinic groups at d 124.5 and
1
Thus, the significant difference in the H NMR spectrum of
1
2
23.3, and four methyl groups at d 18.1, 18.2, 25.9, and
6.0], one isopropenyl group [d 112.9 for a terminal
3 compared to that of 1 was the absence of the double bond
of the isopropenyl group. As mentioned above, 3 had the
same molecular weight as 1. This implied that there was one
more ring in 3 than in 1. The above findings were in
methylene carbon, and d 18.0 for a methyl signal], and
four methyl groups on saturated carbons [d 23.9, 24.4, 26.5
and 27.3]; three methine carbons for the aromatic ring at d
1
3
agreement with the C NMR spectrum of 3. It also showed
the presence of three isopentenyl groups [three methine
carbons of trisubstituted olefinic groups at d 125.3, 124.9
and 123.9, and six methyl groups at d 17.7, 17.8, 17.9, 25.4,
25.5, and 25.7], and four methyl groups on saturated carbons
[d 21.1, 22.3, 26.6, and 28.2]; three methine carbons for the
aromatic ring at d 114.6, 119.7 and 121.4; two oxygen-
substituted aromatic carbons at d 144.9 and 150.8; and one
oxygenated quaternary carbon at d 86.8. Furthermore, in the
1
14.8, 116.8 and 124.3; two oxygen-substituted aromatic
carbons at d 143.8 and 150.5; one oxygenated quaternary
carbon at d 71.6, and one oxygenated methine at d 92.1.
Furthermore, in the C spectral data one of the carbon
atoms of the enolized 1,3-diketone in 1 was changed from
d194.0 (or 195.2) to d 175.2 in 2. The C spectral data of
the carbonyl (C-10) was also changed from d 199.1 in 1 to d
1
3
1
3
1
90.6 in 2. The HMBC correlation between Cd175.2 and
1
3
H-17 (d 2.68 and 2.07), Cd194.2 and H-7 (d 2.19 and 2.04),
H-29 (d 2.08 and 1.74); Cd190.6 and H-12 (d 7.39), H-16 (d
C spectral data, the chemical shift of one of the carbon
atoms of the enolized 1,3-diketone in 1 was changed from d
1
3
7
.26); Cd71.6 and H-17 (d 2.68 and 2.07), H-20 (d 1.04),
194.0 (or 195.2) to d 171.9 in 3. The C spectral data of the
carbonyl (C-10) was also changed from d 199.1 in 1 to d
194.7 in 3. All of these indicated that the carbonyl at C-1
was enolized and the oxygen was attached to C-31.
H-21 (d 1.09) and Hd92.1 (d 4.42); Cd92.1 and H-17 (d 2.68
and 2.07), H-20 (d 1.04) and H-21 (d 1.09) (Fig. 2)
suggested that d 175.2 could be assigned to C-3, d 194.2 to
C-1, d 190.6 to C-10, d 71.6 to C-19, and d 92.1 to C-18,
1
,2,15
Therefore, compound 3 was identified as cambogin.
This was further confirmed by comparing 3 with standard
cambogin by TLC plate.
Compound 4, a yellow amorphous solid, was assigned the
molecular formula of C H O determined by positive-ion
3
8 48 6
þ
NMR data. The molecular formula indicated fifteen degrees
13
APCI-MS ([MþH] at m/z 601), as well as from its
C
of unsaturation, which showed that 4 had one more
1
13
unsaturation than 1. The H and C NMR data of 4 are
identical with those of GDPPH-1 that we reported from the
1
0
reaction between garcinol and the stable radical DPPH.
Thus, compound 4 was identified as shown (Fig. 1). This
was further confirmed by comparing 4 with standard
GDPPH-1 by TLC plate.
Figure 2. Significant HMBC (H!C) correlations of 2.