Triterpenoid alkaloid derivatives from Buxus rugulosa

  • Yu-Xin YAN a,b,  
  • Lin ZHOU a,  
  • Yun SUN a,  
  • Jian-Chao CHEN a,  
  • Jia SU a,  
  • Yan LI a,  
  • Ming-Hua QIU a,b
  •     

Abstract

Four new triterpenoid alkaloid derivatives, buxrugulines A-D(1-4), together with four known ones(5-8), were isolated from the leaves and stems of Buxus rugulosa. The structures of compounds 1-4 were elucidated by NMR and MS spectroscopic analysis. All compounds were assayed for their cytotoxicities against HL-60, SMMC-7721, A549, MCF-7, and SW480 cells lines.

Keywords

Buxus rugulosa    triterpenoid alkaloid derivatives    buxruguline    cytotoxicity    

Introduction

Buxus rugulosa, belonging to the Buxus genus of the family Buxaceae, is a dwarf shrub growing in the rocky mountains in the northwest district of Yunnan Province. In previous phytochemical investigations of the genus Buxus, more than 220 triterpenoid alkaloid derivatives have been isolated1,2. This type of alkaloid showed interesting pharmacological activities such as anti-myocardial ischemia3,4, antibacterial activities5,6, and inhibition of cholinesterases7-9. In our previous studies from Buxus plants, new alkaloids with diverse structures and promising cytotoxic activities have been reported10,11. As part of this study, we have examined the stems and leaves of B. rugulosa, and consequently isolated four new triterpenoid alkaloid derivatives, buxrugulines A–D (14), along with four known ones, N20-acetoxy-cyclovirobuxin D (5)12, (+)-16α-acetoxybuxabenzamidienine (6)13,14, moenjodaramine (7)9,15,16, irehine (8)17. Herein we report the isolation and structural elucidation of the new compounds, as well as cytotoxic activities of the isolates from B. rugulosa.

Results and Discussion

A crude alkaloid fraction of B. rugulosa yielded eight triterpenoid alkaloid derivatives by repeated silica gel, amino silica gel, C-18 and Sephadex LH-20 chromatography.

Buxruguline A (1) was obtained as white powder. Its molecular formula, C25H37NO, was established on the basis of HRESIMS analysis ([M + H]+, m/z 368.2944). The 1H NMR (Table 1) spectrum featured one N-methyl singlet at δH 2.47, four singlets at δH 0.80, 1.05, 1.17, and 1.26, corresponded to four tertiary methyl groups, and one doublet at δH 0.76 (6.5, H-21). The 13C NMR spectrum exhibited 25 carbon signals containing six quaternary carbons (one carbonyl carbon at δC 206.8 and two olefinic carbons at 146.1 and 146.3), eight methines (four olefinic carbons at δC 127.6, 127.7, 128.4, and 129.7), five methylenes, and six methyl groups. Comparison of the spectroscopic data of 1 and cyclobuxotriene13 revealed similarities except for the absence of a methyl on the nitrogen at C-20 and the presence of a double bond at C-6/7 in 1. This was supported by the HMBC correlations of H-5 (δH 2.73) with C-6 (δC 128.4) and of H-8 (δH 1.91) with C-7 (δC 127.6), C-9 (δC 146.1) (Figure 2). Therefore, 1 was elucidated as shown, and named buxruguline A.

Fig. 2

Key HMBC correlations for compound 1.

Table 1

1H and 13C NMR Spectral Data of Buxrugulines A–D (1–4).

1a 2b 3c 4a
position δC, type δH δC, type δH δC, type δH δC, type δH
1a 29.7, CH2 2.04, overlap 31.0, CH2 1.82, overlap 32.4, CH2 1.56, overlap 31.6, CH2 1.65, overlap
1b 1.90, overlap 1.46, overlap 1.17, overlap 1.47, overlap
2a 46.6, CH2 2.34, m 25.7, CH2 1.73, overlap 27.0, CH2 1.55, overlap 25.6, CH2 1.33, overlap
2b 1.84, m 1.65, m 1.08, overlap
3 206.8, C 63.6, CH 2.85, m 51.3, CH 2.98, overlap 65.5, CH 3.75, m
4 44.3, C 153.3, C 44.0, C 42.2, C
5 41.1, CH 2.73, d(3.5) 41.9, CH 2.12, m 40.2, CH 1.84, s 50.5, CH 2.16, s
6a 128.4, CH 5.62, m 21.2, CH2 1.80, overlap 20.5, CH2 1.62, overlap 20.9, CH2 1.50, overlap
6b 1.18, overlap 0.76, overlap
7a 127.6, CH 5.42, m 26.2, CH2 1.58, overlap 25.4, CH2 1.22, overlap 28.4, CH2 1.75, m
7b 1.14, overlap 1.12, overlap 1.49, overlap
8 41.5, CH 1.91, overlap 42.4, CH 2.00, m 47.5, CH 1.35, overlap 47.3, CH 1.44, overlap
9 146.1, C 23.3, C 19.0, C 19.6, C
10 146.3, C 32.0, C 25.5, C 25.8, C
11a 127.7, CH 5.69, m 21.4, CH2 1.50, overlap 25.8, CH2 2.04, m 26.1, CH2 1.33, overlap
11b 1.16, overlap 1.04, overlap 1.08, overlap
12a 30.2, CH2 1.60, overlap 33.3, CH2 1.72, overlap 31.7, CH2 1.62, overlap 32.2, CH2 1.22, overlap
12b 1.50, m 1.55, overlap 1.44, overlap
13 39.5, C 42.7, C 45.6, C 44.9, C
14 41.5, C 46.0, C 47.7, C 48.0, C
15a 24.8, CH2 2.04, overlap 22.4, CH2 1.52, overlap 45.5, CH2 1.82, overlap 45.0, CH2 1.38, overlap
15b 1.58, overlap 1.18, overlap 1.34, overlap
16a 26.0, CH2 1.32, overlap 34.2, CH2 2.12, m 75.8, CH 4.27, m 78.5, CH 4.11, m
16b 1.17, overlap
17 47.5, CH 1.88, overlap 46.8, CH 2.66, m 56.1, CH 1.93, m 57.0, CH 1.88, m
18 19.7, CH3 0.80, s 18.3, CH3 0.85, s 18.9, CH3 1.08, s 19.0, CH3 0.97, s
19 129.7, CH 6.51, s 22.0, CH2 0.50, d(4.1)-0.04, d(4.1) 30.0, CH2 0.51, d (4.1)0.32, d (4.1) 30.2, CH2 0.53, d (4.1)0.35, d (4.1)
20 68.1, CH 2.09, m 212.9, C 64.1, CH 2.97, overlap 62.7, CH 2.71, m
21 15.3, CH3 0.76, d(6.5) 17.8, CH3 1.08, s 10.3, CH3 1.01, d(6.0) 9.8, CH3 0.91, d(6.5)
30a 20.5, CH3 1.26 (s) 101.5, CH2 4.85, s 63.7, CH2 3.25, m 11.4, CH3 0.76, s
30b 4.61, s 2.93, m
31 22.6, CH3 1.17, s 10.9, CH3 0.60, s 19.0, CH3 0.97, s
32 25.8, CH3 1.05, s 11.5, CH3 0.90, s 20.3, CH3 0.92, s 21.1, CH3 1.15, s
3-NCH3 34.5, CH3 2.50, s 35.3, CH3 2.45, s 2.30, s
20-NCH3 35.3, CH3 2.47, s 30.5, CH3 2.88, s
NCOCH3 172.2, C 171.4, C
NCOCH3 22.3, CH3 1.92, s 21.0, CH3 2.09, s
OCOCH3 169.3, C
OCOCH3 23.6, CH3 1.96, s
a1H and 13C NMR spectra were acquired at 500 (CDCl3) and 125 MHz (CDCl3), respectively. b1H and 13C NMR spectra were acquired at 400 (CDCl3) and 100 MHz (CDCl3), respectively. c1H and 13C NMR spectra were acquired at 400 [CDCl3:MeOD (1:1)] and 100 MHz [CDCl3:MeOD (1:1)], respectively.

Buxruguline B (2) was obtained as colorless needles. The HRESIMS exhibited a quasi-molecular ion peak at m/z 370.3105 ([M + H]+, calc. 370.3109), indicating the molecular formula C25H39NO. The 1H NMR spectrum featured three singlets for the three tertiary methyl groups at δH 0.85, 0.90, and 1.08, and the characteristic cyclopropyl methylene protons appeared as two doublets at δH − 0.04 and 0.50 (4.1). The 1H and 13C NMR spectrum of 2 displayed the presence of a terminal methylidene [δH 4.61, 4.85 (each, 1H, s); δH 153.3 (C), 101.5 (CH2)]. All the data indicated that compound 2 was similar to buxpiine7, and the distinct difference between them was that a oxygenated methine (δC ≈ 72) of C-16 in buxpiine was replaced by a methylene (δC 34.2) in 2. This deduction was supported by HMBC correlations from H-21 (δH 1.08) to C-20 (δC 212.9), C-16 (δC 34.2) and from H-17 (δH 2.66) to C-20, C-16 and C-13 (δC 42.7). H-5 is invariably α-oriented in this type alkaloid18,19, the ROESY correlation of H-3 (δH 2.85) with H-5 (δH 2.12) indicating an α-orientation of H-3 and β-orientation of the amino functionality. So, the structure of 2 was elucidated as shown in Figure 1.

Fig. 1

Structures of 1–8.

Buxruguline C (3) had the molecular formula C28H48N2O3, as determined by HRESIMS analysis ([M + H]+, m/z 461.3749). The 1H NMR (CDCl3) spectrum of 3 showed the presence of three methyl singlets at δH 1.08, 0.60, and 0.92 for the H-18, H-31, and H-32, a doublet methyl at δH 1.01 (6.0, 21-CH3), two N-methyl singlets at δH 2.45 and 2.88, together with characteristic protons due to one hydroxymethylene (δH 2.93 and 3.25), and one oxygenated methine (δH 4.27). These spectral data were quite similar to those of dihydrocyclobaleabuxine20, except for the resonance of acetyl group [δH 1.92; δC 172.2 (C) and 22.3 (CH3)] attributable to the nitrogen at C-3. The relative configuration of 3 was elucidated by the ROESY experiment and comparision with other naturally occurring triterpenoid alkaloid possessing β-configuration of the amino group at C-3, H-5α, and H-20β18,19. The ROESY correlations of H-5 (δH 1.84), and H-3 (δH 2.98) with H-30 (δH 2.93 and 3.25), and of H-20 (δH 2.97) with H-16 (δH 4.27) indicated that H-30 was in α-orientation, while H-16 was in β-orientation, respectively. Thus, the structure of buxruguline C was established as 3.

The moleculr formula of buxruguline D (4) was assigned as C29H48N2O3 on the basis of the NMR data (Table 1) and HRESIMS. Comparison of the spectroscopic data of 4 and 3 revealed similarities cycloartane-type triterpenoid skeleton. The notable difference was that a OH functionality at C-16 in 3 was replaced by acetoxy group in 4, which confirmed by the downfielded H-16 (δH 4.11) proton signal and the HMBC correlation from H-16 to the O-acetyl carbonyl carbon at δC 169.3 (C). Moreover 4 has one less hydroxyl function at C-30 and one less methyl group on the nitrogen at C-3 than 3. Consequently, compound 4 was elucidated as shown and has been accorded the trivial name buxruguline D.

Biologically, all compounds were tested for their cytotoxicity against the HL-60, SMMC-7721, A549, MCF-7, and SW480 cells lines (Table 2). Compounds 6, 7 and 8 showed the better cytotoxic potential against A-549, and SW480 cell lines. Compounds 1–4 were noncytotoxic, with IC50 values > 40 μmol for all tested cell lines.

Table 2

Cytotoxicity data of compounds 1–8 with IC50 values (μM).

No. HL-60 SMMC-7721 A-549 MCF-7 SW480
1 > 40 > 40 > 40 > 40 > 40
2 > 40 > 40 > 40 > 40 > 40
3 > 40 > 40 > 40 > 40 > 40
4 > 40 > 40 > 40 > 40 > 40
5 27.18 > 40 > 40 27.03 > 40
6 15.23 28.99 19.39 14.39 14.69
7 17.32 > 40 19.70 > 40 14.25
8 21.35 > 40 23.52 > 40 17.18
cisplatin 1.00 17.05 26.75 14.97 16.88
(MW300)

Experimental Section

General Experimental Procedures. Melting points were determined on a YU-HUA X-4 melting point apparatus. Optical rotations were obtained with a Horiba SEAP-300 polarimeter. Infrared spectra were recorded on a Shimadzu IR-450 instrument by using KBr pellets. NMR spectra were measured on a Bruker AV-400 and DRX-500 instrument (Bruker, Zűrich, Switzerland) with TMS as internal standard. HR-ESIMS data were recorded on a VG Auto Spec-3000 spectrometer. Silica gel (200-300 mesh, Qingdao Marine Chemical, Inc), amino silica gel (75-100 μm, Fuji Silysia Chemical LTD, Japan), C-18 (20-45 μm, Fuji Silysia Chemical, LTD, Japan), and Sephadex LH-20 (Pharmacia) were used for column chromatography.

Plant Material. Buxus rugulosa were collected at Lijiang (Yunnan), China, in February 2008. The sample was identified by Prof. Xi-Wen Li of the Kunming Institute of Botany, and a voucher specimen (KIB 20080210) has been deposited at the State Key Laboratory of Phytochemistry and Plant Resources in West China, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Extraction and Isolation. The materials of B. rugulosa (75.0 kg) were extracted with 90% MeOH under reflux, the combined extracts were partitioned between EtOAc and 0.001 mol/L HCl (pH ≈ 3.0). The aqueous layer was alkalinized to pH 10.0 with 2 mol/L NaOH followed by exhaustively extraction with CHCl3. The CHCl3-soluble fraction (180 g) was chromatographed on a silica gel column, eluted with CHCl3-MeOH (1:0-0:1), to give four fractions (FA–FD). FB (45 g) was chromatographed on silica gel using petroleum ether (PE)-EtOAc (8:1) as solvent and repeated Sephadex LH-20 eluted with MeOH to yield 7 (19 mg). After column chromatography on C-18 gel column chromatography by aqueous MeOH (60%-90%), amino silica gel column with PE-EtOAc (10:1) and CHCl3-MeOH (50:1), further separated by Sephadex LH-20 eluted with MeOH, FC (14 g) to afford 1 (11 mg), 4 (4 mg), 5 (6 mg), 7(28 mg), 8 (42 mg). FD (12 g) was chromatographed on silica gel using CHCl3-MeOH (10:1, 5:1) as gradient, and was further repeatedly separated on amino silica gel column chromatography, eluted with CHCl3-MeOH (20:1, 10:1), to give 2 (6 mg), 3 (12 mg), 6 (76 mg).

Buxruguline A (1): white powder; mp 188–190℃; [α]D24 + 15.6 (c 1.04, CHCl3); UV (MeOH) λmax (log ε) 208 (3.78), 244 (2.21) nm; IR (KBr) νmax: 1734 cm−1; 1H, 13C NMR data see Table 1; EIMS m/z: 367, HRESIMS m/z: 368.2944 [M + H]+ (calcd for C25H38NO [M + H]+, 368.2953).

Buxruguline B (2): colorless needle; mp 223–224゜C; [α]D24 + 18.4 (c 1.21, CHCl3); UV (MeOH) λmax (log ε) 205 (3.59) nm; IR (KBr) νmax: 1735 cm−1; 1H, 13C NMR data see Table 1; ESIMS m/z: 370 [M + H]+; HRESIMS m/z 370.3105 (calcd for C25H40NO [M + H]+, 370.3109).

Buxruguline C (3): colorless needle; [α]D24 + 8.8 (c 0.89, CHCl3); UV (MeOH) λmax (log ε) 205 (3.53) nm; IR (KBr) νmax: 1698 cm−1; 1H, 13C NMR data see Table 1; ESIMS m/z 461 [M + H]+; HRESIMS m/z 461.3749 (calcd for C28H49N2O3 [M + H]+, 461.3743).

Buxruguline D (4): white powder; [α]D24 + 17.5 (c 0.72, CHCl3); UV (MeOH) λmax (log ε) 203 (3.67) nm; IR (KBr) νmax: 1696 cm−1; 1H, 13C NMR data see Table 1; EIMS m/z 472 [M + H]+; HRESIMS m/z 473.7114 (calcd for C29H49N2O3 [M + H]+, 473.7109).

Cell Culture and Cytotoxicity Assay. A panel of human tumor cell lines was used: promyelocytic leukemia HL-60, hepatocellular carcinoma SMMC-7721, alveolar basal epithelial carcinoma A549, breast adenocarcinoma MCF-7, and colon cancer SW480. The cells lines were obtained from the Shanghai cell bank of China. All the cells were cultured in RPMI-1640 or DMEM medium (Hyclone, USA), supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Hyclone, USA) at 37℃ in a humidified atmosphere with 5% CO2.

Cell viability was assessed by conducting colorimetric measurements of the amount of insoluble formazan formed in the living cells with the MTT (MTT, sigma, USA) method described before21, and using cisplatin (DDP, sigma, USA) as control. Cell growth inhibition curve was graphed and the IC50 value of each compound was calculated by the Reed and Muench method22.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The project was financially supported by the Knowledge Innovation Program of the CAS (Grant No. KSCX2-YW-G-038, KSCX2-YW-R-194, KSCX2-EW-R-15, and KZCX2-XB2-15-03), as well as Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Phytochemistry and Plant Resources in West China (P2008-ZZ05 and P2010-ZZ14).

References

  1. 1.
    Y. X. Yan, Y. Sun, Z. R. Li, L. Zhou, M. H. Qiu, Curr. Bio. Comps. 7, 47-64 (2011) CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. D. Krishna, N. L. Bruno, A. F. Patrice, S. Norbert, Nat. Prod. Rep. 25, 612-630 (2008) CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Hu, X. Y. Liu, Y. Y. Wang, S. Z. Chen, Eur. J. Pharmacol. 569, 103-105 (2007) CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Q. W. Chen, H. L. Shan, H. Wang, Z. Li, B. F. Yang, J. Chin. Pharm. Sci. 12, 142-147 (2003) PubMed Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atta-ur-Rahman, M. I. Choudhary, S. Naz, A. Ata, B. Sener, S. Turkoz, J. Nat. Prod. 60, 770-774 (1997) CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Ata, S. Naz, M. I. Choudhary, Atta-ur-Rahman, B. Sener, S. Turkoz, Z. Naturforsch. 57c, 21-28 (2002) PubMed Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. I. Choudhary, S. Shahnaz, S. Parveen, A. Khalid, M. A. Mesaik, S. A. M. Ayatollahi, Atta-ur-Rahman., Chem. Biodiversity 3, 1039-1052 (2006) CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Atta-ur-Rahman, S. Parveen, A. Khalid, A. Farooq, M. I. Choudhary, Phytochemistry 58, 963-968 (2001) CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Atta-ur-Rahman, S. Parveen, A. Khalid, A. Farooq, S. A. M. Ayattollahi, M. I. Choudhary, Heterocycles 49, 481-488 (1998) CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. X. Yan, J. C. Chen, Y. Sun, Y. Y. Wang, J. Su, Y. Li, M. H. Qiu, Chem. Biodiversity 7, 1822-1827 (2010) CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. X. Yan, X. D. Hu, J. C. Chen, Y. Sun, X. M. Zhang, C. Qing, M. H. Qiu, J. Nat. Prod. 72, 308-311 (2009) CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. Deng, H. Huang, M. X. Xu, S. Q. Zhou, X. W. Wang, M. Lu, F. Ren, D. Q. Li, Acta Pharm. Sin. 39, 434-438 (2004) PubMed Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. I. Choudhary, Atta-ur-Rahman., A. J. Freyer, M. Shamma, Tetrahedron 42, 5747-5752 (1986) CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Atta-ur-Rahman, F. Noor-e-ain, M. I. Choudhary, Z. Parveen, S. Türköz, B. Sener, J. Nat. Prod. 60, 976-981 (1997) CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Atta-ur-Rahman, M. Nisa, S. Farhi, Planta Med. 49, 126 (1983) CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Atta-ur-Rahman, M. Nisa, S. Z. Farhi, Naturforsch. 39b, 524-527 (1984) PubMed Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Z. U. Babar, A. Ata, M. H. Meshkatalsadat, Steroids 71, 1045-1051 (2006) CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Sangare, F. Khuong-Huu, D. Herlem, A. Milliet, B. Septe, G. Berenger, G. Lukacs, Tetrahedron Lett. 22/23, 1791-1794 (1975) PubMed Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. S. Brown, S. M. Kupchan, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 84, 4592-4594 (1962) CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Herlem-Gaulier, F. Khuong-Huu-Laine, E. Stanislas, R. Goutarel, M.J. Magdeleine, Bull. Soc. Chim. Fr. 3, 657-668 (1965) PubMed Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. C. Alley, D. A. Scudiero, A. Monks, M. L. Hursey, M. J. Czerwinski, D. L. Fine, B. J. Abbott, J. G. Mayo, R. H. Shoemaker, M. R. Boyd, Cancer Res. 48, 589-601 (1988) PubMed Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    L. J. Reed, H. Muench, Am. J. Hyg. 27, 493-497 (1938) PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu-Xin YAN
    • a,b
  • Lin ZHOU
    • a
  • Yun SUN
    • a
  • Jian-Chao CHEN
    • a
  • Jia SU
    • a
  • Yan LI
    • a
  • Ming-Hua QIU
    • a,b
  •     
  1. a. State Key Laboratory of Phytochemistry and Plant Resources in West China, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201, China
  2. b. Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100039, China