4
M. H. EL-NAGGAR ET AL.
unsaturation indicating presence of extra phenyl moiety. This was confirmed by the presence
of extra signals for 5 aromatic protons at δ 7.83 (2H, d, J = 7.6 Hz, H-2′/6′), 7.73 (1H, overlapped
1
dd, H-4′) and 7.61 (2H, dd, J = 8.0, 7.6 Hz, H-3′/5′) in its H-NMR spectrum (Table S1). Its
13C-NMR spectrum (Table S2) also showed the presence of extra signals for 6 aromatic carbons
at δ 136.9 (qC, C-1′), 135.2 (CH, C-4′), 130.2 (CH, C-3′/5′) and 127.5 (CH, C-2′/6′). The assignment
of the carbons of this compound was confirmed by HMBC spectrum. Consequently, com-
pound 3 was concluded to be the new compound, 3-amino-5-methyl-1-(phenylsulfon-
yl)-1H-pyrazolo[4,3-c]pyridin-4(5H)-one and confirmed the incidence of a reaction between
benzene sulfonyl chloride and the NH group of (2).
The known compounds 4–7 were identified as ricininic acid (4), the acetyl derivative of
ricininic acid (5), 5-bromoricinine (6), 3-carboxamide derivative of ricinine (7) when compared
to their reported spectroscopic data (Robinson and Hook 1964; Yuldashev 2001; Zhao et al.
2.2. Antimicrobial activity
Ricinine (1), its derivatives (2–7), total MeOH extracts of leaves and seeds of R. communis,
EtOAc and aqueous fractions of the seed extract and castor oil were subjected for in vitro
agar disc-diffusion antibacterial assay. In this assay, the MICs were determined for the most
active compounds and/or extracts using Gram-positive bacteria (S. aureus), and Gram-
negative bacteria (E. coli, K. pneumoniae and P. aeuroginosa) as presented in Table S3.
Ampicillin and gentamicin were used as standard antibacterial drugs (positive control), while
DMSO alone was used as a negative control. The obtained results indicated that 5 showed
the highest activity among the tested ricinine derivatives and R. communis extracts. It showed
moderate activity against K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa, while, strong activity against
E. coli and S. aureus. However, ricinine itself was found to be completely inactive against any
of the tested bacterial strains. Derivative 2 showed moderate activity against E. coli and weak
activity against K. pneumoniae. Derivative 3 showed moderate activity against E. coli,
K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and S. aureus. In addition, derivative 4 showed moderate activity
against K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa, while, weak activity against E. coli. Moreover, deriv-
ative 6 exhibited moderate activity against K. pneumoniae. In accordance with the results
of Swarupa et al. (2017), derivative 7 showed antibacterial activity against S. aureus. Although,
its potency against S. aureus was found to be moderate, and lower than that reported by
Swarupa et al. (2017). In accordance with literature (Ribeiro et al. 2016), the leaf extract of
R. communis showed reasonable antibacterial activity against all tested bacterial strains. The
seed extract showed strong activity against P. aeruginosa and moderate activity against
E. coli and S. aureus. Moreover, the castor oil and the EtOAc fraction of the seed extract
showed reasonable antibacterial activity against P. aeruginosa bacterial strain and to lesser
extent towards E. coli.
The antifungal activity of the same compounds and extracts was also tested against the
yeast-like pathogenic fungus C. albicans and fluconazole was used as a standard antifungal
drug and DMSO as a negative control. Leaf extract showed the highest antifungal activity
among all tested compounds and extracts. In addition, MeOH extract of the seed, 4 and 5
showed potential antifungal activity. However, the parent compound, ricinine, showed no
antifungal activity. In all antimicrobial assays, the negative control, DMSO, did not show any
noticeable activity.