N. Mukhtar et al. / Phytochemistry 61 (2002) 1005–1008
1007
from the combined extracts in vacuo gave a dark resi-
due which was suspended in water and successively
extracted with n-hexane, ethylacetate and n-butanol.
The ethylacetate extract (200 g) was subjected to col-
umn chromatography over silica gel (70–230 mesh),
successively eluting with n-hexane, n-hexane–ethyl-
acetate, ethylacetate, ethylacetate–methanol and finally
methanol in increasing order of polarity. The fraction
which eluted with n-hexane–ethylacetate (8:2) was a
mixture of two components. It was subjected to CC
(flash silica 230–400 mesh) using n-hexane–ethylacetate
(7.5:2.5) as eluent to afford 3 and n-hexane–ethylacetate
(6:4) to obtain 4. The fraction which eluted with n-hexane–
ethylacetate (1:1) was rechromatographed over flash
silica eluting with n-hexane–ethylacetate (4:6) to provide
5. The fraction which eluted with n-hexane–ethylacetate
(2:8) showed one major spot on TLC. It was rechroma-
tographed over flash silica eluting with n-hexane–ethyl-
acetate (1:9) to yield the compound 6. The fraction
which eluted with ethylacetate was rechromatographed
over flash silica eluting with ethylacetate and ethylacetate–
methanol (9:1) to obtain 1 (12 mg) and 2 (10 mg),
respectively.
Fig 1. Mass fragmentation pattern and important HMBC correlations
of compound 1.
moeity [anomeric carbon at ꢀ 105.5 and the hydroxyl
containing methine carbons at ꢀ 75.1, 78.1, 71.5, and
78.5 and a further signal at ꢀ 62.6 (CH2OH)]. This sug-
gested that 2 is a glycoside of 1. The 13C NMR signals
of sugar moeity corresponded to b-d-glucopyranoside.
It was also confirmed by EIMS which showed prominent
peak at m/z 667 due to the elimination of glucosyl moeity.
Further fragmentation pattern was similar to 1. The
position of glucose moeity was evident by downfield
chemical shift of hydroxymethylene carbon at ꢀ 70.4in
13C NMR spectrum by 8 ppm and confirmed by
HMBC experiments in which the additional correlation
was observed between the anomeric proton (ꢀ 4.78) with
the hydroxymethylene carbon (ꢀ 70.4). Thus compound 2
was confirmed as the b-d-glucopyranoside derivative of 1.
3.4. Compound 1
Colorless gummy solid, [ꢁ]2D5 +17.85ꢁ (pyridine; c 0.028);
IR (KBr) nmax cmꢀ1; 3340 (OH), 1660 (C¼C), 1620
(C¼O); EIMS data and important HMBC correlations
1
are illustrated in Fig. 1. H and 13C NMR, see Table 1.
3. Experimental
3.5. Methanolysis of 1
3.1. General
Compound 1 (10 mg) was refluxed with 1.5 mL of
0.9N HCl in 82% aq. methanol for 16 h (Gao et al.,
2001b). The reaction mixture was cooled and extracted
with n-hexane. The n-hexane layer was concentrated
and silica gel column chromatography [n-hexane-ethy-
lacetate (9:1–7:3)] gave the fatty acid methyl ester 1a
which could be identified as methyl pentadecanoate
through GC–MS showing the molecular ion peak at m/z
256 and an intense peak at m/z 197 [MꢀCOOMe]+.
Optical rotations were measured on a Jasco DIP-360
polarimeter. IR spectra were recorded in KBr disk on a
Jasco 320-A spectrophotometer. EI and FABMS were
recorded on JMS HX 110 and JMS-DA 500 mass
spectrometers with a data system. The H, 13C NMR,
1
COSY, HMQC and HMBC spectra were recorded at 500
and 400 MHz. The chemical shift values are reported in
ppm (ꢀ) units and the coupling constants (J) are in Hz.
3.6. Compound 2
3.2. Plant material
Colorless gummy solid, [ꢁ]2D5 +62.5ꢁ (pyridine; c 0.024);
IR (KBr) nmax cmꢀ1; 3340 (OH), 1660 (C¼C), 1620
(C¼O); EIMS data and important HMBC correlations
C. canadensis Linn. (Compositae), whole plant was
collected in July 2000, from Karachi (Pakistan) and
identified by Dr. Javed Zaki, Plant Taxonomist,
Department of Botany, University of Karachi, where a
voucher specimen has been deposited.
1
are illustrated in Fig. 1. H and 13C NMR, see Table 1.
References
3.3. Extraction and isolation
Bohlmann, F., Zdero, C., Robinson, H., King, M., 1979. Neue Acet-
ylenverbindungen Aus Chrysothamnus parryi. Phytochemistry 18,
1519–1521.
The dried plant material (30 kg) was extracted thrice
with MeOH at room temperature. Evaporation of solvent