--
Ever looked at a molecule and thought something was just...off?
A little while ago, I browsed through the latest edition of PLoS One, the open science journal. I don't often go there for chemistry publications, but curiosity struck, so I typed, "antibacterial NMR" (I think) into the search box. Up came this paper, from 2013, announcing:
- A novel alkaloid, xinghaiamine A, isolated from a marine bacterium, that...
- Had novel structural features, such as a sulfoxide and acenaphthylene ring, rarely seen, and...
- That showed decent lead activity against MRSA strains (2.7-5.5 uM MIC).
First thought: "Wow!" Second thought: "If this is so great, why is it buried in PLoS One?"
Then I happened to look at the proposed structure for this potential panacea:
Jiao, Zhang, Zhao, Hu, Suh, PLoS One, 2013 |
Sulfonylated "ladderane" substructure.
A (4,7) disubstituted acenaphthylene bridge.
A previously-unknown-to-science (and virtually unknown to SciFinder) 4-4-5-6 ring system.
Can that really be correct?
Naturally, I made a model of one "half" of the presumed dimeric molecule:
Xinghaiamine A, pseudo-axial conformation, assumed diastereomer of the (4-4-5-6) ring system. The red circles are supposed to be bonded together... |
Perusing the analyticals in the Supporting Information, I'm puzzled by a few more bits:
Jiao, Zhang, Zhao, Hu, Suh, PLoS One, 2013 |
The IR, briefly addressed in the text as suggestive of "[the] presence of a sulfoxide functional group" due to the 1082 cm-1 band, but contains peaks suggestive of:
- alcohols, primary amines: 3383 cm-1 band
- heteroaromatics: 743, 846 cm-1 band
The published 1H NMR has no peak labeling or integration (tsk, tsk).
That the COSY shows only one set of strong H/H correlations out of the 6 posited protons on the conjugated ring, which should not fit with the proposed structure. Nor should the seeming high symmetry of the ring fit with the proposed substitution.
--
Readers, what do you make of this? What kept this out of a more mainstream chemistry journal?