X.-h. Li et al. / Phytochemistry Letters 9 (2014) 37–40
39
Therefore, compound
1
was determined as (ꢀ)-(8R,70E)-4-
Biotech AB, Uppsala, Sweden). HPLC separation was performed on
an instrument consisting of a CoMetro 6000 LDS pump and a
CoMetro 6000 PVW UV/VIS detector with an Ultimate
hydroxy-3,30,5,50-tetramethoxy-8,40-oxyneolign-70-ene-9,90-diol
4,9-bis-O-b-D-glucopyranoside.
Compound 2 was also obtained as a white gum. The NMR, HR-
ESI-MS, IR, and UV spectra of 2 were almost identical to those of 1.
However, 1 and 2 were separable by reversed-phase HPLC with
MeOH–H2O (32:68, v/v). Detailed comparison of the 1H NMR data
between 2 and 1 displayed that the resonance for H-8 of 2 was
deshielded by Dd + 0.11 ppm, and the H-7b resonance was
shielded by Dd ꢀ 0.09 ppm. This implied that 2 was an 8S-isomer
of 1, which was further verified by 2D NMR experiments and
enzymatic hydrolysis of 2. The 2D NMR data analysis confirmed the
planar structure of 2 and furnished the assignments of resonances
(250 mm ꢄ 10 mm) preparative column packed with C18 (5
mm).
3.2. Plant material
The stems of Dendrobium aurantiacum var. denneanum were
collected in April of 2011 from the culture field in Shuangliu,
Sichuan Province, China. Plant identity was verified by Prof. Min Li
(Chengdu University of TCM, Sichuan, China). A voucher specimen
(SSF-20110410) was deposited at the School of Pharmacy,
Chengdu University of TCM, Chengdu, China.
in the NMR spectra. The enzymatic hydrolysis of 2 gave 2a and b-D-
glucose. The optical rotation (½a2D0ꢁ ꢀ46.68) and CD data (233 nm,
De + 0.32) of 2a were opposite those of 1a, indicating the 8S
configuration for 2. Accordingly, compound 2 was determined to
3.3. Extraction, isolation and characterization of compounds
The air-dried stems of D. aurantiacum var. denneanum (10 kg)
were powdered and extracted three times with 95% EtOH (30 L) for
3 h under reflux. The EtOH extract was evaporated under reduced
pressure to yield a dark brown residue (530 g), which was
suspended in H2O (2.5 L) and then successively partitioned with
EtOAc (6ꢄ 2.5 L) and n-BuOH (6ꢄ 2.5 L). The n-BuOH extract
(110 g) was chromatographed over a D-101 macroporous adsor-
bent resin (1.5 kg) column. Successive elution of the column with
H2O, 10% EtOH, 30% EtOH, 50% EtOH, and 95% EtOH (4 L each)
yielded five portions. The portion (48 g) eluted by 30% EtOH was
separated by MPLC over reversed-phase silica gel eluting with a
gradient of increasing MeOH (5–90%) in H2O to give eight fractions
(A–H). Fraction G (7.3 g) was separated over Sephadex LH-20
eluted with MeOH–H2O (1:1) to give five subfractions (G1–G6).
Subfraction G2 was further fractionated via silica gel CC, eluting
with a gradient of CHCl3–MeOH (10:1, 6:1, 4:1, 2:1, 0:1), to yield
eight fractions (G2–1–G2–8). Separation of G2–2 with Sephadex LH-
20 (CHCl3–MeOH, 1:1) and RP semipreparative HPLC (37% MeOH in
H2O) yielded 4 (14.7 mg), 5 (6.9 mg), 6 (11.3 mg), and 7 (9.4 mg).
Fraction G2–6 was further separated by Sephadex LH-20 (CHCl3–
MeOH, 1:1) and then purified by RP semipreparative HPLC (32%
MeOH in H2O) to yield 1 (7.9 mg), 2 (6.1 mg), and 3 (3.4 mg).
be
(ꢀ)-(8S,70E)-4-hydroxy-3,30,5,50-tetramethoxy-8,40-oxyneo-
lign-70-ene-9,90-diol 4,9-bis-O-
b-D-glucopyranoside.
Compound 3 had the molecular formula C35H50O18 (HR-ESI-MS)
with one more CH2 than 1 and 2. The IR, UV and NMR data were
very similar to those of 1 except for the presence of an additional
methoxy in 3 (dH 3.37 and dC 58.2). In addition, the resonance for
H2-90 of 3 was shielded by DdH ꢀ0.14 ppm, whereas the C-90
resonance was deshielded by DdC + 10.5 ppm, as compared with
those of 1 (Tables 1 and 2). Thus, the above data implied that OH-90
in 1 was substituted by OMe-90 in 3, which was confirmed by a
correlation for OMe-90/C-90 in the HMBC spectrum of 3. In the CD
spectrum, the negative Cotton effect at 240 nm of 3 was consistent
with that of 1, but opposite that of 2, indicating the 8R
configuration for 3. Thus, compound 3 was assigned to be (ꢀ)-
(8R,70E)-4-hydroxy-3,30,5,50,90-pentamethoxy-8,40-oxyneolign-70-
ene-9-ol 4,9-bis-O-b-D-glucopyranoside.
By comparison of spectroscopic data with those reported in the
literature, the known compounds were identified as picraquassio-
side C (4) (Yoshikawa et al., 1995), (ꢃ)-5,50-dimethoxylariciresinol
40-O-b-D-glucopyranoside (5) (Ida et al., 1993), lariciresion-40-O-b-D-
glucoside (6) (Sugiyama and Kikuchi, 1993), and mangliesides E (7)
(Kiem et al., 2008). All of the known compounds were first reported
from the genus.
It is worth mentioning that plants of the genus Dendrobium are
known to contain bibenzyls, phenanthrenes, fluorenes, coumarins,
sesquiterpenes, flavanones, and alkaloids (Chang et al., 2010), but
the 8,40-oxyneolignans were only found previously from Dendro-
bium chrysanthum in this genus (Ye et al., 2004). Thus, the results of
this study suggest that there may be a genetic relationship
between D. aurantiacum var. denneanum and D. chrysanthum, and
the 8,40-oxyneolignan glucosides may be potential chemotaxo-
nomic markers to differentiate the two species from others of
Dendrobium.
3.3.1. (ꢀ)-(8R,70E)-4-hydroxy-3,30,5,50-tetramethoxy-8,40-
oxyneolign-70-ene-9,90-diol 4,9-bis-O-
b-D-glucopyranoside (1)
White gum; ½a2D0ꢁ ꢀ 7:7ꢂ (c 0.15, MeOH); UV (MeOH)
): 202 (4.39), 226 sh (4.07), 270 (3.66) nm; CD (MeOH): 213
De + 0.70), 235 (De ꢀ 0.35), 269 (De + 0.51), 293 (De + 0.26) nm;
IR (KBr) max: 3349, 2921, 1589, 1499, 1463, 1420, 1327, 1297,
lmax (log
e
(
n
1250, 1122, 1071, 1033, 833, 673 cmꢀ1; 1H and 13C NMR data see
Tables 1 and 2; ESI-MS m/z: 767 [M + Na]+; HR-ESI-MS m/z:
767.2734 [M + Na]+ (calcd. for C34H48O18Na, 767.2738).
3.3.2. (ꢀ)-(8S,70E)-4-hydroxy-3,30,5,50-tetramethoxy-8,40-
oxyneolign-70-ene-9,90-diol 4,9-bis-O-
b-D-glucopyranoside (2)
3. Experimental
White gum; ½a2D0ꢁ ꢀ 34:4ꢂ (c 0.10, MeOH); UV (MeOH)
): 203 (4.38), 227 sh (4.05), 270 (3.65) nm; CD (MeOH): 217
lmax (log
e
(
3.1. General experimental procedures
De + 1.94), 237 (De + 0.44), 278 (De ꢀ 0.62) nm; IR (KBr) nmax
:
3346, 2921, 1588, 1498, 1465, 1424, 1329, 1223, 1123, 1072, 1022,
832, 674 cmꢀ1; 1H and 13C NMR data see Tables 1 and 2; ESI-MS m/
z: 767 [M + Na]+; HR-ESI-MS m/z: 767.2740 [M + Na]+ (calcd. for
IR spectra were recorded on a Vector 22 FT-IR spectrometer. UV
spectra were obtained on a Shimadzu UV-260 spectrophotometer.
Optical rotations were measured with a Perkin-Elmer 341 plus. CD
spectra were recorded on a JASCO J-815 CD spectrometer. NMR
spectra were obtained at 400 or 500 MHz for 1H, and 100 or
125 MHz for 13C, respectively, on Bruker-AV-400 MHz or INOVA
500 MHz spectrometers with solvent peaks being used as
references. HR-ESI-MS were measured with Waters Synapt G2
HDMS. Column chromatography was performed with silica gel
(200–300 mesh, Jiangyou Silical Gel Development Co., Yantai,
C34H48O18Na, 767.2738).
3.3.3. (ꢀ)-(8R,70E)-4-hydroxy-3,30,5,50,90-pentamethoxy-8,40-
oxyneolign-70-ene-9-ol 4,9-bis-O-
b-D-glucopyranoside (3)
White gum; ½a2D0ꢁ ꢀ 12:0ꢂ (c 0.10, MeOH); UV (MeOH)
): 202 (4.39), 226 sh (4.04), 273 (3.59) nm; CD (MeOH): 214
lmax (log
e
(
De + 0.29), 240 (De ꢀ 0.01), 274 (De + 0.39) nm; IR (KBr) nmax
:
3367, 2919, 1587, 1502, 1464, 1420, 1330, 1225, 1123, 1072, 1018,
China) and Sephadex LH-20 (40–70
m
m, Amersham Pharmacia
833, 675 cmꢀ1; 1H and 13C NMR data see Tables 1 and 2; ESI-MS m/