Home Taraxastane-type triterpene saponins isolated from Pittosporum angustifolium Lodd.
Article Publicly Available

Taraxastane-type triterpene saponins isolated from Pittosporum angustifolium Lodd.

  • Christian Bäcker EMAIL logo , Kristina Jenett-Siems , Karsten Siems , Timo H.J. Niedermeyer , Martina Wurster , Anja Bodtke and Ulrike Lindequist
Published/Copyright: May 9, 2015
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Two new taraxastane-type triterpene saponins, named pittangretosides L (1) and C1 (2), were isolated from the leaves of Pittosporum angustifolium Lodd. Their structures were established by NMR spectroscopic, mass spectrometric and chemical means. The in vitro cytotoxicity was evaluated against four cell lines. The compounds exhibited no cytotoxic activity up to a concentration of 130 μm.

1 Introduction

Pittosporum angustifolium Lodd. (Pittosporaceae) is a small-sized tree that is distributed regularly but never frequently in Australia’s inland areas. Some of the plants known trivial names used colloquially are “cumby cumby”, “weeping pittosporum” or “butterbush” [1]. In addition to a reported economic significance, a variety of medical and therapeutic agents, prepared from different parts of the plant are described in the Aboriginal ethnomedicine [1]. Furthermore, a complementary usage of preparations as a supplement for the treatment of malignant diseases has been described in recent years [2].

Previously, we have phytochemically investigated the leaves and the seeds of P. angustifolium, resulting in the isolation and characterization of a number of secondary metabolites, such as known polyphenols [3], as well as novel and known structures of the class of triterpene saponins [2, 4, 5]. We found that acyl residues, especially attached to C-21 and C-22 of the aglycone moiety, are essential for a cytotoxic activity [2, 4]. In addition, from a few Pittosporum species, structurally very similar composed triterpene saponins, possessing A1- and R1-barrigenol as well as oleanolic acid backbones, have been isolated [6–10], while other types of aglycone structures of genuine saponins, e.g., the unusual 17,22-seco-skeleton found in two saponins from P. angustifolium [2], have not been described from another Pittosporum species. In consequence of a phylogenetic study in 2000, P. angustifolium was reinstated as a separate species that was previously considered as P. phillyr(a)eoides or as variety P. phillyre(a)oides var. microcarpa [1]. Under the taxonomic classification P. phillyraeoides taraxastane-type sapogenins featuring a δ-lactone substructure (phillyrigenin and derivatives) have been obtained after acidic hydrolysis [11, 12]. During our ongoing studies of the phytochemical composition of P. angustifolium two new taraxastane-type triterpene saponins were identified. The structure elucidation and the results of an investigation for cytotoxicity, as well as a supposed chemical formation mechanism leading to phillyrigenin derivatives that were described in former studies [11, 12], are presented in this work.

2 Results and discussion

A part of the crude extract (80 % EtOH) of the leaves was purified and fractionated by successive chromatographic techniques, using Sephadex LH20, silica gel and RP18 solid phase extraction. From the obtained subfraction A5_100 % [5] compounds 1 and 2 (Fig. 1) were isolated by semipreparative HPLC and named pittangretosides L (1) and C1 (2).

Fig. 1: Taraxastane-type triterpene saponins from the leaves of Pittosporum angustifolium.
Fig. 1:

Taraxastane-type triterpene saponins from the leaves of Pittosporum angustifolium.

The high-resolution ESI mass spectrum of pittangretoside L (1) revealed a quasimolecular ion peak [M–H] at m/z = 955.4884, indicating a molecular formula of C48H76O19. The 1H NMR spectrum exhibited signals for four singlet methyl groups (δH = 0.89, 0.92, 0.99, 1.12 ppm), one olefinic methyl group (δH = 1.64 ppm), one doublet methyl group (δH = 1.02 ppm, d, J = 6.7 Hz), one oxygenated methyl group, resp. hydroxymethylene group, at δH = 3.78 (d, J = 12.0 Hz) and 4.22 (d, J = 12.0 Hz) ppm, as well as an olefinic proton resonance at δH = 5.28 (d, J = 7.4 Hz) ppm, suggesting a pentacyclic triterpene skeleton. Furthermore, in the downfield region, three signals of anomeric proton resonances at 4.47 (d, J = 7.6 Hz), 4.81 (d, J = 7.6 Hz), and 5.18 (br s) ppm were assigned, implying the presence of three sugar units. A detailed look at the two-dimensional NMR spectroscopic data (H-H COSY, HMQC, and HMBC) confirmed one β-glucuronopyranose, one β-galactopyranose, and one α-rhamnopyranose unit, while their absolute configuration was deduced from the corresponding thiazolidine carboxylates by GC-MS experiments to be d, d, and l, respectively. As in the HMQC spectrum cross-peaks were observed between δH = 4.47 ppm (H-1, GlcA) and δC = 91.1 ppm (C-3), δH = 4.81 ppm (H-1, Gal) and δC = 78.3 ppm (C-2, GlcA), and δH = 5.18 ppm (H-1, Rha) and δC = 76.7 ppm (C-2, Gal) as well, the glycosidic linking and its attachment at C-3 of the aglycone moiety were elucidated unequivocally. The same sugar chain has already been described for saponins from P. angustifolium [2] and Stylosanthes erecta [13]. In comparison with literature [14–16], the NMR spectroscopic data of the aglycone part showed similarities to a taraxastane backbone. In contrast to those skeletons reported, a characteristic shift for a carboxylic acid function was assigned at δC = 178.8 ppm and its position turned out to be at C-28, while a hydroxymethylene group (δC = 60.3; δH = 3.78 ppm, d, J = 12.0 Hz; 4.22 ppm, d, J = 12.0 Hz) was assigned at C-27. Finally, the taraxastane configuration was evidenced by carefully evaluated ROESY correlations observed between CH3-26 (δH = 0.99 ppm), H-13 (δH = 2.50 ppm) and H-19 (δH = 2.09 ppm), indicating these protons to be oriented in the same direction, while CH2-27 (δH = 3.78 ppm), H-18 (δH = 1.35 ppm) and CH3-29 (δH = 1.02 ppm) show correlations, corroborating they face into the other direction. The ROESY walk H-13–H-12β–H-12α–H-9–H-1α–H-2α–H-3–H-5–H-7α–CH2-27 also confirmed the configuration of H-9, H-3, and H-5 to be as found for CH2-27. Thus, the new natural product pittangretoside L (1) was elucidated as 3β-[α-l-rhamnopyranosyl-(1→2)-β-d-galactopyranosyl-(1→2)]-β-d-glucuronopyranosyloxy-27-hydroxy-20-taraxastene-28-oic acid.

As the chromatographic, ATR-IR- and NMR-spectroscopic, as well as mass spectrometric data of pittangretoside C1 (2) were quite identical to those of compound 1, it was supposed to be a structurally closely related compound. With respect to this, the same molecular formula of C48H76O19 was derived from its high-resolution ESI mass spectrum, displaying a quasimolecular ion peak [M–H] at m/z = 955.4898. Since the one and two-dimensional NMR spectra revealed three resonances of anomeric protons at 4.45 (d, J = 7.3 Hz), 4.81 (d, J = 7.6 Hz), 5.17 (br s) ppm and HMBC cross peaks were observed between δH = 4.45 ppm (H-1, GlcA) and δC = 92.4 ppm (C-3), δH = 4.81 ppm (H-1, Gal) and δC = 78.9 ppm (C-2, GlcA), δH = 5.17 ppm (H-1, Rha) and δC = 76.8 ppm (C-2, Gal) as well as the results of TLC and GC-MS (as corresponding thiazolidine carboxylates) analysis were identical to those of compound 1, it was confirmed that compound 2 possesses the same sugar chain as found in 1. Instead, aglycone resonances were partially different. In the 1H NMR spectrum four singlet methyl signals were assigned at δH = 0.86, 0.91, 1.00, 1.09 ppm, and one methyl doublet at δH = 1.06 (d, J = 6.7 Hz) as well, while signals of an olefinic methyl singlet in the region of δH = 1.64 ppm (CH3-30, compound 1), and an olefinic methine proton resonance at δH = 5.28 ppm (H-21, compound 1) were missing. Furthermore, the carbon atom resonance of C-20 (δC = 152.1 ppm) was deshielded compared to 1 (δC = 143.2 ppm), as well as two proton signals at δH = 2.21 and 2.50 ppm, corresponding to C-21 (δC = 27.2 ppm) in the HMQC spectrum, implying allylic proton resonances of a methylene group. Moreover, as two proton singlets appeared at δH = 4.58 and 4.60 ppm (CH2-30), it was deduced that these resonances represent a terminal double bond, resp. an exo-methylene group [14]. Finally, since the same ROESY correlations were observed as found in compound 1, the aglycone configuration of a taraxastane skeleton was elucidated, as well. The new structure of pittangretoside C1 (2) was thus determined as 3β-[α-l-rhamnopyranosyl-(1→2)-β-d-galactopyranosyl-(1→2)]-β-d-glucuronopyranosyloxy-27-hydroxy-20(30)-taraxastene-28-oic acid.

In recent publications we described pronounced cytotoxic activitiy of acylated triterpene saponins of the oleanane-type isolated from Pittosporum angustifolium [2, 4], as it was also shown for acylated saponins from other Pittosporum species [6, 9, 10]. Although compounds 1 and 2 do not possess an acylation and feature a structurally differing taraxastane backbone, they were evaluated for their cytotoxic potential against three tumourigenic and one non-tumourigenic cell line. Up to a concentration of 130 μm, neither compound 1, nor compound 2 showed cytotoxicity against the investigated cell lines.

Concerning a structural characterization of the aglycones of compounds 1 and 2, this is the first time that saponins with a taraxastane-type skeleton were isolated from a Pittosporum sp. However, some studies on P. phillyraeoides described taraxastane-type aglycones with the additional structural element of a δ-lactone (Fig. 2) obtained after acidic hydrolysis that were named phillyrigenins [11, 12]. Even though lactonic ring structures are known features of a few triterpenes [17], until now – to the best of our knowledge – the original existence of these phillyrigenin structures has never been confirmed again. Looking at the genuine compounds 1 and 2 obtained in this study (Fig. 1), it seems worth discussing, that the δ-lactone possessing phillyrigenin backbones could theoretically be products of 1 and/or 2 or similar, not yet identified structures, formed by the acidic conditions in aqueous solution. By an electrophilic addition a proton attachment at C-21 (1) or C-30 (2) could take place, followed by a hydroxylation at C-20 (1 and 2). In a subsequent step, reaction conditions could possibly lead to the lactone formation between that hydroxyl group (C-20) and the carboxyl group at C-28 (Fig. 2). Due to the small amount of substance and usage for biological screenings, this issue has not been proven experimentally by us, but it might be a likely formation mechanism of the phillyrigenin derivatives – at least as long as it has not been shown that the lactones are also present in the original plant material.

Fig. 2: Suggested mechanism of phillyrigenin formation of compounds 1 and 2 by electrophilic addition under acidic aqueous conditions of hydrolysis (refs. [11, 12]).
Fig. 2:

Suggested mechanism of phillyrigenin formation of compounds 1 and 2 by electrophilic addition under acidic aqueous conditions of hydrolysis (refs. [11, 12]).

3 Experimental

3.1 General

1H, H-H COSY, HMQC, and HMBC NMR spectra were recorded in CD3OD on a Bruker DRX 500 (Billerica, MA, USA) device, ROESY spectra in CD3OD at 600 MHz on a Bruker AV-III spectrometer. For GC-MS analysis an Agilent device (gas chromatograph G1530N; mass selective detector MSDG2588A; Santa Clara, CA, USA) was utilized with a DB-5MS column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm; J & W Scientific; Folsom, CA, USA) under conditions recently reported [2]. Recorded data were analyzed by comparison with NIST database 2.0 d (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA) and with retention times of the TIC (total ion chromatograms) of authentic samples of d-galactose (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), l-rhamnose (Sigma-Aldrich) and d-glucuronic acid (Sigma-Aldrich). High resolution mass spectral data were recorded on a LC-MS-IT-TOF device (Shimadzu) after isolation on a Chromolith Speed Rod RP18 column (50 mm × 4.6 mm, Merck; Darmstadt, Germany) and electrospray ionization. Optical rotation was measured on a Perkin Elmer 241 polarimeter (Waltham, MA, USA), and ATR-IR spectra were recorded on a Thermo Scientific Nicolet IR 200 FT-IR spectrometer (Waltham). Solid-phase extractions (SPE) were carried out at 500 mbar by using RP18-cartridges (Strata C18E, 200 g/120 mL, Phenomenex) and a vacuum manifold. For TLC analysis of hydrolyzed sugars, pre-coated silica gel 60 plates (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) were applied under the following conditions: solvent EtOAc-iso-PrOH-HOAc-H2O (4:2:2:1), detection reagent 0.25 g thymol (Sigma-Aldrich), 2.5 mL H2SO4, 47.5 mL EtOH, heating 5 min at 135 °C.

3.2 Plant material

On the grounds of Central Queensland GG foundation (K. A. Amato and the Trustee for Milner Krasser Family Trust) in the vicinity of Mount Morgan, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia, leaves of P. angustifolium were collected in June 2008. The plant material was a gift of Dr. Cornelia Krasser and Klaus von Gliszczynski, Australia, and was authenticated by Dr. Peter König, Curator of the Botanical Garden of Greifswald. A voucher specimen (no. 20110013PA) was deposited at the Institute of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Biology, Ernst Moritz Arndt University, Greifswald, Germany.

3.3 Extraction and isolation

Dried, pulverized leaves of P. angustifolium (8.4 g) were extracted and fractionated as recently described [5]. One of the obtained subfractions, A5_100 % (78 mg) [5], was applied to semipreparative HPLC using a polar endcapped RP18 phase (250 × 10 mm, 4 μm, Phenomenex, Torrance, USA) on a Shimadzu HPLC system (Kyoto, Japan) with a two-channel UV detector. Separation conditions: isocratic run at 32 % acetonitrile in water (0.05 % HCOOH), flow rate 0.9 mL min−1, detection at 206 nm; compound 1tR = 19.55 min, 4.2 mg, and compound 2tR = 16.61 min, 3.4 mg.

3.4 Compound 1 (pittangretoside L)

Colorless amorphous powder. C48H76O19. –[α]D20 = −29.7 (c = 0.47, MeOH). – ATR-IR: ν˜max = 3398, 2943, 2879, 1693, 1614, 1362, 1126, 1072, 1041, 977 cm−1. – 1H and 13C NMR: see Tables 1 and 2 and Supporting Information available online (ROESY spectrum). – HRMS ((+)-ESI-IT-TOF): m/z (%) = 455.3515 (100) [(M+H)–GlcA–Gal–Rha–H2O]+. – HRMS ((–)-ESI-IT-TOF): m/z (%) = 955.4884 (100) [M–H] (calcd. 955.4908 for C48H75O19; monoisotopic mass).

Table 1

13C (125 MHz) and 1H (500 MHz) NMR spectroscopic data (ppm) of the aglycone moieties of compounds 1 and 2 in CD3OD (J in Hz).a

Position12
13C1H13C1H
139.51.03, 1.7840.21.01, 1.71
226.61.78, 2.00n.d.1.75, 1.98
391.13.21 dd (4.3, 11.5)92.43.17 dd (3.8; 11.4)
439.740.6
556.30.86 d (12.0)56.90.83 d (11.8)
618.11.38, 1.5519.11.38, 1.52
735.71.50, 1.7236.31.71, n.d.
841.842.8
952.21.4353.21.45
1037.638.1
1122.51.27, 1.6423.11.28, 1.71
1227.70.99, 1.7127.30.85, 1.71
1340.62.50 brt (12.2)41.02.67 br t (12.5)
1445.746.7
1523.51.26, 1.8422.71.27, 1.62
1634.41.45, 1.96 dt (11.5, 3.4)36.81.46, n.d.
1748.6n.d.
1849.51.3550.31.20 dd (11.3, 7.2)
1937.52.0942.42.40 qint (6.7)
20143.2152.1
21117.35.28 d (7.4)27.22.21, 2.50 brt (11.1)
2237.91.83, 2.27 dd (7.4, 15.7)n.d.1.35, 1.71
2327.61.12 s28.51.09 s
2415.80.89 s16.30.86 s
2516.00.92 s16.70.91 s
2615.90.99 s16.11.00 s
2760.33.78 d (12.0), 4.22 d (12.0)60.03.72, 4.16 d (12.1)
28178.8n.d.
2922.81.02 d (6.7)25.21.06 d (6.7)
3021.21.64 s111.44.58 s, 4.60 s

aAssignments were made by 1H-1H COSY, HMBC, and HMQC experiments; overlapped 1H resonances are reported without designated multiplicity; n.d., not determined.

Table 2

13C (125 MHz) and 1H (500 MHz) NMR spectroscopic data (ppm) of the sugar moieties of compounds 1 and 2 in CD3OD (J in Hz).a

Position12
13C1H13C1H
C-3GlcAGlcA
1105.44.47 d d (7.6)105.94.45 d (7.3)
278.33.6978.93.69
378.23.6178.83.60
473.43.4873.73.47
576.43.4276.63.42
6n.d.n.d.
GalGal
1102.44.81 d (7.6)102.74.81 d (7.6)
276.73.6676.83.65
375.73.5876.23.59
470.73.7471.83.73
576.43.4276.83.42
662.43.79, 3.6062.83.60, 3.76
RhaRha
1101.65.18 brs101.95.17 brs
271.93.92 brs72.63.91 brs
371.83.7671.83.75
473.83.39 t (9.5)73.63.38 t (9.5)
569.34.1569.64.12
617.81.25 d (6.5)18.11.25 d (6.2)

aAssignments were made by 1H-1H COSY, HMBC, and HMQC experiments; overlapped 1H resonances are reported without designated multiplicity; n.d., not determined; GlcA, glucuronopyranosic acid; Gal, galactopyranose; Rha, rhamnopyranose.

3.5 Compound 2 (pittangretoside C1)

Colorless amorphous powder. C48H76O19. – [α]D20 = −21.4 (c = 0.23, MeOH). – ATR-IR: ν˜max = 3384, 2932, 1692, 1604, 1361, 1127, 1071, 1040, 978 cm−1. – 1H and 13C NMR: see Tables 1 and 2 and Supporting Information available online (ROESY spectrum). – HRMS ((+)-ESI-IT-TOF): m/z (%) = 979.4447 (4.8) [M+Na]+, 473.3223 (5.4) [(M+H)–GlcA–Gal–Rha]+, 455.3506 (100) [(M+H)–GlcA–Gal–Rha–H2O]+. HRMS ((–)-ESI-IT-TOF): m/z (%) = 955.4898 (100) [M–H] (calcd. 955.4908 for C48H75O19; monoisotopic mass).

3.6 Acidic hydrolysis

0.5 mg of 1 and 2 were hydrolysed according to a procedure previously described [5]. The resulting sugar mixture of each compound was then analyzed by TLC and GC-MS experiments. The absolute configuration of sugars was confirmed by the corresponding thiazolidine carboxylates [18] and comparison of recorded GC-MS data with those of authentic samples of l-Rha (tR = 37.647 min), d-Gal (tR = 40.383 min) and d-GlcA (tR = 41.109 min).

3.7 Cytotoxicity assay

The neutral red assay was used for the evaluation for cytotoxicity on four cell lines: 5637 cells (human urinary bladder carcinoma), MCF7 cells (human breast cancer), LN18 cells (human glioblastoma), and HaCaT cells (human keratinocytes). All cell cultivation procedures as well as an implementation of the assay have been published recently [4].

4 Supporting information

Figures of the ROESY spectra of compounds 1 and 2 are given as Supporting Information (DOI: 10.1515/znb-2015-0005).


Corresponding author: Christian Bäcker, Institute of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Biology, Ernst Moritz Arndt University Greifswald, Friedrich-Ludwig-Jahn-Straße 17, 17489 Greifswald, Germany, Fax: +49(0)3834864885, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. R. Kunze, Berlin, Germany, Dr. C. Krasser and K. von Gliszczynski, Australia, for the collection and transfer of the plant material. We also wish to thank P. Schmieder, Forschungsinstitut für molekulare Pharmakologie, Berlin, Germany, for acquiring ROESY NMR spectra.

References

[1] L. W. Cayzer, M. D. Crisp, I. R. H. Telford, Aust. Syst. Bot.2000, 13, 845.10.1071/SB99021Search in Google Scholar

[2] C. Bäcker, K. Jenett-Siems, K. Siems, M. Wurster, A. Bodtke, C. Chamseddin, M. Crüsemann, U. Lindequist, Planta Med. 2013, 79, 1461.10.1055/s-0033-1350806Search in Google Scholar

[3] C. Bäcker, K. Jenett-Siems, A. Bodtke, U. Lindequist, Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2014, 55, 101.10.1016/j.bse.2014.02.015Search in Google Scholar

[4] C. Bäcker, K. Jenett-Siems, K. Siems, M. Wurster, A. Bodtke, U. Lindequist, Z. Naturforsch.2014, 69c, 191.10.5560/znc.2014-0011Search in Google Scholar

[5] C. Bäcker, K. Jenett-Siems, K. Siems, M. Wurster, A. Bodtke, T. H. J. Niedermeyer, U. Lindequist, Z. Naturforsch.2014, 69b, 1026.10.5560/znb.2014-4143Search in Google Scholar

[6] I. D’Acquarica, M. C. Di Giovanni, F. Gasparrini, D. Misiti, C. D’Arrigo, N. Fagnano, D. Guarnieri, G. Iacono, G. Bifulco, R. Riccio, Tetrahedron2002, 58, 10127.10.1016/S0040-4020(02)01364-9Search in Google Scholar

[7] R. Higuchi, T. Fujioka, M. Iwamoto, T. Komori, T. Kawasaki, E. V. Lassak, Phytochemistry1983, 22, 2565.10.1016/0031-9422(83)80166-6Search in Google Scholar

[8] J. Linnek, A. C. Mitaine-Offer, T. Paululat, M. A. Lacaille-Dubois, Magn. Reson. Chem.2012, 50, 798.10.1002/mrc.3876Search in Google Scholar

[9] M. J. Manase, A.-C. Mitaine-Offer, T. Miyamoto, C. Tanaka, S. Delemasure, P. Dutartre, M.-A. Lacaille-Dubois, Fitoterapia2013, 91, 231.10.1016/j.fitote.2013.09.002Search in Google Scholar

[10] Y. Seo, J. M. Berger, J. Hoch, K. M. Neddermann, I. Bursuker, S. W. Mamber, D. G. I. Kingston, J. Nat. Prod.2002, 65, 65.10.1021/np010327tSearch in Google Scholar

[11] A. L. Beckwith, A. R. H. Cole, J. C. Watkins, D. E. White, Austr. J. Chem. 1956, 9, 428.10.1071/CH9560428Search in Google Scholar

[12] S. G. Errington, P. R. Jefferies, Phytochemistry1988, 27, 543.10.1016/0031-9422(88)83138-8Search in Google Scholar

[13] M. De Leo, R. Sanogo, N. De Tommasi, A. Braca, J. Nat. Prod.2007, 70, 979.10.1021/np0700671Search in Google Scholar

[14] Y. M. Chiang, Y. H. Kuo, J. Nat. Prod.2000, 63, 898.10.1021/np990630iSearch in Google Scholar

[15] Y. H. Kuo, Y. M. Chaiang, Chem. Pharm. Bull.1999, 47, 498.10.1248/cpb.47.498Search in Google Scholar

[16] W. F. Reynolds, S. McLean, J. Poplawski, Tetrahedron1986, 42, 3419.10.1016/S0040-4020(01)87309-9Search in Google Scholar

[17] J. D. Connolly, R. A. Hill, Nat. Prod. Rep.2003, 20, 640.10.1039/b204068aSearch in Google Scholar

[18] S. Hara, H. Okabe, K. Mihashi, Chem. Pharm. Bull.1987, 35, 501.10.1248/cpb.35.501Search in Google Scholar


Supplemental Material:

The online version of this article (DOI: 10.1515/znb-2015-0005) offers supplementary material, available to authorized users.


Received: 2015-1-7
Accepted: 2015-2-5
Published Online: 2015-5-9
Published in Print: 2015-6-1

©2015 by De Gruyter

Downloaded on 23.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/znb-2015-0005/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button