ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
The Chemistry of Kratom [Mitragyna speciosa]: Updated Characterization Data and Methods to Elucidate Indole and Oxindole Alkaloids
My Activity
  • Open Access
Article

The Chemistry of Kratom [Mitragyna speciosa]: Updated Characterization Data and Methods to Elucidate Indole and Oxindole Alkaloids
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Laura Flores-Bocanegra
    Laura Flores-Bocanegra
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United States
  • Huzefa A. Raja
    Huzefa A. Raja
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United States
  • Tyler N. Graf
    Tyler N. Graf
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United States
  • Mario Augustinović
    Mario Augustinović
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United States
  • E. Diane Wallace
    E. Diane Wallace
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United States
  • Shabnam Hematian
    Shabnam Hematian
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United States
  • Joshua J. Kellogg
    Joshua J. Kellogg
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United States
  • Daniel A. Todd
    Daniel A. Todd
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United States
  • Nadja B. Cech
    Nadja B. Cech
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United States
  • Nicholas H. Oberlies*
    Nicholas H. Oberlies
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United States
    *E-mail: [email protected]
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

Journal of Natural Products

Cite this: J. Nat. Prod. 2020, 83, 7, 2165–2177
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.0c00257
Published June 29, 2020

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society and American Society of Pharmacognosy. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Two separate commercial products of kratom [Mitragyna speciosa (Korth.) Havil. Rubiaceae] were used to generate reference standards of its indole and oxindole alkaloids. While kratom has been studied for over a century, the characterization data in the literature for many of the alkaloids are either incomplete or inconsistent with modern standards. As such, full 1H and 13C NMR spectra, along with HRESIMS and ECD data, are reported for alkaloids 119. Of these, four new alkaloids (7, 11, 17, and 18) were characterized using 2D NMR data, and the absolute configurations of 7, 17, and 18 were established by comparison of experimental and calculated ECD spectra. The absolute configuration for the N(4)-oxide (11) was established by comparison of NMR and ECD spectra of its reduced product with those for compound 7. In total, 19 alkaloids were characterized, including the indole alkaloid mitragynine (1) and its diastereoisomers speciociliatine (2), speciogynine (3), and mitraciliatine (4); the indole alkaloid paynantheine (5) and its diastereoisomers isopaynantheine (6) and epiallo-isopaynantheine (7); the N(4)-oxides mitragynine-N(4)-oxide (8), speciociliatine-N(4)-oxide (9), isopaynantheine-N(4)-oxide (10), and epiallo-isopaynantheine-N(4)-oxide (11); the 9-hydroxylated oxindole alkaloids speciofoline (12), isorotundifoleine (13), and isospeciofoleine (14); and the 9-unsubstituted oxindoles corynoxine A (15), corynoxine B (16), 3-epirhynchophylline (17), 3-epicorynoxine B (18), and corynoxeine (19). With the ability to analyze the spectroscopic data of all of these compounds concomitantly, a decision tree was developed to differentiate these kratom alkaloids based on a few key chemical shifts in the 1H and/or 13C NMR spectra.

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society and American Society of Pharmacognosy
The scientific literature on the chemical composition of kratom [Mitragyna speciosa (Korth.) Havil. Rubiaceae] dates back nearly 100 years, when the most studied alkaloid from this plant, mitragynine (1), was reported in 1921. (1) The introduction to that paper concludes with the following prescient statements: “According to Redley . . . Mitragyne [sic] speciosa is used in Perak against the opium habit, whilst, according to Dr. P.P. Laidlaw, mitragynine is a local anaesthetic, which finding is of interest, since the alkaloid contains an ester grouping.” At that time, there was uncertainty on the use of kratom. Interestingly, a century later, this uncertainty continues, including in the scientific literature, the popular press, and even government regulatory bodies. Many questions persist such as, does kratom ameliorate pain, can it be used as an opioid substitute, does it relieve opioid withdrawal symptoms, does its use precipitate trips to the emergency room, and is kratom harmful, harmless, or somewhere in between? Addressing these questions requires a thorough understanding of the chemical composition of kratom.
In the past decade there has been an explosion in the biomedical literature regarding at least some of the above questions, particularly case reports (Figure S1). There are reports that speak to its ability to address pain, broadly defined. (2−5) However, there are a similar number that suggest that it has opioid-like properties and, thus, may be an addiction liability. (6−15) Toward that end, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has threatened to classify kratom as a schedule I controlled substance more than once, although at the writing of this paper, it has not done so. (16−19)
As part of a project to study the potential for interactions between herbal medicines and drugs, (20−24) our team was charged with generating reference standards of the kratom alkaloids. In doing so, we found many challenges and opportunities, largely due to gaps in the literature. Extensive chemical studies have been performed over the last century, resulting in the isolation of at least 54 alkaloids from the plant (see Figure S2), starting with the isolation of the main alkaloid, mitragynine (1), in 1921 by Ellen Field. (1) More than four decades later, and over a series of three manuscripts, Becket et al. and Zacharias et al. worked on the isolation, structure elucidation, and absolute configuration of 1. (25−27) Contemporaneously, the mitragynine diastereoisomers speciociliatine (2) and speciogynine (3) were reported. (28) A dozen years later, the fourth diastereoisomer, mitraciliatine (4), was described from the leaves of M. speciosa. (29) Like many alkaloids, a majority of isolation studies on new compounds from kratom were carried out between the 1960s and 1980s. (30−32) However, due to the growing popularity of this plant near the end of the last century, there was a renewed interest, resulting in the isolation of additional alkaloids (particularly minor constituents, which could be isolated due to advances in HPLC). (33,34) Despite this, most of the pharmacological studies on constituents from kratom have focused on mitragynine (1) and 7-hydroxymitragynine (see Figure S1). In general, the tetracyclic indole and pentacyclic oxindole alkaloids isolated from M. speciosa embody a few variations, which, collectively, show the interrelatedness of these compounds (see Figure S2). Some key motifs of the 54 known compounds from M. speciosa include a hydroxy or methoxy group at C-9, unsaturation at C-3, C-5, or C-18, hydroxylation at C-7, and various configurations at C-3, C-7, and/or C-20 (see Figure S2). (30−32)
It was necessary to isolate standards for the alkaloids present in the plant, because even though there are over 50 kratom alkaloids reported, only 13 are commercially available (Figure S2). Moreover, in some cases we found that the quality of the commercial standards was not optimal, being mixtures, or were not even the correct compound. (35,36) From a pharmacological testing point of view, this is a serious problem, especially for scientists that do not have the training or collaborations to verify structural identity, as it could perpetuate erroneous findings in the literature. For these reasons, we strove to develop a series of reference standards, being able to isolate and characterize 19 kratom alkaloids (119), including four new analogues (7, 11, 17, and 18). In doing so, we quickly realized that the reported spectroscopy data for some of the known compounds were limited, as is the case for many natural products. (37−41) Thus, we took the opportunity to contribute by analyzing the NMR, HRESIMS, and ECD data for 119, comparing the key differences between analogues.

Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

While there are some challenges associated with acquiring kratom plant material, (42) two different sources could be obtained on the kilogram scale, which were termed “Green Maeng Da” and “White Jongkong” by the suppliers. These samples were slightly different in appearance, with the former being ground leaf fragments (internally coded as K49) and the latter being a fine powder (internally coded as K52) (see Figure S6). The taxonomy of these was examined using a combination of molecular methods, specifically DNA barcoding and maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis. For the purpose of molecular identification, the most widely recommended loci were analyzed, including the plastid intergenic spacer trnH-psbA, matK, and the nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS), since these three regions have been designated as the official DNA barcodes for the plant kingdom. (43,44) Of these, trnH-psbA is a widely used plastid marker, which displays a high rate of insertion and deletion and, as such, is widely used for plant barcoding studies. (45−47) All three regions indicated that samples K49 and K52 could be unequivocally identified as Mitragyna speciosa. Maximum likelihood analysis of the partial matK region placed both commercial samples in a strongly supported clade (100% bootstrap support) with the published sequences for M. speciosa (Figure S3). Importantly, this analysis included a partial matK sequence from a recently sequenced genome of M. speciosa (BioProject: PRJNA325670). In addition, a BLAST search of matK using the BOLDSYSTEMS database (version 4) showed that samples K49 and K52 had ≥99% sequence similarity to M. speciosa (Figures S4 and S5). As a confirmatory measure, maximum likelihood analysis using the ITS region also indicated that both samples formed a strongly supported clade (≥99% bootstrap support) with published sequence data of M. speciosa (Figure S6). Based on uncorrected p-distances calculated for trnH-psbA, there was ≥99% sequence similarity to sequences of M. speciosa. This means that samples K49 and K52 were more similar to sequences of M. speciosa and more dissimilar to sequences of M. diversifolia, M. hirsuta, and M. rotundifolia (Tables S1 and S2). In short, three different methods all indicated that these materials were derived from M. speciosa. The sequence data were deposited in GenBank: matK: MT114409 and MT114408, trnH-psbA: MT114410 and MT114411, and ITS: MT111840, MT111841, MT111842, and MT111843.
Even though the sources of kratom (i.e., K49 and K52) were demonstrated to be M. speciosa based on DNA barcoding, chromatographic profiles generated via UPLC-HRESIMS (Figure S7) showed clear differences in the profile of secondary metabolites. For instance, mitragynine (1) was the most abundant alkaloid in the K49 materials, while the K52 materials contained higher levels of speciofoline (12) and related alkaloids. While those differences may be somewhat surprising, varied chemical composition for different sources of M. speciosa has been documented, where plant age, environmental factors, and processing conditions impact on the suite of kratom alkaloids. (48,49) For example, in one published study the content of 1 derived from a Thai specimen was approximately five times higher than that derived from a Malaysian specimen. (50) Additionally, alkaloid differences between M. speciosa grown in Asia/Africa vs the United States have been noted. (49,51) Thus, for the purpose of generating structurally diverse kratom alkaloid reference standards, we selected sample K49 for the isolation of indole-type alkaloids and sample K52 for the isolation of oxindole-type alkaloids using an alkaloid partitioning scheme. The indole alkaloids mitragynine (1), speciociliatine (2), speciogynine (3), mitraciliatine (4), paynantheine (5), (52) isopaynantheine (6), (29) epiallo-isopaynantheine (7), mitragynine-N(4)-oxide (8), (53) speciociliatine-N(4)-oxide (9), (53) isopaynantheine-N(4)-oxide (10), (54) and epiallo-isopaynantheine-N(4)-oxide 11 were isolated from the Green Maeng Da product (K49; see Figure S8), while the oxindole alkaloids speciofoline (12), (55) isorotundifoleine (13), (56) isospeciofoleine (14), (57) corynoxine A (15), (58,59) corynoxine B (16), (59) 3-epirhynchophylline (17), 3-epicorynoxine B (18), and corynoxeine (19) were isolated from the White Jongkong product (K52; see Figure S9). Details of the structure elucidation for these compounds, including the identification of four new kratom alkaloids (i.e., 7, 11, 17, and 18), are presented below, using a suite of spectroscopic and spectrometric techniques (HRESIMS), including ECD. In doing so, a decision tree was developed that can be used to differentiate between these kratom alkaloids based on a few key signals in the 1H and/or 13C NMR spectra (Figure 1). This flow diagram was designed to be helpful for those with only a limited understanding of structure elucidation, focusing on key signals that serve to differentiate between the various kratom alkaloid chemotypes.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Decision tree for differentiating among 119 based on key NMR signals. As a single starting point, the 13C NMR signal for the lactam moiety is used to distinguish between oxindole (present) and indole (absent) kratom alkaloids. Once the broad structural class is determined, 1H NMR data can be used via a flowchart as a guide to elucidate the structure of these alkaloids.

Indole Alkaloids: Mitragynine (1) and Its Diastereoisomers (24)

Four diastereoisomers with a molecular formula of C23H30N2O4 were isolated, specifically mitragynine (1), speciociliatine (2), speciogynine (3), and mitraciliatine (4), all of which were verified via HRESIMS data, where the protonated molecule displayed m/z 399.2274, 399.2273, 399.2274, and 399.2275 ions, respectively (Figures S10–S13). While the absolute amounts likely vary in different kratom plant materials, the quantity of compound 1 isolated was at least 20 times greater than that for each of the other diastereoisomers (i.e., >450 mg of 1 vs ∼20 mg of 2, 3, or 4). The 1H and 13C NMR data matched with those reported previously, (60) and key characteristics included (1) eight sp2 signals in the 13C NMR spectrum assignable to the indole moiety (C-2 and C-7 to C-13); (2) two doublets (δH-10 6.44–6.49 and δH-12 6.87–7.01) and one triplet (δH-11 6.99–7.07), all corresponding to the indole moiety; (3) signals for the vinylic proton at C-17 (δCH 160.2–160.7/7.32–7.44); (4) three methoxy groups attached to C-9, C-17, and C-22 (δCH 51.1–61.9/3.66–3.89); and (5) the methyl group at C-19 (δCH 11.1–13.0/0.74–0.89). Importantly, a thorough analysis of the differences between the characteristic signals permitted the unequivocal identification of compounds 14. For example, as Lee and colleagues described, (61) when a deshielded proton singlet assignable to H-17 appeared at δH 7.43 or 7.44 (i.e., compounds 1 and 2, respectively), it was indicative of the α orientation of H-20. Alternatively, a more shielded chemical shift for H-17 (i.e., δH 7.32 and 7.35 for compounds 4 and 3, respectively) indicated the β orientation for H-20. (61) Additionally, the orientation of H-20 could be confirmed orthogonally via the chemical shift of C-18, at δC of 12.5 or 13.0 (i.e., compounds 2 and 1, respectively) for the α orientation and δC of 11.1 (i.e., for both 3 and 4) for the β orientation. On the other hand, the presence of a broad singlet at δH 4.40 or 4.80 (i.e., compounds 2 and 4) agreed with the β orientation for H-3, but a signal at δH 3.20 or 3.21 (i.e., compounds 1 and 3) indicated the opposite orientation for the same proton (i.e., H-3α). Indeed, the ΔδH-3 values of the α and β orientations depend on the dihedral angle and the distance between H-3 and the nitrogen lone pair. An anticoplanar arrangement, as seen in the axial H-3 of the trans-fused system in compound 1 or 3 (i.e., α orientation), leads to shielding relative to the syn-coplanar arrangement of the equatorial proton (i.e., β orientation) in compound 2 or 4, which have a dihedral angle of ∼60° with the nitrogen lone pair. The donation of electron density into the antibonding orbital (i.e., n → σ*) of the axial C–H bond (i.e., α orientation) effectively results in the weakening of that bond and strong shielding of the proton (Figure S18). (62,63) Key NMR signals for 14 are outlined (Table 1), and in addition, full 1D NMR spectra and tables are reported in the Supporting Information (Figures S14–S17 and Table S4). Moreover, ECD spectra presented an additional approach for confirming the absolute configuration for these corynanthe-type alkaloids. It has been established that the Cotton effect between 250 and 300 nm could be used to establish the orientation of H-3, where a negative Cotton effect correlates with the β orientation (i.e., compounds 2 and 4) and a positive Cotton effect for the α orientation for H-3 (i.e., compounds 1 and 3; see Figure S19). (61)
Table 1. Characteristic 1H and 13C NMR Data for Compounds 14 (CDCl3, 400 and 100 MHz, Respectively)a
 mitragynine (1)speciociliatine (2)speciogynine (3)mitraciliatine (4)
positionδCtypeδH (J in Hz)δCtypeδH (J in Hz)δCtypeδH (J in Hz)δCtypeδH (J in Hz)
361.3CH3.20, d (8.4)54.7CH4.40, bs61.9CH3.21, m53.9CH4.80, s
1099.9CH6.45, d (7.7)99.8CH6.47, d (7.7)99.8CH6.44, d (7.8)99.7CH6.49, d (7.6)
11122.0CH7.00, t (7.9)122.4CH7.02, t (8.0)122.4CH6.99, t (7.9)122.6CH7.07, t (7.9)
12104.3CH6.90, d (8.1)104.5CH6.91, d (8.1)104.5CH6.87, d (8.0)104.9CH7.01, d (8.0)
17160.7CH7.43, s160.6CH7.44, s160.4CH7.35, bs160.2CH7.32, s
1813.0CH30.87, t (7.3)12.5CH30.89, t (7.9)11.1CH30.85, t (7.2)11.1CH30.74, t (7.0)
9-OCH355.5CH33.87, s55.3CH33.88, s55.4CH33.85, s55.3CH33.89, s
17-OCH361.7CH33.73, s61.7CH33.78, s61.9CH33.72, s61.8CH33.77, s
22-OCH351.5CH33.71, s51.6CH33.66, s51.1CH33.72, s51.5CH33.68, s
NH  7.74, bs  8.00, bs  7.94, bs  8.98, bs
a

See Table S4 for a full comparison of the 1H and 13C NMR data for 14 (Supporting Information).

Indole Alkaloids: Paynantheine and Its Diastereoisomers (Compounds 57)

The structures of paynantheine (5) and isopaynantheine (6) were established by comparisons with literature data. (57) Their molecular formulas were confirmed by HRESIMS as C23H28N2O4, where the protonated molecule showed an m/z of 397.2119 and 397.2117, respectively (Figures S20 and S21). The NMR data of 5 and 6 resembled those for compounds 14, sharing the previously enumerated characteristic signals for the indole ring. The main difference was the absence of signals for the C-20 ethyl moiety and its replacement for a vinylic moiety, as evidenced by two doublets of doublets (δH 4.89–5.01) and a doublet of doublet of doublets or a doublet of triplets (δH 5.25–5.57), consistent with a Δ18(19) double bond (δC-18 115.7–116.7 and δC-19 137.9–139.4). As with 14, the orientation of H-3 was deduced from chemical shift data, where the H-3α orientation was noted for 5H 3.20), while the more deshielded shift in 6H 4.73) indicated the H-3β orientation. These assignments were supported by the ECD spectra, where 5 and 6 had opposite Cotton effects at 250–300 nm. Specifically, a negative Cotton effect confirmed the β orientation (i.e., 6) and a positive Cotton effect confirmed the α orientation (i.e., 5) for H-3 (see Figure S33). Comparisons of the key NMR signals for compounds 5 and 6 are shown in Table 2, and the full 1D NMR spectroscopic data are reported in the Supporting Information (Figures S23–S24 and Table S5).
Table 2. Characteristic 1H and 13C NMR Data for Compounds 57 (CDCl3, 400 and 100 MHz, Respectively)a
 paynantheine (5)isopaynantheine (6)epiallo-isopaynantheine (7)
positionδCtypeδH (J in Hz)δCtypeδH (J in Hz)δCtypeδH (J in Hz)
360.1CH3.20, m53.8CH4.73, bs53.9CH4.85, bs
1099.9CH6.45, d (7.8)99.7CH6.49, d (7.6)99.7CH6.49, d (7.8)
11122.1CH7.00, t (7.9)122.6CH7.07, t (7.9)122.9CH7.08, t (7.9)
12104.3CH6.88, d (8.0)105.0CH7.02, d (8.1)105.0CH7.01, d (8.1)
17160.0CH7.33, s160.2CH7.28, s160.3CH7.28, s
18115.7CH25.01, dd (17.3, 2.0)116.7CH24.96, dd (17.2, 1.8)117.2CH24.98, dd (17.3, 1.7)
   4.96, dd (10.4, 2.1)  4.89, dd (10.2, 1.8)  4.91, dd (10.3, 1.8)
19139.4CH5.55, dt (17.9, 9.3)137.9CH5.29, ddd (18.0, 10.3, 8.3)137.1CH5.27, ddd (18.0, 10.3, 8.3)
9-OCH355.4CH33.88, s55.3CH33.89, s55.3CH33.88, s
17-OCH361.7CH33.78, s61.7CH33.76, s61.7CH33.76, s
22-OCH351.5CH33.69, s51.4CH33.67, s51.5CH33.67, s
NH  7.85, s  8.91, s  9.12, s
a

See Table S5 for a full comparison of the 1H and 13C NMR data for 57 (Supporting Information).

Compound 7 was isolated as an optically active yellow powder (αD20 +41, c 0.1 CHCl3), with a molecular formula of C23H28N2O4, deduced by HRESIMS, where the protonated molecule showed an m/z of 397.2115 (Figure S22). The 1H and 13C NMR data of 7 resembled those of compounds 5 and 6, sharing all the characteristic signals for an indole alkaloid with Δ18(19) unsaturation (see Tables 2 and S5 and Figures S23–S25). These observations, along with differences in chromatographic retention times (5: 7.5 min, 6: 7.0 min, and 7: 9.0 min; see Figure S34), suggested that 7 was a new diastereoisomer of 5 and 6. The HSQC data, along with COSY and HMBC correlations, were used to elucidate the structure of 7 (Figures S26–S28). For example, three isolated spin systems (specifically, H-10/H-11/H-12, H2-5/H2-6, and H-3/H2-14/H-15/H-20/H2-21/H-19/H2-18) and key HMBC correlations (i.e., H-3 to C-2/C-7, H-17 to C-15/C-22, H2-18 to C-20, CH3O-9 to C-9, CH3O-17 to C-17, and CH3O-22 to C-22) were used to confirm the skeleton for the proposed structure (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Key correlations observed in the COSY and HMBC spectra for compounds 7, 17, and 18. The latter two have the same 2D structure and thus the same correlations.

To establish the absolute configuration of 7, several complementary lines of reasoning were used. For instance, the deshielded signal at 4.85 ppm suggested H-3β, since that was similar to the chemical shift for the same position in compounds 2H-3 4.40), 4H-3 4.80), and 6H-3 4.73), all of which have been established to be H-3β. Moreover, biogenetic assumptions were used for the C-15 configuration, since all the indole alkaloids from M. speciosa (42 compounds, to date) have the H-15α orientation. (32) Those considerations narrowed the possibilities for compound 7 to either the pseudo (i.e., 3β, 15α, and 20β) or epiallo (i.e., 3β, 15α, and 20α) orientation. (61) The known compound isopaynantheine (6) has the pseudo configuration, and thus, compound 7 is the 20-epimer of 6 (i.e., H-20α), yielding an overall configuration of epiallo; those considerations were used to suggest the trivial name epiallo-isopaynantheine (7). In addition, ECD spectroscopy was used as an orthogonal probe of the proposed configuration. The spectrum for the epiallo configuration (i.e., 3β, 15α, and 20α) was calculated using a time-dependent DFT (TDDFT) method at the B3LYP/6-31G+(d) level of theory, demonstrating concordance, including the aforementioned negative Cotton effect at ca. 275 nm that confirmed the H-3β orientation (Figure 3). The NOESY spectra of compounds 6 and 7 were compared as well (Figures S29–S31). However, these data were inconclusive, since clear differences could not be discerned. This could be explained based on atomic distances, which were measured for the most stable conformers; in all cases these distances were <5 Å (Figure S31). Collectively, the amalgamation of NMR and ECD data and biogenetic considerations were used to establish the (3R,15S,20S) absolute configuration of the new indole alkaloid, epiallo-isopaynantheine (7).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Experimental ECD spectrum of 7 in CH3OH at 0.2 mg/mL (dashed line) and calculated ECD spectrum of (3R,15S,20S)-7 (dotted line).

N(4)-Oxides of Indole Alkaloids (811)

Compounds 8 and 9 had identical molecular formulas (C23H30N2O5), as determined by HRESIMS, where the protonated molecules displayed an m/z of 415.2234 (8) and 415.2237 (9) (see Figures S35 and S36). This indicated that 8 and 9 had one extra oxygen atom compared to the diastereoisomers 14. 1H and 13C NMR spectra of both had strong similarities to the spectroscopic data reported for mitragynine-N(4)-oxide, sharing the characteristic NMR signals for the N(4)-oxide indole alkaloids (δH-10 6.43, δH-11 6.99–7.03, δH-12 6.92–6.95, δC-17H-17 161.3–161.5/7.45–7.46, δC-18H-18 11.8–12.7/0.85–0.93, δC-21H-21 68.5–68.6/3.53–3.72, δC-5H-5 65.8–65.9/3.51–3.98, and three methoxy groups δCH 51.6–62.1/3.61–3.86). (30) The main difference between the spectra for compounds 8 and 9, relative to those discussed above for 14, was deshielding of the signals attributed to H-3, H2-5, and H2-21, which was caused by a coordinate covalent bond in the N(4)-oxide group. There is an important distinction with the N-oxides, relative to the other kratom alkaloids, in that the ΔδH-3 value is small (∼0.12 ppm) and does not correlate with the orientation of H-3. As noted in the discussion of 14, the ΔδH-3 values of diastereoisomers mainly depend on the extent of interaction between the nitrogen free electron pair and the C–H antibonding orbitals. However, for the N-oxides, such an effect is not possible, since the electron pair is shared with the oxygen (i.e., N+–O group). For the N-oxides, the positive charge on the nitrogen has a strong electron-withdrawing inductive effect, resulting in decreased electron density regardless of whether the α-protons are axial or equatorial. In both compounds, the deshielded signal for the vinylic proton at δH-17 7.45–7.46 indicated the α orientation for H-20, analogous to compounds 1 and 2. In addition, H-15 was presumed to have the α orientation, based on the biogenetic considerations discussed for compound 7. Therefore, 8 and 9 could have the allo (i.e., 3α, 15α, and 20α) or the epiallo (i.e., 3β, 15α, and 20α) configurations. This illustrates another advantage of analyzing the ECD spectra of kratom alkaloids, particularly the Cotton effect at ca. 275 nm. Compounds 8 and 9 had opposite effects at ca. 275 nm, where a positive Cotton effect correlated with the H-3α orientation (i.e., 8) and a negative Cotton effect indicated the H-3β orientation (i.e., 9). In turn, these data allowed us to assign these compounds as mitragynine-N(4)-oxide (8) (30) and speciociliatine-N(4)-oxide (9). This is the first report of NMR characterization data for 9, and key NMR signals for 8 and 9 are collated in Table 3, with full 1D NMR data reported in the Supporting Information (see Figures S39 and S40 and Table S6).
Table 3. Characteristic 1H and 13C NMR Data for Compounds 811 (CDCl3, 400 and 100 MHz, Respectively)a
 mitragynine-N(4)-oxide (8)speciociliatine-N(4)-oxide (9)isopaynantheine-N(4)-oxide (10)epiallo-isopaynantheine-N(4)-oxide (11)
positionδCtypeδH (J in Hz)δCtypeδH (J in Hz)δCtypeδH (J in Hz)δCtypeδH (J in Hz)
366.9CH5.16, s66.0CH5.04, d (12.5)69.2CH5.04, bs69.6CH4.91, bs
1099.7CH6.43, d (7.7)99.8CH6.43, d (7.7)99.9CH6.49, d (7.8)99.8CH6.48 d (7.7
11123.3CH7.03, t (7.9)122.7CH6.99, t (7.9)123.8CH7.11, t (7.9)123.6CH7.10, t (7.9)
12105.2CH6.95, d (8.1)106.3CH6.92, bs105.1CH7.03, d (8.2)105.2CH7.04, d (8.1)
17161.5CH7.45, s161.3CH7.46, s160.5CH7.31, s160.5CH7.30, s
1812.7CH30.93, t (7.2)11.8CH30.85, t (7.4)118.0CH25.02, dd (17.5, 1.0)117.8CH25.02, d (17.2)
         4.95, dd (10.2, 1.7)  4.94, dd (10.3, 1.6)
9-OCH355.2CH33.85, s55.3CH33.86, s55.3CH33.88, s55.3CH33.87, s
17-OCH362.1CH33.80, s61.9CH33.85, s62.0CH33.80, s62.0CH33.79, s
22-OCH351.6CH33.61, s51.8CH33.68, s51.6CH33.68, s51.6CH33.68, s
NH  9.46, s     8.84, s   
a

See Table S6 for a full comparison for the 1H and 13C NMR data for 811 (Supporting Information).

A similar set of observations were used to assign the structures of compounds 10 and 11, which were isolated as orange powders with a molecular formula of C23H28N2O5 as calculated by HRESIMS via a protonated molecule with an m/z of 413.2079 (10) and 413.2077 (11) (Figures S37 and S38). For instance, the NMR data for 10 and 11 were similar to those reported for isopaynantheine-N(4)-oxide (Table 3). These NMR data also resembled those of 8 and 9, where the main difference was the lack of the C-20 ethyl group (10 and 11), which was replaced with a vinylic group (see Table 3). In both cases, the signals for the vinylic proton appeared at δH-17 7.30–7.31, which was similar to the shifts in compounds 6 and 7. Again, ECD data were helpful, where the negative Cotton effects at ca. 275 nm correlated with the H-3β orientation for both 10 and 11 (Figure S47). Additionally, a comparison of the ECD spectra of compounds 10 and 6 showed striking similarities; the same was true when comparing compounds 11 and 7 (see Figure S46). Therefore, compound 10 had the pseudo configuration (3β, 15α, and 20β; i.e., as seen in 6) and 11 had the epiallo configuration (3β, 15α, and 20α; i.e., as seen in 7). To confirm the absolute configuration of the new compound 11, the method described by Shellard and colleagues (53) was used. Briefly, 11 was reduced by addition of H2SO4, and the reaction product should correspond to the indole alkaloid without the oxide. Indeed, the 1H NMR spectrum for the reduced product of 11 matched the spectrum of 7 (Figure S46). Collectively, these data permitted the characterization of these compounds as isopaynantheine-N(4)-oxide (10) and the new kratom alkaloid epiallo-isopaynantheine-N(4)-oxide (11). The spectroscopic data for both are reported in the Supporting Information (Figures S41–S45 and Table S6).

Oxindole Alkaloids: 9-Hydroxylated Oxindoles like Speciofoline (1214)

Compound 12 had a molecular formula of C22H28N2O5, based on the protonated HRESIMS molecule with an m/z of 401.2067 (Figure S48). Comparison of the NMR data with key NMR signals in the 1H and 13C spectra reported previously permitted the identification of this compound as speciofoline (12) (Table 4). (55,56) This compound, which is one of the main alkaloids present in kratom (e.g., >55 mg isolated in this study), was first reported in 1963. (55) We have included the full spectroscopic data for 12 to serve as a reference point when analyzing the spectroscopic data for some of the more minor oxindole alkaloids. For instance, the C-ring (i.e., the pyrollidine ring) of 12 is connected to the γ-lactam (i.e., B-ring) through a C-7 spiro carbon, and this results in characteristic signals in the 13C NMR spectrum at δC 180.2 and 57.3 for the carbonyl in the oxindole ring and the spiro C-7 carbon, respectively (Table 4); the lactam signal, in particular, serves to quickly differentiate between indole and oxindole alkaloids (see Figure 1). Other important NMR signals, which are similar to those discussed above for the indole alkaloids, include (1) signals for the indole system (δH-10 6.35, δH-11 7.05 and δH-12 6.53); (2) a vinylic H-17 (δCH 159.8/7.38); (3) two methoxy groups at C-17 and C-22 (δCH 61.3/3.79 and δCH 51.7/3.65, respectively), and (4) a methyl group (δC-18H-18 12.3/0.83). Key NMR signals for 12 are tabulated (Table 4), and the full 1D NMR spectroscopic data are reported in the Supporting Information (Figure S51 and Table S7).
Table 4. Characteristic 1H and 13C NMR Data for Compounds 1214 (CDCl3, 500 and 125 MHz, Respectively)a
 speciofoline (12)isorotundifoleine (13)isospeciofoleine (14)
positionδCtypeδH (J in Hz)δCtypeδH (J in Hz)δCtypeδH (J in Hz)
2180.2C 177.7C 179.1C 
363.8CH3.06, dd (11.7, 3.6)66.6CH3.39, dd (12.5, 3.6)68.7CH2.68, dd (11.6, 3.2)
757.3C 55.9C 57.5C 
9154.6C 155.1C 154.6C 
10111.9CH6.35, d (7.6)112.1CH6.30, dd (7.6, 0.8)111.4CH6.36, dd (7.6, 0.7)
11129.6CH7.05, t (8.0)129.2CH7.02, dd (8.3, 7.7)129.6CH7.06, dd (8.3, 7.7)
12101.1CH6.53, d (8.3)100.3CH6.52, dd (8.5, 0.8)101.0CH6.58, d (8.3)
17159.8CH7.38, s159.8CH7.27, s159.9CH7.19, s
1812.3CH30.83, d (7.4)116.4CH25.01, m 4.96, m116.4CH24.97, m 4.95, m
1924.2CH21.21, dqd (14.0, 6.8, 2.8)138.8CH5.43, dt (18.7, 9.1)138.6CH5.49, dt (17.3, 9.5)
17-OCH361.3CH33.79, s61.7CH33.79, s61.5CH33.71, s
22-OCH351.7CH33.65, s51.3CH33.68, s51.2CH33.59, s
NH  8.44, s  7.45,s  7.60, s
a

See Table S7 for a full comparison of the 1H and 13C NMR data for 1214 (Supporting Information).

Additionally, two other 9-hydroxylated oxindole alkaloids were isolated and characterized as isorotundifoleine (13) and isospeciofoleine (14). The molecular formula for both isomers was C22H26N2O5 as measured by HRESIMS based on protonated molecules with m/z values of 399.1909 and 399.1906, respectively (Figures S49 and S50). The structures were elucidated by comparing the NMR data with those reported previously (Table 4), (56,57) and the full assignment of the 1H and 13C NMR spectroscopic data for both are reported in the Supporting Information (Figures S52 and S53 and Table S7); this is the first report of comprehensive NMR data for 13. The NMR data for both 13 and 14 resembled those described above for speciofoline (12), with a major difference being the absence of the methyl group (i.e., C-18 in 12 at δCH 12.3/0.83), which was replaced by the Δ18(19) double bond (δCH 116.4/4.95–5.01 and δCH 138.6–138.8/5.43–5.49, respectively, for 13 and 14). As with the indole alkaloids, ECD spectra were instrumental in assigning the configuration of these compounds, especially for analyzing the C-7 spiro center. According to the literature, the negative Cotton effect at 290 nm confirmed the (7R) configuration in compounds 12 and 13, and the positive Cotton effect agreed with the (7S) configuration in compound 14. Additionally, the negative Cotton effect around 250 nm confirmed the H-3β orientation in compounds 12 and 14, whereas the opposite Cotton effect demonstrated the H-3α orientation in 13. These results agreed with the rules for ECD spectra for the 9-hydroxylated oxindole alkaloids, and a calculated ECD spectrum was generated for 12 as a confirmatory measure (see Figure S54). (56,64)

Oxindole Alkaloids: 9-Unsubstituted Oxindoles Such as Corynoxine A (1519)

Two closely related isomers, 15 and 16, were isolated with a molecular formula of C22H28N2O4, based on HRESIMS protonated molecules with m/z values of 385.2119 (i.e., 15) and 385.2127 (i.e., 16) (Figures S55 and S56). The compounds were characterized using 1H and 13C NMR data as corynoxine A (15) and corynoxine B (16), based on concordance with published data for synthetic standards of these compounds (Tables 5 and S8 and Figures S60 and S61). (65) In addition, the NMR data for 15 and 16 resembled those described for 12, with the main difference being replacement of the C-9 phenolic group with an aromatic proton, which resulted in a pattern of two doublets and two triplets of doublets for the protons in the oxindole ring (H-9 to H-12, see Table 5). Both 15 and 16 had the allo configuration (i.e., 3α, 15α, and 20α), with opposite configurations at the spiro C-7, being (7S) for 15 and (7R) for 16. As Trager and colleagues reported, (64) the configuration at C-7 can be deduced based on the chemical shift for the H-9 signal. For instance, when presuming the allo configuration, the presence of a deshielded signal for H-9 (δH 7.45) confirmed the (7S) configuration for 15 and the (7R) configuration in 16 due to the more shielded signal for H-9 (δH7.19). While 15 was stable, an interesting challenge with compound 16 was its interconversion to 15 over a period of about 8 days in CDCl3 (see Figure S62). As reported previously, (66) the epimerization process increases under acidic conditions via an intermolecular Mannich reaction, resulting in a ratio of ∼70:30 of 15 and 16, respectively (see Figure S62). As such, only the ECD spectrum of 15 is reported, supporting the (7S) and the allo configurations based on negative Cotton effects around 290 and 250 nm (Figure S76).
Table 5. Characteristic 1H and 13C NMR Data for Compounds 1519 (CDCl3, 500 and 125 MHz, Respectively)a
 corynoxine A (15)corynoxine B (16)3-epirhynchophylline (17)3-epicorynoxine B (18)corynoxeine (19)
positionδCtypeδH (J in Hz)δCtypeδH (J in Hz)δCtypeδH (J in Hz)δCtypeδH (J in Hz)δCtypeδH (J in Hz)
2182.4C 182.3C 181.2C 182.2C 181.0C 
373.2CH2.41, dd (11.3, 2.7)76.5CH2.24, bd (11.2)77.4CH2.19, dd (11.4, 2.4)77.0CH2.19, d (10.9)75.2CH2.30, dd (11.3, 2.5)
9125.0CH7.45, d (7.4)123.2CH7.19, d (7.4)123.3CH7.20, d (7.5)123.4CH7.20, d (7.8)123.5CH7.22, d (7.8)
10122.5CH7.05, td (7.6, 1.0)122.5CH7.01, td (7.5, 1.0)122.5CH7.02, td (7.6, 1.0)122.9CH7.02, td (7.5)122.7CH7.05, td (7.6, 1.0)
11127.4CH7.17, td (7.7, 1.3)127.9CH7.16, td (7.7, 1.0)127.8CH7.16, td (7.7, 1.2)128.1CH7.17, t (7.7)128.0CH7.18, td (7.7, 1.2)
12109.5CH6.86, d (7.7)109.5CH6.87, d (7.7)109.1CH6.81, d (7.7)109.6CH6.80, d (7.7)109.2CH6.82, d (7.7)
1813.0CH30.87, t (7.4)13.4CH30.86, t (7.4)13.5CH30.86, t (7.4)13.3CH30.86, t (7.3)115.6CH24.95, ddd (17.2, 2.01, 0.8) 4.90, dd (10.2, 2.1)
1919.4CH21.10, dqd (15.7, 7.8, 2.9) 1.65, dq (14.3, 7.2)19.3CH21.77, ddq (14.2, 11.1, 7.1) 1.18, m19.3CH21.78, ddq (13.6, 11.2, 7.2) 1.18, dq (14.7, 7.7)19.8CH21.80, m 1.17, dq (14.5, 7.3)139.6CH5.51, dt (18.0, 9.1)
17-OCH361.2CH33.51, s61.6CH33.57, s61.7CH33.67, s61.7CH33.69, s61.7CH33.74, s
22-OCH351.3CH33.59, s51.4CH33.61, s51.4CH33.63, s51.4CH33.63, s51.4CH33.62, s
NH  8.40, s  8.91, s  7.62, s  7.33, s  7.53, s
a

See Table S8 for a full comparison of the 1H and 13C NMR data for 1519 (Supporting Information).

Compounds 17 and 18 were isolated as optically active powders ([α]D23 −30 (c 0.1, CHCl3) and [α]D24 −46 (c 0.1, CHCl3), respectively). Their molecular formulas were established as C22H28N2O4 based on the HRESIMS protonated molecule with m/z values of 385.2119 (i.e., 17) and 385.2120 (i.e., 18) (Figures S57 and S58). The 1H and 13C NMR spectra of these compounds were similar to those of 15 and 16 (Table 5). These data, along with their different retention times (17: 2.76 min and 18: 2.87 min) (see Figures S57 and S58), suggested that 17 and 18 were new isomers of 15 and 16. The HSQC data, along with COSY and HMBC correlations, were used to confirm the proposed structures. In both cases, three isolated spin systems (specifically H-9/H-10/H-11/H-12, H2-5/H2-6, and H-3/H2-14/H-15/H-20/H2-21/H2-19/H3-18) and key HMBC correlations (i.e., H-3 to C-2/C-7, H-17 to C-15/C-22, H3-18 to C-20, CH3O-17 to C-17, and CH3O-22 to C-22) were used to confirm the 2D structures of 17 and 18 (see Figures 2 and S63–S66 and S69–S72). Similar to the discussion for 6 and 7, the correlations observed in the NOESY spectra for 17 and 18 were not useful to determine the relative configuration for these compounds (Figures S67 and S73). The absolute configuration of these molecules was proposed based on ECD experiments, following the rules described for the 9-unsubstituted oxindole alkaloids. In particular, the related isomer rhyncophylline served as a reference, since the crystal structure for this compound has been published and the ECD data were well described. (64,67) For instance, both 17 and 18 had the (7R) configuration, based on positive Cotton effects around 290 nm, and the H-3β orientation, as noted by positive Cotton effects around 250 nm (Figure S76). Using biogenetic reasoning for the H-15α orientation, along with the evidence observed in the ECD data, we deduced that compounds 17 and 18 should have the pseudo (i.e., 3β, 15α, and 20β) or epiallo (i.e., 3β, 15α, and 20α) configurations. To evaluate that presumption, the ECD spectra for the diastereoisomers at C-20 were calculated using a TDDFT method at the B3LYP/6-31G+(d) level of theory. The results showed that the calculated ECD spectrum for H-20β matched with the ECD spectrum for 17, and similarly, the calculated ECD spectrum for an analogue with the H-20α orientation matched with the ECD spectrum for compound 18 (Figure 4). NMR data, biogenetic considerations, and the examination of ECD spectra were used to establish the absolute configuration of the new oxindole alkaloids (3R,7R,15S,20R)-3-epirhynchophylline (17) and (3R,7R,15S,20S)-3-epicorynoxine B (18).

Figure 4

Figure 4. (A) Experimental ECD spectra of 17 in CH3OH at 0.2 mg/mL (dashed lines) and calculated ECD spectrum of (3R,7R,15S,20R)-17 (dotted lines). (B) Experimental ECD spectra of 18 in CH3OH at 0.2 mg/mL (dashed lines) and calculated ECD spectrum of (3R,7R,15S,20S)-18 (dotted lines).

Compound 19 was isolated as a white powder, and its molecular formula was established as C22H26N2O4, based on the HRESIMS protonated molecule with an m/z of 383.1964 (Figure S59). The NMR data for this compound showed strong similarities to the data of 1518, where the main differences were the absence of the signals for the C-20 ethyl group, which was replaced by a vinylic group (Tables 5 and S8). The NMR data (Figure S75 and Table S8) matched with those reported for corynoxeine. (68) ECD data corroborated the H-3α orientation based on the negative Cotton effect around 250 nm, and the (7R) configuration based on the positive Cotton effect around 290 (Figure S76).
To add complementary data to the structural characterization of the kratom alkaloids, an attempt was made to analyze compounds 1, 6, 7, 15, 17, and 18 by VCD, so as to examine a range of both indole and oxindole alkaloids. However, in all cases the similarities between calculated and experimental data were low, ranging between 57.7% and 70.0% (Table S9). In contrast, prominent recent VCD results published in this Journal report similarities ranging from 74.1% to 98.5%. (69−73) In particular, we were surprised at the lack of concordance with the data for mitragynine (1), since it has been so well characterized, including by X-ray crystallography. (27) Thus, the purity of 1, 6, 7, 15, 17, and 18, was examined after the completion of the VCD studies, and indeed, it was obvious that the compounds decomposed during the experiments (see Figure S77). On the basis of the 1H NMR spectra (data not shown), we hypothesize that epimers were formed, likely as a result of the VCD data being recorded at elevated temperatures in CHCl3 for up to 18 h; the epimerization potential of these compounds has been reported. (66) While disappointing, we determined that analysis of VCD spectra is not helpful for this class of compounds, at least with current technologies, due to their lack of stability under the analytical conditions.
In summary, 19 reference standards were isolated from kratom plant materials, including the two new indole alkaloids 7 and 11 and the two new oxindole alkaloids 17 and 18. To characterize their structures, including absolute configuration, a combination of mass spectrometry and NMR and ECD spectroscopy was utilized. An added benefit of analyzing the NMR spectroscopy data for a suite of closely related compounds was that it facilitated the development of a decision tree (Figure 1). Using only a few key NMR signals, even a relative novice should be able to narrow the possible structures for at least these kratom alkaloids, and an expert is encouraged to examine a full suite of NMR data in relation to those reported in the Supporting Information. It is our hope that improvements in the structural characterization of the kratom alkaloids will result in more clarity in the biomedical literature on this interesting class of compounds.

Experimental Section

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

General Experimental Procedures

Optical rotations were obtained in CHCl3 using a Rudolph Research Autopol III polarimeter. UV and ECD spectra were acquired on a Varian Cary 100 Bio UV–vis spectrophotometer and an Olis DSM 17 CD spectrophotometer, respectively. A ChiralIR-2X dual-source, dual-polarization-modulated FT-VCD spectrometer was used to carry out IR and VCD measurements. NMR experiments were conducted using either a JEOL ECA-500 NMR spectrometer operating at 500 MHz for 1H and 125 MHz for 13C or a JEOL ECS-400 NMR spectrometer equipped with a high-sensitivity JEOL Royal probe operating at 400 MHz for 1H and 100 MHz for 13C; the residual solvent signals were utilized for referencing. HRESIMS was performed on a Thermo LTQ Orbitrap XL mass spectrometer equipped with an electrospray ionization source. UPLC was carried out on a Waters Acquity system with data collected and analyzed using Thermo Xcalibur software. HPLC was carried out using a Varian ProStar HPLC system equipped with ProStar 210 pumps and a ProStar 335 photodiode array detector (PDA), with data collected and analyzed using Galaxie Chromatography Workstation software (version 1.9.3.2). For preparative HPLC, a series of Phenomenex columns were used, including a Kinetex C18 (5 μm; 250 × 21.2 mm), a Luna CN (5 μm; 250 × 21.2 mm), and a Luna PFP (5 μm; 250 × 21.2 mm) all at a 20 mL/min flow rate. For UPLC, a Waters BEH C18 column (1.7 μm; 50 × 2.1 mm) was used with a 0.6 mL/min flow rate. Flash chromatography was performed on a Teledyne ISCO CombiFlash Rf 200 using various sizes of Silica Gold columns and monitored by UV and evaporative light-scattering detectors.

Plant Material, DNA Extraction, PCR, and Sequencing for Molecular Identification

The commercial kratom products used to prepare extracts [i.e., Green Maeng Da (K49, batch: M-1005, 4 kg) and White Jongkong (K52, batch: BN-1006, 1 kg)] were identified by DNA barcoding. The manufacturers reported these as both from Southeast Asia, with K49 being chipped leaf materials and K52 being a fine powder. Samples were handled using methods described previously for the DNA barcoding of commercial mushroom products. (74) Briefly, one scintillation vial was made from each product (see Figure S6), where the vial was filled with plant material from the top and middle layers of the commercial product, and these were labeled with product name, lot number, and batch number and stored at ambient temperature in a bench drawer. For DNA extractions, approximately 5 mg of plant powder was taken from the scintillation vial and transferred to a bashing bead tube with DNA lysis buffer provided by Zymo Research Quick-DNA plant/seed miniprep DNA extraction kit. DNA was extracted using procedures outlined in the Zymo Research plant DNA extraction kit. The plastid gene matK was PCR amplified with primer combination matK-xf and matK-MALP; (75,76) for psbA-trnH primer combination psbA-trnH (77) and for nuclear ITS, primer combinations ITS-u1 and ITS-u4 (78) were used for PCR and sequencing. All PCRs were amplified on an Applied Biosystems Veriti thermal cycler using PuReTaq Ready-To-Go PCR beads (GE Healthcare) with the above primers. The PCR reaction was carried out in 25 μL containing 5 μL of template DNA, 2.5 μL of BSA, 2.5 μL of 50% DMSO, and 1 μL of each forward and reverse primer at a concentration of 10 μM. The rest of the volume was made up to 25 μL by adding molecular biology grade water from Fisher Scientific. PCR thermocycler parameters for all fragments are outlined (Table S3). The PCR products were then run on an ethidium bromide-stained 1% agarose gel (Fisher Scientific) along with a 1 kb DNA ladder (Promega) to estimate the size of the amplified band. PCR products were purified using a Wizard SV gel and PCR clean-up system. Sanger sequencing of the purified PCR products was performed at Eurofins Genomics (http://www.operon.com/default.aspx) using BigDye Terminator v3.1 cycle sequencing. The sequencing was accomplished bidirectionally using both strands with the same primers used for the PCR amplification. Sequences were generated on an Applied Biosystems 3730XL high-throughput capillary sequencer. For both sequencing reactions, approximately 15 μL of PCR template was used along with 2 μM sequencing primers. Sequences were assembled with Sequencher 5.3 (Gene Codes), optimized, and then corrected manually when necessary; the latter step was to ensure that the computer algorithm was assigning proper base calls. Each sequence fragment was subjected to an individual NCBI GenBank, Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) search as well as the BOLDSYSTEMS database to verify identity.

BLAST Search and DNA Barcoding

For identification of kratom plant material via DNA barcoding, one plastid region (matK) was utilized for plant identification by BLAST searching against the BOLDSYSTEMS database version 4. In addition, the sequences of matK were compared against an authentic partial sequence of matK from the Mitragyna speciosa genome assembly (Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), part of the USDA). Uncorrected p-distances were calculated in Geneious, a bioinformatics desktop software package (http://www.biomatters.com), for sequences obtained from the psbA-trnH plastid region, which is considered as one of the most variable regions of angiosperm plants, as well as for the nuclear ITS region for the published sequence data from GenBank for Mitragyna spp. (79−81) including M. speciosa and the newly obtained sequences in this study. The p-distances were obtained by dividing the number of nucleotide differences by the total number of nucleotides being compared. An arbitrary cut-off proxy of ≥98–100% was applied as a criterion to designate similar species; therefore, to be considered the same species based on psbA-trnH and ITS sequence comparison, the taxa being compared would have ≥98% sequence similarity.

Molecular Phylogenetic Analysis

Maximum likelihood analysis was performed separately for both the nuclear ITS and the plastid matK region to place the kratom samples into a phylogenetic framework with published sequences of M. speciosa. Methods for maximum likelihood analysis have been outlined previously. (82)Nauclea officinalis (Rubiaceae) was used as an outgroup taxon in both nuclear ITS and matK analyses.

Extraction and Isolation of Kratom Alkaloids from Green Maeng Da

The kratom plant material (Green Maeng Da, 4 kg; Figure S8) was extracted with 10 L of CHCl3–CH3OH (1:1) and 500 mL of 10% aqueous KOH by maceration over 24 h at room temperature. The mixture was filtered, and the solvent was evaporated under reduced pressure. The dried extract was reconstituted in a solution of 1 M HCl and hexanes (1:1), transferred into a separatory funnel, and shaken vigorously. The hexanes phase was drawn off, the pH of the aqueous phase was adjusted to 9.0 with dropwise addition of concentrated NH4OH, and the alkaloids were extracted as the free base with CHCl3; after washing with neutral water, the organic phase was dried to yield 12 g of the alkaloid extract. This material was fractionated by normal-phase flash chromatography using a silica column (120 g) and a gradient solvent system of hexanes–CHCl3–CH3OH at a flow rate of 85 mL/min over 67 min to yield 11 pooled fractions.
Fraction 4 (500 mg) was subjected to reverse-phase HPLC using a CN column and a gradient system of 40:60 to 100:0 of CH3OH–H2O (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 20 min with a flow rate of 20 mL/min. This process yielded eight subfractions, and fraction 8 was identified as compound 1 (450.5 mg).
Fraction 9 (1.1 g) was fractionated by normal-phase flash chromatography using a silica column (12 g) and a gradient system of hexanes–EtOAc–CH3OH using a flow rate of 30 mL/min to generate four subfractions. Subfraction 2 (40 mg) was purified by preparative HPLC over a CN column using a gradient of 70:30 to 100:0 of CH3OH–H2O (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 20 min with a flow rate of 20 mL/min. This process yielded compounds 4 (13.1 mg) and 6 (15.2 mg). Subfraction 4 (800 mg) was subjected to flash chromatography using a silica column (12 g) via a gradient of CHCl3–CH3OH (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 60 min with a flow rate of 30 mL/min to generate five fractions (F9-4_1 through F9-4_5). Fraction F9-4_3 was subjected to preparative HPLC over a Kinetex column using a gradient of 60:40 to 70:30 of CH3OH–H2O (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 30 min with a flow rate of 20 mL/min; three fractions were collected, and the first fraction was characterized as compound 2 (20.5 mg). Fraction F9-4_4 (300 mg) was subjected to flash chromatography using a silica column (4 g) and a gradient of hexanes–acetone–CH3OH over 20 min at a flow rate of 18 mL/min to generate eight fractions. The second fraction was resolved by preparative HPLC over a CN column using a gradient of 50:50 to 100:0 of CH3OH–H2O (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 20 min with a flow rate of 20 mL/min; this process yielded 16.5 mg of compound 7. The seventh fraction (16 mg) from F9-4_4 was subjected to preparative HPLC using a CN column and a gradient of 40:60 to 90:10 of CH3OH–H2O (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 20 min with a flow rate of 20 mL/min; two fractions were collected, and the first fraction was characterized as compound 11 (2.3 mg). Fraction F9-4_5 (40 mg) was subjected to preparative HPLC over a Kinetex column with a gradient of 50:50 to 100:0 of CH3OH–H2O (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 35 min with a flow rate of 20 mL/min; the third fraction was identified as 8 (10.5 mg).
Fraction 6 (680 mg) was subjected to a second fractionation using flash chromatography over a silica column (12 g) and a gradient of CHCl3–CH3OH (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 60 min with a flow rate of 30 mL/min to generate five subfractions. Subfraction 1 (47 mg) was subjected to preparative HPLC over a CN column and a gradient system of 55:45 to 100:0 CH3OH–H2O (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 25 min; the first and second fractions were identified as 5 (9.8 mg) and 3 (18.3 mg), respectively.
Fraction 8 (1.3 g) was fractionated by flash chromatography using a silica column (12 g) with a gradient of CHCl3–CH3OH (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 25 min with a flow rate of 30 mL/min to generate four subfractions. Subfractions 3 (12.8 mg) and 4 (7.0 mg) were purified by preparative HPLC over a CN column and a gradient system of 50:50 to 100:0 CH3OH–H2O (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 15 min at a flow rate of 20 mL/min to yield compounds 9 (5.7 mg) and 10 (4.5 mg), respectively.

Extraction and Isolation of Kratom Alkaloids from White Jongkong

The plant material (White Jongkong, 1 kg; Figure S9) was extracted exhaustively using the same procedure described above, to obtain 1.0 g of the dried extract. Normal-phase flash chromatography was used to separate the extract using a silica column (24 g) and a gradient system of hexanes–CHCl3–CH3OH over 52 min at a flow rate of 35 mL/min to generate 13 fractions. Fractions 3 (100 mg) and 4 (80 mg) were purified, separately, by preparative HPLC using a PFP column and a gradient of 70:30 to 100:0 CH3OH–H2O (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 20 min at a flow rate of 20 mL/min to yield 38.2 mg of 15 (from fraction 3) and, separately, 52.5 mg of 16 and 3.5 mg of 13 (from fraction 4).
Fraction 5 (81 mg) was subjected to preparative HPLC over a PFP column using a gradient of 70:30 to 100:0 CH3OH–H2O (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 20 min at a flow rate of 20 mL/min to generate nine subfractions, and subfraction 4 was identified as compound 12 (55.0 mg).
Fractions 6 (156 mg) and 7 (84 mg) were combined based upon their similar HPLC chromatographic profiles. The resulting fraction (240 mg) was resolved by flash chromatography over a silica column (12 g) using a gradient of hexanes–CHCl3–CH3OH over 25 min at a flow rate of 18 mL/min to generate 11 subfractions. Subfraction 2 (10.0 mg) was subjected to semipreparative HPLC over a PFP column using a gradient of 50:50 to 100:0 CH3OH–H2O (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 20 min at a flow rate of 4.0 mL/min, yielding 17 (2.0 mg). Subfraction 4 (15 mg) was subjected to preparative HPLC over a PFP column using a gradient of 60:40 to 100:0 CH3OH–H2O (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 20 min at a flow rate of 20.0 mL/min, yielding 14 (3.6 mg). Subfraction 5 (13 mg) was subjected to preparative HPLC over a PFP column using a gradient of 50:50 to 100:0 CH3OH–H2O (10 mM NH4OAc in both phases) over 20 min at a flow rate of 20.0 mL/min to generate four subfractions, where subfractions 2 and 3 were identified as 19 (1.7 mg) and 18 (1.1 mg), respectively.

Epiallo-isopaynantheine (7):

yellowish solid powder; [α]D20 +41 (c 0.1, CHCl3); UV (CH3OH) λmax (log ε) 233 (3.7), 339 (2.9) nm; 1H and 13C NMR see Table 2 and Table S5; HRESIMS m/z 397.2115 [M + H]+ (calcd for C23H29N2O4, 397.2127).

Epiallo-isopaynantheine-N(4)-oxide (11):

orange powder; [α]D23 +33 (c 0.1, CHCl3); UV (CH3OH) λmax (log ε) 219 (3.2), 244 (3.9) nm; 1H and 13C NMR see Table 3 and Table S6; HRESIMS m/z 413.2077 [M + H]+ (calcd for C23H29N2O5, 413.2076).

3-Epirhyncophylline (17):

white powder; [α]D23 −30 (c 0.1, CHCl3); UV (CH3OH) λmax (log ε) 219 (3.3), 244 (3.6) nm; 1H and 13C NMR see Table 5 and Table S8; HRESIMS m/z 385.2119 [M + H]+ (calcd for C22H29N2O4, 385.2127).

3-Epicorynoxine B (18):

white powder; [α]D24 −46 (c 0.1, CHCl3); UV (CH3OH) λmax (log ε) 217 (3.4), 246 (3.7) nm; 1H and 13C NMR see Table 5 and Table S8; HRESIMS m/z 385.2120 [M + H]+ (calcd for C22H29N2O4, 385.2127).

Computational Methods

The minimum energy structures were built with Spartan’10 software (Wavefunction Inc., Irvine, CA, USA). The conformational analysis was performed using the Monte Carlo search protocol under the MMFF94 molecular mechanics force field.
For the ECD prediction, the resulting conformers were minimized using the DFT method at the B3LYP/6-311G+(2d,p) level of theory. Then, the TDDFT method at the B3LYP/6-31G+(d) level of theory was employed for ECD calculations. The calculated excitation energy (nm) and rotatory strength in dipole velocity and dipole length forms were simulated into an ECD curve. All calculations were performed employing the Gaussian’09 program package (Gaussian Inc., Wallingford, CT, USA).

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.0c00257.

  • 1H NMR, 13C NMR, and HRESIMS data for compounds 119; 2D NMR data (COSY, HSQC, and HMBC) for new compounds 7, 11, 17, and 18; ECD data for compounds 114 and 1619 (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Laura Flores-Bocanegra - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United StatesOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-1393-7834
    • Huzefa A. Raja - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United StatesOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-0824-9463
    • Tyler N. Graf - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United StatesOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-4145-2815
    • Mario Augustinović - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United States
    • E. Diane Wallace - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United States
    • Shabnam Hematian - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United StatesOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-0788-7615
    • Joshua J. Kellogg - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United StatesOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8685-0353
    • Daniel A. Todd - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United States
    • Nadja B. Cech - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United StatesOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6773-746X
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This project was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health via the Center of Excellence for Natural Product Drug Interaction Research (NaPDI Center, U54 AT008909), including an Administrative Supplement for Validation Studies of Analytical Methods for Dietary Supplements and Natural Products. We thank our colleagues from UNC Greensboro (S. Knowles, Z. Al Subeh, and K. Cank) for evaluating the NMR decision tree.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 82 other publications.

  1. 1
    Field, E. J. Chem. Soc., Trans. 1921, 119, 887891,  DOI: 10.1039/CT9211900887
  2. 2
    Vermaire, D. J.; Skaer, D.; Tippets, W. A. A. Pract. 2019, 12, 103105,  DOI: 10.1213/XAA.0000000000000857
  3. 3
    Schmuhl, K. K.; Gardner, S. M.; Cottrill, C. B.; Bonny, A. E. Subst. Abus. 2019, 14,  DOI: 10.1080/08897077.2019.1671945
  4. 4
    Coe, M. A.; Pillitteri, J. L.; Sembower, M. A.; Gerlach, K. K.; Henningfield, J. E. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019, 202, 2432,  DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.05.005
  5. 5
    Buresh, M. J. Addict. Med. 2018, 12, 481483,  DOI: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000428
  6. 6
    Corkery, J. M.; Streete, P.; Claridge, H.; Goodair, C.; Papanti, D.; Orsolini, L.; Schifano, F.; Sikka, K.; Korber, S.; Hendricks, A. J. Psychopharmacol. 2019, 33, 11021123,  DOI: 10.1177/0269881119862530
  7. 7
    Murthy, P.; Clark, D. Paediatr. Child. Health. 2019, 24, 1214,  DOI: 10.1093/pch/pxy084
  8. 8
    Mackay, L.; Abrahams, R. Can. Fam. Physician 2018, 64, 121122
  9. 9
    Cumpston, K. L.; Carter, M.; Wills, B. K. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 36, 166168,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.07.051
  10. 10
    Castillo, A.; Payne, J. D.; Nugent, K. Proc. (Bayl. Univ. Med. Cent.) 2017, 30, 355357,  DOI: 10.1080/08998280.2017.11929647
  11. 11
    Galbis-Reig, D. Wmj. 2016, 115, 4952
  12. 12
    Karinen, R.; Fosen, J. T.; Rogde, S.; Vindenes, V. Forensic Sci. Int. 2014, 245, e29-e32  DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.10.025
  13. 13
    Forrester, M. B. J. Addict. Dis. 2013, 32, 396400,  DOI: 10.1080/10550887.2013.854153
  14. 14
    Holler, J. M.; Vorce, S. P.; McDonough-Bender, P. C.; Magluilo, J., Jr.; Solomon, C. J.; Levine, B. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2011, 35, 549,  DOI: 10.1093/anatox/35.1.54
  15. 15
    McWhirter, L.; Morris, S. Eur. Addict. Res. 2010, 16, 22931,  DOI: 10.1159/000320288
  16. 16
    The New York Times. April 17, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/kratom-overdose-deaths.html (accessed October 25, 2019).
  17. 17
    U.S. Food & Drug Administration. February 21, 2018 https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-oversees-destruction-and-recall-kratom-products-and-reiterates-its-concerns-risks-associated (accessed October 25, 2019).
  18. 18
    United States Drug Enforcement Administration. August 30, 2016. https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2016/08/30/dea-announces-intent-schedule-kratom (accessed October 25, 2019).
  19. 20
    Johnson, E. J.; González-Peréz, V.; Tian, D.-D.; Lin, Y. S.; Unadkat, J. D.; Rettie, A. E.; Shen, D. D.; McCune, J. S.; Paine, M. F. Drug Metab. Dispos. 2018, 46, 10461052,  DOI: 10.1124/dmd.118.081273
  20. 21
    Tian, D.-D.; Kellogg, J. J.; Okut, N.; Oberlies, N. H.; Cech, N. B.; Shen, D. D.; McCune, J. S.; Paine, M. F. Drug Metab. Dispos. 2018, 46, 552,  DOI: 10.1124/dmd.117.079491
  21. 22
    Gufford, B. T.; Chen, G.; Lazarus, P.; Graf, T. N.; Oberlies, N. H.; Paine, M. F. Drug Metab. Dispos. 2014, 42, 16751683,  DOI: 10.1124/dmd.114.059451
  22. 23
    Kellogg, J. J.; Paine, M. F.; McCune, J. S.; Oberlies, N. H.; Cech, N. B. Nat. Prod. Rep. 2019, 36, 11961221,  DOI: 10.1039/C8NP00065D
  23. 24
    Brantley, S. J.; Gufford, B. T.; Dua, R.; Fediuk, D. J.; Graf, T. N.; Scarlett, Y. V.; Frederick, K. S.; Fisher, M. B.; Oberlies, N. H.; Paine, M. F. CPT: Pharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol. 2014, 3, 107,  DOI: 10.1038/psp.2013.69
  24. 25
    Beckett, A. H.; Shellard, E. J.; Tackie, A. N. Planta Med. 1965, 13, 241246,  DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1100118
  25. 26
    Beckett, A.; Shellard, E.; Phillipson, J.; Lee, C. M. Planta Med. 1966, 14, 277288,  DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1100055
  26. 27
    Zacharias, D.; Rosenstein, R.; Jeffrey, G. Acta Crystallogr. 1965, 18, 10391043,  DOI: 10.1107/S0365110X65002499
  27. 28
    Beckett, A. H.; Shellard, E. J.; Phillipson, J. D.; Lee, C. M. Planta Med. 1966, 14, 277288,  DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1100055
  28. 29
    Shellard, E.; Houghton, P.; Resha, M. Planta Med. 1978, 34, 253263,  DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1097448
  29. 30
    Takayama, H.; Ishikawa, H.; Kurihara, M.; Kitajima, M.; Aimi, N.; Ponglux, D.; Koyama, F.; Matsumoto, K.; Moriyama, T.; Yamamoto, L. T.; Watanabe, K.; Murayama, T.; Horie, S. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 19491956,  DOI: 10.1021/jm010576e
  30. 31
    Takayama, H. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 2004, 52, 916928,  DOI: 10.1248/cpb.52.916
  31. 32
    Takayama, H.; Kitajima, M.; Kogure, N. Curr. Org. Chem. 2005, 9, 14451464,  DOI: 10.2174/138527205774370559
  32. 33
    Marston, A.; Hostettmann, K. Nat. Prod. Rep. 1991, 8, 391413,  DOI: 10.1039/np9910800391
  33. 34
    Stead, P. Isolation by Preparative HPLC. In Natural Products Isolation; Cannell, R. J. P., Ed.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, 1998; pp 165208.
  34. 35
    Betz, J. M.; Brown, P. N.; Roman, M. C. Fitoterapia 2011, 82, 4452,  DOI: 10.1016/j.fitote.2010.09.011
  35. 36
    Li, S.; Yuan, W.; Deng, G.; Wang, P.; Yang, P.; Aggarwal, B. Pharm. Crops 2011, 2, 2854,  DOI: 10.2174/2210290601102010028
  36. 37
    Napolitano, J. G.; Lankin, D. C.; Chen, S. N.; Pauli, G. F. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2012, 50, 569575,  DOI: 10.1002/mrc.3829
  37. 38
    Niemitz, M.; Laatikainen, R.; Chen, S. N.; Kleps, R.; Kozikowski, A. P.; Pauli, G. F. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2007, 45, 878882,  DOI: 10.1002/mrc.2061
  38. 39
    Seebacher, W.; Simic, N.; Weis, R.; Saf, R.; Kunert, O. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2003, 41, 636638,  DOI: 10.1002/mrc.1214
  39. 40
    Sy-Cordero, A. A.; Pearce, C. J.; Oberlies, N. H. J. Antibiot. 2012, 65, 5419,  DOI: 10.1038/ja.2012.71
  40. 41
    Kao, D.; Flores-Bocanegra, L.; Raja, H. A.; Darveaux, B. A.; Pearce, C. J.; Oberlies, N. H. Phytochemistry 2020, 172, 112238,  DOI: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2019.112238
  41. 42
    https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-and-kratom (accessed January 20, 2020).
  42. 43
    Hollingsworth, M. L.; Andra Clark, A.; Forrest, L. L.; Richardson, J.; Pennington, R. T.; Long, D. G.; Cowan, R.; Chase, M. W.; Gaudeul, M.; Hollingsworth, P. M. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2009, 9, 439457,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02439.x
  43. 44
    Kress, W. J.; Wurdack, K. J.; Zimmer, E. A.; Weigt, L. A.; Janzen, D. H. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2005, 102, 83698374,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0503123102
  44. 45
    Kress, W. J.; Erickson, D. L. PLoS One 2007, 2, e508  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000508
  45. 46
    Li, X.; Yang, Y.; Henry, R. J.; Rossetto, M.; Wang, Y.; Chen, S. Biol. Rev. 2015, 90, 157166,  DOI: 10.1111/brv.12104
  46. 47
    Ebihara, A.; Nitta, J. H.; Ito, M. PLoS One 2010, 5, e15136  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015136
  47. 48
    Brown, P. N.; Lund, J. A.; Murch, S. J. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2017, 202, 302325,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2017.03.020
  48. 49
    Raffa, R. B. Kratom and Other Mitragynines: The Chemistry and Pharmacology of Opioids from a Non-opium Source; CRC Press, 2014.
  49. 50
    Takayama, H.; Kurihara, M.; Kitajima, M.; Said, I. M.; Aimi, N. Tetrahedron 1998, 54, 84338440,  DOI: 10.1016/S0040-4020(98)00464-5
  50. 51
    León, F.; Habib, E.; Adkins, J. E.; Furr, E. B.; McCurdy, C. R.; Cutler, S. J. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2009, 4, 907910,  DOI: 10.1177/1934578X0900400705
  51. 52
    Beckett, A.; Shellard, E.; Phillipson, J.; Lee, C. M. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 1965, 17, 753755,  DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-7158.1965.tb07599.x
  52. 53
    Shellard, E. J.; Hougton, P. J.; Resha, M. Planta Med. 1978, 33, 223227,  DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1097379
  53. 54
    Cao, X.-F.; Wang, J.-S.; Wang, X.-B.; Luo, J.; Wang, H.-Y.; Kong, L.-Y. Phytochemistry 2013, 96, 389396,  DOI: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2013.10.002
  54. 55
    Beckett, A. H.; Lee, C. M.; Tackie, A. N. Tetrahedron Lett. 1963, 4, 17091714,  DOI: 10.1016/S0040-4039(01)90899-8
  55. 56
    Hemingway, S. R.; Houghton, P. J.; Phillipson, J. D.; Shellard, E. J. Phytochemistry 1975, 14, 557563,  DOI: 10.1016/0031-9422(75)85128-4
  56. 57
    Ali, Z.; Demiray, H.; Khan, I. A. Tetrahedron Lett. 2014, 55, 369372,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tetlet.2013.11.031
  57. 58
    Cu, N. Bull. Soc. Chim. Fr. 1957, 12921294
  58. 59
    Shellard, E. Planta Med. 1978, 34, 2636,  DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1097410
  59. 60
    Kitajima, M.; Misawa, K.; Kogure, N.; Said, I. M.; Horie, S.; Hatori, Y.; Murayama, T.; Takayama, H. J. Nat. Med. 2006, 60, 2835,  DOI: 10.1007/s11418-005-0001-7
  60. 61
    Lee, C. M.; Trager, W. F.; Beckett, A. H. Tetrahedron 1967, 23, 375385,  DOI: 10.1016/S0040-4020(01)83323-8
  61. 62
    1H NMR Properties of Piperidine Derivatives. In Studies in Organic Chemistry; Rubiralta, M.; Giralt, E.; Diez, A., Eds.; Elsevier, 1991; Vol. 43, pp 3487.
  62. 63
    Alkorta, I.; Elguero, J. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2004, 42, 955961,  DOI: 10.1002/mrc.1460
  63. 64
    Trager, W.; Lee, C. M.; Phillipson, J.; Haddock, R.; Dwuma-Badu, D.; Beckett, A. Tetrahedron 1968, 24, 523543,  DOI: 10.1016/0040-4020(68)88002-0
  64. 65
    Xu, J.; Shao, L.-D.; Li, D.; Deng, X.; Liu, Y.-C.; Zhao, Q.-S.; Xia, C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 1796217965,  DOI: 10.1021/ja5121343
  65. 66
    Berner, M.; Tolvanen, A.; Jokela, R. Acid-catalysed Epimerization of Bioactive Indole Alkaloids and Their Derivatives. In Studies in Natural Products Chemistry; Atta ur Raman, Ed.; Elsevier, 2001; Vol. 25, pp 342.
  66. 67
    Laus, G.; Wurst, K. Helv. Chim. Acta 2003, 86, 181187,  DOI: 10.1002/hlca.200390009
  67. 68
    Wanner, M. J.; Ingemann, S.; van Maarseveen, J. H.; Hiemstra, H. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2013, 2013, 11001106,  DOI: 10.1002/ejoc.201201505
  68. 69
    Reinhardt, J. K.; Klemd, A. M.; Danton, O.; De Mieri, M.; Smieško, M.; Huber, R.; Bürgi, T.; Gründemann, C.; Hamburger, M. J. Nat. Prod. 2019, 82, 14241433,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.8b00791
  69. 70
    Bustos-Brito, C.; Joseph-Nathan, P.; Burgueño-Tapia, E.; Martínez-Otero, D.; Nieto-Camacho, A.; Calzada, F.; Yépez-Mulia, L.; Esquivel, B.; Quijano, L. J. Nat. Prod. 2019, 82, 12071216,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.8b00952
  70. 71
    El-Kashef, D. H.; Daletos, G.; Plenker, M.; Hartmann, R.; Mándi, A.; Kurtán, T.; Weber, H.; Lin, W.; Ancheeva, E.; Proksch, P. J. Nat. Prod. 2019, 82, 24602469,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.9b00125
  71. 72
    Cao, F.; Meng, Z.-H.; Mu, X.; Yue, Y.-F.; Zhu, H.-J. J. Nat. Prod. 2019, 82, 386392,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.8b01030
  72. 73
    Arreaga-González, H. M.; Rodríguez-García, G.; del Río, R. E.; Ferreira-Sereno, J. A.; García-Gutiérrez, H. A.; Cerda-García-Rojas, C. M.; Joseph-Nathan, P.; Gómez-Hurtado, M. A. J. Nat. Prod. 2019, 82, 33943400,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.9b00734
  73. 74
    Raja, H. A.; Baker, T. R.; Little, J. G.; Oberlies, N. H. Food Chem. 2017, 214, 383392,  DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.07.052
  74. 75
    Dunning, L. T.; Savolainen, V. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2010, 164, 19,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01071.x
  75. 76
    Ford, C. S.; Ayres, K. L.; Toomey, N.; Haider, N.; Van Alphen Stahl, J.; Kelly, L. J.; Wikström, N.; Hollingsworth, P. M.; Duff, R. J.; Hoot, S. B. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2009, 159, 111,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2008.00938.x
  76. 77
    Pawar, R. S.; Handy, S. M.; Cheng, R.; Shyong, N.; Grundel, E. Planta Med. 2017, 83, 921936,  DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-107881
  77. 78
    Cheng, T.; Xu, C.; Lei, L.; Li, C.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, S. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2016, 16, 138149,  DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12438
  78. 79
    Löfstrand, S. D.; Krüger, Å.; Razafimandimbison, S. G.; Bremer, B. Syst. Bot. 2014, 39, 304315,  DOI: 10.1600/036364414X678116
  79. 80
    Razafimandimbison, S. G.; Bremer, B. Am. J. Bot. 2002, 89, 10271041,  DOI: 10.3732/ajb.89.7.1027
  80. 81
    Tnah, L.; Lee, S.; Tan, A.; Lee, C.; Ng, K.; Ng, C.; Farhanah, Z. N. Food Control 2019, 95, 318326,  DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.08.022
  81. 82
    Raja, H. A.; Miller, A. N.; Pearce, C. J.; Oberlies, N. H. J. Nat. Prod. 2017, 80, 756770,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.6b01085

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 77 publications.

  1. Xing He, Kangli Liu, Shengnan Yan, Yue Wang, Yuqin Jiang, Xinying Zhang, Xuesen Fan. Synthesis of 1,7-Fused Indolines Tethered with Spiroindolinone Based on C–H Activation Strategy with Air as a Sustainable Oxidant. The Journal of Organic Chemistry 2024, 89 (3) , 1880-1897. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.joc.3c02630
  2. Weiming Hu, Jiali Huang, Gang Gao, Wenting Guo, Fujun Yin, Yang Sun, Jingjiao Huang, Chuanzhou Tao, Li Tao, Huayou Hu. Palladium-Catalyzed Dearomatization of Indoles with Alkynes: Construction of Spirocyclohexaneindolenines. The Journal of Organic Chemistry 2023, 88 (15) , 11335-11345. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.joc.3c01041
  3. Larissa C. Laforest, Michelle A. Kuntz, Siva Rama Raju Kanumuri, Sushobhan Mukhopadhyay, Abhisheak Sharma, Sarah E. O’Connor, Christopher R. McCurdy, Satya Swathi Nadakuduti. Metabolite and Molecular Characterization of Mitragyna speciosa Identifies Developmental and Genotypic Effects on Monoterpene Indole and Oxindole Alkaloid Composition. Journal of Natural Products 2023, 86 (4) , 1042-1052. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.3c00092
  4. Zeinab Y. Al Subeh, Laura Flores-Bocanegra, Huzefa A. Raja, Joanna E. Burdette, Cedric J. Pearce, Nicholas H. Oberlies. Embellicines C-E: Macrocyclic Alkaloids with a Cyclopenta[b]fluorene Ring System from the Fungus Sarocladium sp.. Journal of Natural Products 2023, 86 (3) , 596-603. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.2c01048
  5. Carsten Schotte, Yindi Jiang, Dagny Grzech, Thu-Thuy T. Dang, Larissa C. Laforest, Francisco León, Marco Mottinelli, Satya Swathi Nadakuduti, Christopher R. McCurdy, Sarah E. O’Connor. Directed Biosynthesis of Mitragynine Stereoisomers. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2023, 145 (9) , 4957-4963. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.2c13644
  6. Lingkai Kong, Wenyue Tian, Zhiyan Liu, Ting Xu, Haoyue Wen, Zihan Chen, Jin Gao, Li-Ping Bai. TfOH-Catalyzed Cascade C–H/N–H Chemo-/Regioselective Annulation of Indole-2-carboxamides with Benzoquinones for the Construction of Anticancer Tetracyclic Indolo[2,3-c]quinolinones. The Journal of Organic Chemistry 2022, 87 (12) , 7955-7967. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.joc.2c00598
  7. Beibei Zhang, Xiaoxian Li, Zhenkang Ai, Bingyue Zhao, Zhenyang Yu, Yunfei Du. Chemoselective Synthesis of Sulfenylated Spiroindolenines from Indolyl-ynones via Organosulfenyl Chloride-Mediated Dearomatizing Spirocyclization. Organic Letters 2022, 24 (1) , 390-394. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.orglett.1c04063
  8. Soumen Chakraborty, Rajendra Uprety, Samuel T. Slocum, Takeshi Irie, Valerie Le Rouzic, Xiaohai Li, Lisa L. Wilson, Brittany Scouller, Amy F. Alder, Andrew C. Kruegel, Michael Ansonoff, Andras Varadi, Shainnel O. Eans, Amanda Hunkele, Abdullah Allaoa, Sanjay Kalra, Jin Xu, Ying Xian Pan, John Pintar, Bronwyn M. Kivell, Gavril W. Pasternak, Michael D. Cameron, Jay P. McLaughlin, Dalibor Sames, Susruta Majumdar. Oxidative Metabolism as a Modulator of Kratom’s Biological Actions. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 2021, 64 (22) , 16553-16572. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.1c01111
  9. Soumen Chakraborty, Jeffrey F. DiBerto, Abdelfattah Faouzi, Sarah M. Bernhard, Anna M. Gutridge, Steven Ramsey, Yuchen Zhou, Davide Provasi, Nitin Nuthikattu, Rahul Jilakara, Melissa N. F. Nelson, Wesley B. Asher, Shainnel O. Eans, Lisa L. Wilson, Satyanarayana M. Chintala, Marta Filizola, Richard M. van Rijn, Elyssa B. Margolis, Bryan L. Roth, Jay P. McLaughlin, Tao Che, Dalibor Sames, Jonathan A. Javitch, Susruta Majumdar. A Novel Mitragynine Analog with Low-Efficacy Mu Opioid Receptor Agonism Displays Antinociception with Attenuated Adverse Effects. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 2021, 64 (18) , 13873-13892. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.1c01273
  10. Soumen Chakraborty, Rajendra Uprety, Amal E. Daibani, Valerie L. Rouzic, Amanda Hunkele, Kevin Appourchaux, Shainnel O. Eans, Nitin Nuthikattu, Rahul Jilakara, Lisa Thammavong, Gavril W. Pasternak, Ying-Xian Pan, Jay P. McLaughlin, Tao Che, Susruta Majumdar. Kratom Alkaloids as Probes for Opioid Receptor Function: Pharmacological Characterization of Minor Indole and Oxindole Alkaloids from Kratom. ACS Chemical Neuroscience 2021, 12 (14) , 2661-2678. https://doi.org/10.1021/acschemneuro.1c00149
  11. Nelson Jeng-Yeou Chear, Francisco León, Abhisheak Sharma, Siva Rama Raju Kanumuri, Grant Zwolinski, Khalil A. Abboud, Darshan Singh, Luis F. Restrepo, Avi Patel, Takato Hiranita, Surash Ramanathan, Aidan J. Hampson, Lance R. McMahon, Christopher R. McCurdy. Exploring the Chemistry of Alkaloids from Malaysian Mitragyna speciosa (Kratom) and the Role of Oxindoles on Human Opioid Receptors. Journal of Natural Products 2021, 84 (4) , 1034-1043. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.0c01055
  12. Taslima Begum, Mohd Hafiz Arzmi, Murni Nazira Sarian, Syed Adnan Ali Shah, Syed Najmul Hejaz Azmi, ABM Helal Uddin, Alfi Khatib, Qamar Uddin Ahmed. A review on multi-therapeutic potential of the Mitragyna speciosa (kratom) alkaloids mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine: Experimental evidence and future perspectives. Kuwait Journal of Science 2025, 52 (2) , 100381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjs.2025.100381
  13. Taslima Begum, Mohd Hafiz Arzmi, Alfi Khatib, A.B.M. Helal Uddin, Maryam Aisyah Abdullah, Kamal Rullah, Siti Zaiton Mat So’ad, Nur Fatihah Zulaikha Haspi, Murni Nazira Sarian, Humaira Parveen, Sayeed Mukhtar, Qamar Uddin Ahmed. A review on Mitragyna speciosa (Rubiaceae) as a prominent medicinal plant based on ethnobotany, phytochemistry and pharmacological activities. Natural Product Research 2025, 39 (6) , 1636-1652. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2024.2371564
  14. Niklāvs Ūdris, Rebeka Ločmele, Juris Pelšs, Anastasija Ture, Guna Sakaine, Artis Kinēns, Gints Smits. Enantiopure piperidines via stereoselective Ireland–Claisen rearrangement: entry into corynanthe alkaloids. Organic Chemistry Frontiers 2025, 12 (6) , 1945-1950. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4QO02235A
  15. Kristine L. Witt, Jan van Benthem, Tetyana Kobets, Guosheng Chen, Olaf Kelber, Julie Krzykwa, James T. MacGregor, Nan Mei, Constance A. Mitchell, Ivonne Rietjens, Zehra Sarigol-Kilic, Stephanie L. Smith-Roe, Helga Stopper, Yax Thakkar, Errol Zeiger, Stefan Pfuhler. A proposed screening strategy for evaluating the genotoxicity potential of botanicals and botanical extracts. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2025, 197 , 115277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2025.115277
  16. Danni Chu, Hongkui Wang, Zhiwen Nie, Kang-li Li, Jiaqing Cao, Meijing Yang, Qin Yin, Yang Gu, Yindi Jiang. Collective biosynthesis of plant spirooxindole alkaloids through enzyme discovery and engineering. 2025https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.01.28.635216
  17. Jaewook Hwang, Jonathan Kirshner, Daniel André Ramey Deschênes, Matthew Bailey Richardson, Steven J. Fleck, Jun Guo, Jacob Owen Perley, Mohammadamin Shahsavarani, Jorge Jonathan Oswaldo Garza-Garcia, Alyssa Dawn Seveck, Savannah Sadie Doiron, Zhan Mai, Stephen Nelson Silliphant, Larry Calhoun, Di Gao, Jiazhang Lian, Ghislain Deslongchamps, Victor A. Albert, Yang Qu. Ancient gene clusters initiate monoterpenoid indole alkaloid biosynthesis and C3 stereochemistry inversion. 2025https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.01.07.631695
  18. Ihsanul Arief, Gagus Ketut Sunnardianto, Syahrul Khairi, Wahyu Dita Saputri. The potential of Mitragyna speciosa leaves as a natural source of antioxidants for disease prevention. Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics 2025, 21 (4) https://doi.org/10.1515/jib-2023-0030
  19. Allwin McDonald, Yoko Nakamura, Carsten Schotte, Kin Lau, Ryan Alam, Adriana A. Lopes, C. Robin Buell, Sarah O’Connor. Enzymatic epimerization of monoterpene indole alkaloids in Kratom. 2024https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.12.13.628308
  20. Jiang‐Ning Yu, Yue Wang, Ji‐Chen Yin, Yang Wang. Organoiodine Catalysed Intramolecular C−N Bond Oxidative Coupling for the Synthesis of 3‐Monosubstituted Oxindoles. European Journal of Organic Chemistry 2024, 27 (46) https://doi.org/10.1002/ejoc.202400822
  21. Ana C. Ramos-Valdivia, Carlos M. Cerda-García-Rojas. Biosynthesis of oxindole alkaloids: Recent advances and challenges. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 2024, 82 , 102648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2024.102648
  22. Teni Ernawati, Faris Hermawan, Susi Kusumaningrum. A Review on Isolation, Characterization, Biosynthesis, Synthesis, Modification, Pharmacological Activities and Toxicology of Mitragynine. Gazi University Journal of Science 2024, 37 (4) , 1654-1672. https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.1395354
  23. Suleiman Abubakar Garba, Khozirah Shaari, Mohd Rashidi Abdul Manap, Soo Yee Lee, Isah Abdulazeez, Siti Munirah Mohd Faudzi. Quantitative analysis of selected alkaloids of Mitragyna speciosa using 1 H quantitative nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Magnetic Resonance in Chemistry 2024, 62 (11) , 803-813. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrc.5477
  24. András Dohárszky, Erika Mária Vági, Árpád Könczöl, Alexandra Simon, Erzsébet Várnagy, Miras Muratov, Kristóf István Steiger, Bianka Várnai, Szabolcs Béni, Eszter Riethmüller, Ida Fejős. Kratom Alkaloids: A Blood–Brain Barrier Specific Membrane Permeability Assay-Guided Isolation and Cyclodextrin Complexation Study. Molecules 2024, 29 (22) , 5302. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29225302
  25. Kirsten E. Smith, Leigh V. Panlilio, Abhisheak Sharma, Christopher R. McCurdy, Jeffrey D. Feldman, Sushobhan Mukhopadhyay, Siva Rama Raju Kanumuri, Michelle A. Kuntz, Katherine Hill, David H. Epstein. Time course of kratom effects via ecological momentary assessment, by product type, dose amount, and assayed alkaloid content. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2024, 264 , 112460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.112460
  26. Jegathiswary Ganasan, Thiruventhan Karunakaran, Yathindra Marimuthu, Nurul Najwa Rusmadi, Noor Syarafana Firouz, Janar Jenis, U. Seeta Uthaya Kumar. Chemistry and toxicity of 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OHMG): an updated review on the oxidized derivative of mitragynine. Phytochemistry Reviews 2024, 218 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-024-10029-x
  27. Jorge Jonathan Oswaldo Garza-Garcia, Yang Qu. Chemical, pharmacological properties and biosynthesis of opioid mitragynine in Mitragyna speciosa (kratom). Current Opinion in Plant Biology 2024, 81 , 102600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2024.102600
  28. Christian P. Müller, Yuting Yang, Darshan Singh, Bernd Lenz, Elisabeth Müller. Kratom – vom natürlichen Heilmittel zur Suchtdroge und zurück. Der Nervenarzt 2024, 95 (9) , 824-829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-024-01721-6
  29. Cassidy R. LoParco, Carlton Bone, Carla J. Berg, Matthew E. Rossheim, Noah C. Peeri, Kayla K. Tillett, Dong-Chul Seo. Associations Between Opioid and Kratom Use in the USA: Differences by Race/Ethnicity and Sexual Orientation. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities 2024, 23 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-024-02142-6
  30. Thiruventhan Karunakaran, Jegathiswary Ganasan, Nurul Najwa Rusmadi, Rameshkumar Santhanam, Mohd Nizam Mordi. In-vitro hepatotoxic activity of mitragynine and paynantheine isolated from the leaves of Mitragyna speciosa Korth. (Kratom). Natural Product Research 2024, 17 , 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2024.2375760
  31. Tanyamon Petcharat, Thanasak Sae-leaw, Soottawat Benjakul, Tran Hong Quan, Sylvia Indriani, Yuthana Phimolsiripol, Supatra Karnjanapratum. Extraction of Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) leaf compounds by enzymatic hydrolysis-assisted process: Yield, characteristics and its in vitro cytotoxicity in cell lines. Process Biochemistry 2024, 142 , 212-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2024.04.033
  32. Sanya Sureram, Nopporn Chutiwitoonchai, Tam Pooprasert, Watchara Sangsopha, Suphitcha Limjiasahapong, Narumol Jariyasopit, Yongyut Sirivatanauksorn, Sakda Khoomrung, Chulabhorn Mahidol, Somsak Ruchirawat, Prasat Kittakoop. Discovery of procyanidin condensed tannins of (−)-epicatechin from Kratom, Mitragyna speciosa, as virucidal agents against SARS-CoV-2. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2024, 273 , 133059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.133059
  33. Jack E. Henningfield, Oliver Grundmann, Marilyn A. Huestis, Kirsten E. Smith. Kratom safety and toxicology in the public health context: research needs to better inform regulation. Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024, 15 https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1403140
  34. Punlop Kuntiyong, Artid Buaphan, Jitnapa Sirirak, Sasipa Booranamonthol, Phongsathon Khlongkhlaeo, Kittisak Thammapichai, Sucharat Sanongkiet. Synthesis of Spiro[isoxazolidino[4,5-f]indolizidine-8,3′-oxindole], Spiro[indolizidine-1,3′-oxindoles], Indolo[2,3-a]quinolizidines and their anti-α-glucosidase activity. Tetrahedron 2024, 155 , 133907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tet.2024.133907
  35. Ferydoon Khamooshi, Ayobami Sunday Akinnawo, Samaneh Doraji-Bonjar, Ali Reza Modarresi-Alam. Mitragynine Chemistry: Extraction, Synthesis, and Clinical Effects. Chemistry Africa 2024, 34 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42250-024-00921-6
  36. Kirsten E. Smith, Jeffrey M. Rogers, Abhisheak Sharma, Christopher R. McCurdy, Stephanie T. Weiss, Kelly E. Dunn, Jeffrey D. Feldman, Michelle A. Kuntz, Sushobhan Mukhopadhyay, Kanumuri Siva Rama Raju, Richard C. Taylor, David H. Epstein. Responses to a “Typical” Morning Dose of Kratom in People Who Use Kratom Regularly: A Direct-Observation Study. Journal of Addiction Medicine 2024, 18 (2) , 144-152. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000001259
  37. Christopher R. McCurdy, Abhisheak Sharma, Kirsten E. Smith, Charles A. Veltri, Stephanie T. Weiss, Charles M. White, Oliver Grundmann. An update on the clinical pharmacology of kratom: uses, abuse potential, and future considerations. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology 2024, 17 (2) , 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512433.2024.2305798
  38. Moriel J Dror, Joshua Misa, Danielle A Yee, Angela M Chu, Rachel K Yu, Bradley B Chan, Lauren S Aoyama, Anjali P Chaparala, Sarah E O'Connor, Yi Tang. Engineered biosynthesis of plant heteroyohimbine and corynantheine alkaloids in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology 2024, 51 https://doi.org/10.1093/jimb/kuad047
  39. Yuting Yang, Christian P. Müller, Darshan Singh. Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) Use and Mental Health: A Systematic Review and Multilevel Meta-Analysis. European Addiction Research 2024, 30 (4) , 252-274. https://doi.org/10.1159/000539338
  40. Anwar Salm Kalifa Kafo, Hasni Mahayidin, Nur Fatin Zalikha Zailan, Uswatun Hasanah Zaidan, Sharifah Nurfadhlin Afifah Syed Azhar, Rajesh Ramasamy, Masriana Hassan. Isolation of Phytochemical and Pharmacological Bioactive Compounds From Mitragyna speciosa (Korth.): A Scoping Review. Malaysian Journal of Medicine and Health Sciences 2023, 19 (s16) , 38-47. https://doi.org/10.47836/mjmhs.19.s16.7
  41. Rahni Hossain, Abida Sultana, Manit Nuinoon, Kunwadee Noonong, Jitbanjong Tangpong, Kazi Helal Hossain, Md Atiar Rahman. A Critical Review of the Neuropharmacological Effects of Kratom: An Insight from the Functional Array of Identified Natural Compounds. Molecules 2023, 28 (21) , 7372. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28217372
  42. Kyunghee Kim, Mohammadamin Shahsavarani, Jorge Jonathan Oswaldo Garza‐García, Jack Edward Carlisle, Jun Guo, Vincenzo De Luca, Yang Qu. Biosynthesis of kratom opioids. New Phytologist 2023, 240 (2) , 757-769. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.19162
  43. Zurina Hassan, Darshan Singh, Farah Wahida Suhaimi, Nelson Jeng-Yeou Chear, Norsyifa Harun, Cheah Pike See, Gurjeet Kaur, Noorul Hamizah Mat, Siti Najmi Syuhadaa Bakar, Nur Sabrina Mohd Yusof, Vicknasingam Balasingam Kasinather, Marek C. Chawarski, Vikneswaran Murugaiyah, Surash Ramanathan. Evaluation of toxicity profile of kratom (Mitragyna speciosa Korth) decoction in rats. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2023, 143 , 105466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2023.105466
  44. Cinzia Citti, Aldo Laganà, Anna Laura Capriotti, Carmela Maria Montone, Giuseppe Cannazza. Kratom: The analytical challenge of an emerging herbal drug. Journal of Chromatography A 2023, 1703 , 464094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2023.464094
  45. Rakshit S. Tanna, Nadja B. Cech, Nicholas H. Oberlies, Allan E. Rettie, Kenneth E. Thummel, Mary F. Paine. Translating Kratom-Drug Interactions: From Bedside to Bench and Back. Drug Metabolism and Disposition 2023, 51 (8) , 923-935. https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.122.001005
  46. Guido Huisman, Maximilian Menke, Oliver Grundmann, Rudy Schreiber, Natasha Mason. Examining the Psychoactive Differences between Kratom Strains. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2023, 20 (14) , 6425. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20146425
  47. Rakshit S. Tanna, James T. Nguyen, Deena L. Hadi, Matthew E. Layton, John R. White, Nadja B. Cech, Nicholas H. Oberlies, Allan E. Rettie, Kenneth E. Thummel, Mary F. Paine. Clinical Assessment of the Drug Interaction Potential of the Psychotropic Natural Product Kratom. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2023, 113 (6) , 1315-1325. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.2891
  48. Sushobhan Mukhopadhyay, Sampa Gupta, Jenny L. Wilkerson, Abhisheak Sharma, Lance R. McMahon, Christopher R. McCurdy. Receptor Selectivity and Therapeutic Potential of Kratom in Substance Use Disorders. Current Addiction Reports 2023, 10 (2) , 304-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-023-00472-9
  49. Pengpeng Zhang, Wei Wei, Xiaohai Zhang, Chaoling Wen, Chitchamai Ovatlarnporn, Opeyemi Joshua Olatunji. Antidiabetic and antioxidant activities of Mitragyna speciosa (kratom) leaf extract in type 2 diabetic rats. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 2023, 162 , 114689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2023.114689
  50. Kristina Jenett-Siems. Mitragyna speciosa Korth., der Kratombaum. Zeitschrift für Phytotherapie 2023, 44 (03) , 139-143. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1994-9127
  51. Angéline Kernalléguen, Nicolas Fabresse, Isabelle Etting, Islam Amine Larabi, Jean-Claude Alvarez, Anne-Laure Pélissier-Alicot. Identification et dosage de la mitragynine dans les cheveux : à propos d’un cas d’un consommateur régulier de substances psychotropes achetées sur le dark web. Toxicologie Analytique et Clinique 2023, 35 (2) , 160-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxac.2022.11.004
  52. Rubashiny Veeramohan, Arief Izzairy Zamani, Kamalrul Azlan Azizan, Hoe-Han Goh, Wan Mohd Aizat, Mohd Fauzi Abd Razak, Nur Sabrina Mohd Yusof, Sharif Mahsufi Mansor, Syarul Nataqain Baharum, Chyan Leong Ng, . Comparative metabolomics analysis reveals alkaloid repertoires in young and mature Mitragyna speciosa (Korth.) Havil. Leaves. PLOS ONE 2023, 18 (3) , e0283147. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283147
  53. Nelson Jeng-Yeou Chear, Tan Ai Fein Ching-Ga, Kooi-Yeong Khaw, Francisco León, Wen-Nee Tan, Siti R. Yusof, Christopher R. McCurdy, Vikneswaran Murugaiyah, Surash Ramanathan. Natural Corynanthe-Type Cholinesterase Inhibitors from Malaysian Uncaria attenuata Korth.: Isolation, Characterization, In Vitro and In Silico Studies. Metabolites 2023, 13 (3) , 390. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo13030390
  54. Thanachon Somnarin, Pacharaporn Krawmanee, Matthew Paul Gleeson, Duangkamol Gleeson. Computational investigation of the radical‐mediated mechanism of formation of difluoro methyl oxindoles: Elucidation of the reaction selectivity and yields. Journal of Computational Chemistry 2023, 44 (5) , 670-676. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.27031
  55. Tuan-Anh M. Nguyen, Dagny Grzech, Khoa Chung, Zhicheng Xia, Trinh-Don Nguyen, Thu-Thuy T. Dang. Discovery of a cytochrome P450 enzyme catalyzing the formation of spirooxindole alkaloid scaffold. Frontiers in Plant Science 2023, 14 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1125158
  56. Melissa Hughs, Erik Kish-Trier, Aidin O’Brien, Gwendolyn A McMillin. Analysis of Mitragynine and Speciociliatine in Umbilical Cord by LC–MS-MS for Detecting Prenatal Exposure to Kratom. Journal of Analytical Toxicology 2023, 46 (9) , 957-964. https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkac064
  57. David Love, Nicole S. Jones. Interpol Review of Drug Analysis 2019-2022. Forensic Science International: Synergy 2023, 6 , 100299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100299
  58. Maxsaya Baez Nunez, Annika Dhingra, Myra Dhingra, Rachael Kossack, Monica Dhingra. Kratom's rising role in the potential exacerbation of mental health disorders: A case report and review of the literature. Psychiatry Research Case Reports 2022, 1 (2) , 100069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psycr.2022.100069
  59. Blake Costine, Mengzi Zhang, Shweta Chhajed, Brian Pearson, Sixue Chen, Satya Swathi Nadakuduti. Exploring native Scutellaria species provides insight into differential accumulation of flavones with medicinal properties. Scientific Reports 2022, 12 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17586-1
  60. Syed Muhammad Umer, Mehwish Solangi, Khalid Mohammed Khan, Rahman Shah Zaib Saleem. Indole-Containing Natural Products 2019–2022: Isolations, Reappraisals, Syntheses, and Biological Activities. Molecules 2022, 27 (21) , 7586. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27217586
  61. Wirulda Pootakham, Thippawan Yoocha, Nukoon Jomchai, Wasitthee Kongkachana, Chaiwat Naktang, Chutima Sonthirod, Srimek Chowpongpang, Panyavut Aumpuchin, Sithichoke Tangphatsornruang. A Chromosome-Scale Genome Assembly of Mitragyna speciosa (Kratom) and the Assessment of Its Genetic Diversity in Thailand. Biology 2022, 11 (10) , 1492. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11101492
  62. David A. Gorelick. Kratom: Substance of Abuse or Therapeutic Plant?. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 2022, 45 (3) , 415-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2022.04.002
  63. Preston K. Manwill, Laura Flores-Bocanegra, Manead Khin, Huzefa A. Raja, Nadja B. Cech, Nicholas H. Oberlies, Daniel A. Todd. Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) Validation: Quantitative Analysis of Indole and Oxindole Alkaloids Reveals Chemotypes of Plants and Products. Planta Medica 2022, 88 (09/10) , 838-857. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1795-5876
  64. Weerasak Songoen, Lothar Brecker, Thitaree Yooboon, Vasakorn Bullangpoti, Wanchai Pluempanupat, Johann Schinnerl. Ursane-type triterpenoids, steroids and phenolics from the stem bark and leaves of Nauclea orientalis (L.) L. (Rubiaceae). Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 2022, 102 , 104401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bse.2022.104401
  65. Neni Isnaeni, Asep Saefumillah, Antonius Herry Cahyana. Preliminary Study of Isolation and Purification Mitragynine from Kratom Leaves. Materials Science Forum 2022, 1061 , 173-179. https://doi.org/10.4028/p-74ggl5
  66. Mengzi Zhang, Abhisheak Sharma, Francisco León, Bonnie Avery, Roger Kjelgren, Christopher R. McCurdy, Brian J. Pearson, . Plant growth and phytoactive alkaloid synthesis in kratom [Mitragyna speciosa (Korth.)] in response to varying radiance. PLOS ONE 2022, 17 (4) , e0259326. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259326
  67. Lin Chen, Shizao Fei, Opeyemi Joshua Olatunji. LC/ESI/TOF-MS Characterization, Anxiolytic and Antidepressant-like Effects of Mitragyna speciosa Korth Extract in Diabetic Rats. Molecules 2022, 27 (7) , 2208. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27072208
  68. Bianka Várnai, Ferenc Zsila, Zoltán Szakács, Zsófia Garádi, Milo Malanga, Szabolcs Béni. Sulfobutylation of Beta-Cyclodextrin Enhances the Complex Formation with Mitragynine: An NMR and Chiroptical Study. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2022, 23 (7) , 3844. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23073844
  69. Rakshit S. Tanna, James T. Nguyen, Deena L. Hadi, Preston K. Manwill, Laura Flores-Bocanegra, Matthew E. Layton, John R. White, Nadja B. Cech, Nicholas H. Oberlies, Allan E. Rettie, Kenneth E. Thummel, Mary F. Paine. Clinical Pharmacokinetic Assessment of Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa), a Botanical Product with Opioid-like Effects, in Healthy Adult Participants. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14 (3) , 620. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14030620
  70. Thiruventhan Karunakaran, Kok Zhuo Ngew, Ahmad Alif Danial Zailan, Vivien Yi Mian Jong, Mohamad Hafizi Abu Bakar. The Chemical and Pharmacological Properties of Mitragynine and Its Diastereomers: An Insight Review. Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022, 13 https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.805986
  71. Fanpeng Yang, Yina Hu, Lu Wang, Miaomiao Wu, Xiaowen Yuan, Zhigang Liu, Xiuhuan Li, Zhengshen Wang, Huaiji Zheng. Palladium‐Catalyzed Coupling Reaction of o ‐Alkenyl Chloroformylaniline with o ‐Alkynylaniline: An Approach to Indolylmethyl Oxindole. Asian Journal of Organic Chemistry 2022, 11 (2) https://doi.org/10.1002/ajoc.202100750
  72. Sarah Kerrigan, Stephanie Basiliere. Kratom: A systematic review of toxicological issues. WIREs Forensic Science 2022, 4 (1) https://doi.org/10.1002/wfs2.1420
  73. Gregory Domnic, Nelson Jeng-Yeou Chear, Siti Fairus Abdul Rahman, Surash Ramanathan, Kwok-Wai Lo, Darshan Singh, Nethia Mohana-Kumaran. Combinations of indole based alkaloids from Mitragyna speciosa (Kratom) and cisplatin inhibit cell proliferation and migration of nasopharyngeal carcinoma cell lines. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 2021, 279 , 114391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2021.114391
  74. Thenmoly Damodaran, Nelson Jeng-Yeou Chear, Vikneswaran Murugaiyah, Mohd Nizam Mordi, Surash Ramanathan. Comparative Toxicity Assessment of Kratom Decoction, Mitragynine and Speciociliatine Versus Morphine on Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Embryos. Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021, 12 https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.714918
  75. Qianting Zhou, Xia Song, Xinying Zhang, Xuesen Fan. Synthesis of 3-spirooxindole 3 H -indoles through Rh( iii )-catalyzed [4 + 1] redox-neutral spirocyclization of N -aryl amidines with diazo oxindoles. Organic Chemistry Frontiers 2021, 8 (15) , 4131-4137. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1QO00551K
  76. Cooper S. Jamieson, Joshua Misa, Yi Tang, John M. Billingsley. Biosynthesis and synthetic biology of psychoactive natural products. Chemical Society Reviews 2021, 50 (12) , 6950-7008. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1CS00065A
  77. Zhen‐Long Yu, Rong Bai, Jun‐Jun Zhou, Hui‐Lian Huang, Wen‐Yu Zhao, Xiao‐Kui Huo, Ya‐Hui Yang, Zhi‐Lin Luan, Bao‐Jing Zhang, Cheng‐Peng Sun, Xiao‐Chi Ma. Uncarialins J—M from Uncaria rhynchophylla and Their Anti‐depression Mechanism in Unpredictable Chronic Mild Stress‐Induced Mice via Activating 5‐HT 1A Receptor. Chinese Journal of Chemistry 2021, 39 (5) , 1331-1343. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjoc.202000652
  78. Alessandro E. Vento, Simone de Persis, Sergio De Filippis, Fabrizio Schifano, Flavia Napoletano, John M. Corkery, Georgios D. Kotzalidis. Case Report: Treatment of Kratom Use Disorder With a Classical Tricyclic Antidepressant. Frontiers in Psychiatry 2021, 12 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.640218
  79. Rakshit S. Tanna, Dan-Dan Tian, Nadja B. Cech, Nicholas H. Oberlies, Allan E. Rettie, Kenneth E. Thummel, Mary F. Paine. Refined Prediction of Pharmacokinetic Kratom-Drug Interactions: Time-Dependent Inhibition Considerations. The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 2021, 376 (1) , 64-73. https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.120.000270
  80. D. A. Todd, J. J. Kellogg, E. D. Wallace, M. Khin, L. Flores-Bocanegra, R. S. Tanna, S. McIntosh, H. A. Raja, T. N. Graf, S. E. Hemby, M. F. Paine, N. H. Oberlies, N. B. Cech. Chemical composition and biological effects of kratom (Mitragyna speciosa): In vitro studies with implications for efficacy and drug interactions. Scientific Reports 2020, 10 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76119-w

Journal of Natural Products

Cite this: J. Nat. Prod. 2020, 83, 7, 2165–2177
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.0c00257
Published June 29, 2020

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society and American Society of Pharmacognosy. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

37k

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Decision tree for differentiating among 119 based on key NMR signals. As a single starting point, the 13C NMR signal for the lactam moiety is used to distinguish between oxindole (present) and indole (absent) kratom alkaloids. Once the broad structural class is determined, 1H NMR data can be used via a flowchart as a guide to elucidate the structure of these alkaloids.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Key correlations observed in the COSY and HMBC spectra for compounds 7, 17, and 18. The latter two have the same 2D structure and thus the same correlations.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Experimental ECD spectrum of 7 in CH3OH at 0.2 mg/mL (dashed line) and calculated ECD spectrum of (3R,15S,20S)-7 (dotted line).

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. (A) Experimental ECD spectra of 17 in CH3OH at 0.2 mg/mL (dashed lines) and calculated ECD spectrum of (3R,7R,15S,20R)-17 (dotted lines). (B) Experimental ECD spectra of 18 in CH3OH at 0.2 mg/mL (dashed lines) and calculated ECD spectrum of (3R,7R,15S,20S)-18 (dotted lines).

  • References


    This article references 82 other publications.

    1. 1
      Field, E. J. Chem. Soc., Trans. 1921, 119, 887891,  DOI: 10.1039/CT9211900887
    2. 2
      Vermaire, D. J.; Skaer, D.; Tippets, W. A. A. Pract. 2019, 12, 103105,  DOI: 10.1213/XAA.0000000000000857
    3. 3
      Schmuhl, K. K.; Gardner, S. M.; Cottrill, C. B.; Bonny, A. E. Subst. Abus. 2019, 14,  DOI: 10.1080/08897077.2019.1671945
    4. 4
      Coe, M. A.; Pillitteri, J. L.; Sembower, M. A.; Gerlach, K. K.; Henningfield, J. E. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019, 202, 2432,  DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.05.005
    5. 5
      Buresh, M. J. Addict. Med. 2018, 12, 481483,  DOI: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000428
    6. 6
      Corkery, J. M.; Streete, P.; Claridge, H.; Goodair, C.; Papanti, D.; Orsolini, L.; Schifano, F.; Sikka, K.; Korber, S.; Hendricks, A. J. Psychopharmacol. 2019, 33, 11021123,  DOI: 10.1177/0269881119862530
    7. 7
      Murthy, P.; Clark, D. Paediatr. Child. Health. 2019, 24, 1214,  DOI: 10.1093/pch/pxy084
    8. 8
      Mackay, L.; Abrahams, R. Can. Fam. Physician 2018, 64, 121122
    9. 9
      Cumpston, K. L.; Carter, M.; Wills, B. K. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 36, 166168,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.07.051
    10. 10
      Castillo, A.; Payne, J. D.; Nugent, K. Proc. (Bayl. Univ. Med. Cent.) 2017, 30, 355357,  DOI: 10.1080/08998280.2017.11929647
    11. 11
      Galbis-Reig, D. Wmj. 2016, 115, 4952
    12. 12
      Karinen, R.; Fosen, J. T.; Rogde, S.; Vindenes, V. Forensic Sci. Int. 2014, 245, e29-e32  DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.10.025
    13. 13
      Forrester, M. B. J. Addict. Dis. 2013, 32, 396400,  DOI: 10.1080/10550887.2013.854153
    14. 14
      Holler, J. M.; Vorce, S. P.; McDonough-Bender, P. C.; Magluilo, J., Jr.; Solomon, C. J.; Levine, B. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2011, 35, 549,  DOI: 10.1093/anatox/35.1.54
    15. 15
      McWhirter, L.; Morris, S. Eur. Addict. Res. 2010, 16, 22931,  DOI: 10.1159/000320288
    16. 16
      The New York Times. April 17, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/kratom-overdose-deaths.html (accessed October 25, 2019).
    17. 17
      U.S. Food & Drug Administration. February 21, 2018 https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-oversees-destruction-and-recall-kratom-products-and-reiterates-its-concerns-risks-associated (accessed October 25, 2019).
    18. 18
      United States Drug Enforcement Administration. August 30, 2016. https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2016/08/30/dea-announces-intent-schedule-kratom (accessed October 25, 2019).
    19. 19
      Forbes. October 13, 2016. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2016/08/30/dea-to-place-kratom-mitragynine-on-schedule-i-premature-move-may-compromise-research-benefits/#679fe47d2b8f (accessed October 25, 2019).
    20. 20
      Johnson, E. J.; González-Peréz, V.; Tian, D.-D.; Lin, Y. S.; Unadkat, J. D.; Rettie, A. E.; Shen, D. D.; McCune, J. S.; Paine, M. F. Drug Metab. Dispos. 2018, 46, 10461052,  DOI: 10.1124/dmd.118.081273
    21. 21
      Tian, D.-D.; Kellogg, J. J.; Okut, N.; Oberlies, N. H.; Cech, N. B.; Shen, D. D.; McCune, J. S.; Paine, M. F. Drug Metab. Dispos. 2018, 46, 552,  DOI: 10.1124/dmd.117.079491
    22. 22
      Gufford, B. T.; Chen, G.; Lazarus, P.; Graf, T. N.; Oberlies, N. H.; Paine, M. F. Drug Metab. Dispos. 2014, 42, 16751683,  DOI: 10.1124/dmd.114.059451
    23. 23
      Kellogg, J. J.; Paine, M. F.; McCune, J. S.; Oberlies, N. H.; Cech, N. B. Nat. Prod. Rep. 2019, 36, 11961221,  DOI: 10.1039/C8NP00065D
    24. 24
      Brantley, S. J.; Gufford, B. T.; Dua, R.; Fediuk, D. J.; Graf, T. N.; Scarlett, Y. V.; Frederick, K. S.; Fisher, M. B.; Oberlies, N. H.; Paine, M. F. CPT: Pharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol. 2014, 3, 107,  DOI: 10.1038/psp.2013.69
    25. 25
      Beckett, A. H.; Shellard, E. J.; Tackie, A. N. Planta Med. 1965, 13, 241246,  DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1100118
    26. 26
      Beckett, A.; Shellard, E.; Phillipson, J.; Lee, C. M. Planta Med. 1966, 14, 277288,  DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1100055
    27. 27
      Zacharias, D.; Rosenstein, R.; Jeffrey, G. Acta Crystallogr. 1965, 18, 10391043,  DOI: 10.1107/S0365110X65002499
    28. 28
      Beckett, A. H.; Shellard, E. J.; Phillipson, J. D.; Lee, C. M. Planta Med. 1966, 14, 277288,  DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1100055
    29. 29
      Shellard, E.; Houghton, P.; Resha, M. Planta Med. 1978, 34, 253263,  DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1097448
    30. 30
      Takayama, H.; Ishikawa, H.; Kurihara, M.; Kitajima, M.; Aimi, N.; Ponglux, D.; Koyama, F.; Matsumoto, K.; Moriyama, T.; Yamamoto, L. T.; Watanabe, K.; Murayama, T.; Horie, S. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 19491956,  DOI: 10.1021/jm010576e
    31. 31
      Takayama, H. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 2004, 52, 916928,  DOI: 10.1248/cpb.52.916
    32. 32
      Takayama, H.; Kitajima, M.; Kogure, N. Curr. Org. Chem. 2005, 9, 14451464,  DOI: 10.2174/138527205774370559
    33. 33
      Marston, A.; Hostettmann, K. Nat. Prod. Rep. 1991, 8, 391413,  DOI: 10.1039/np9910800391
    34. 34
      Stead, P. Isolation by Preparative HPLC. In Natural Products Isolation; Cannell, R. J. P., Ed.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, 1998; pp 165208.
    35. 35
      Betz, J. M.; Brown, P. N.; Roman, M. C. Fitoterapia 2011, 82, 4452,  DOI: 10.1016/j.fitote.2010.09.011
    36. 36
      Li, S.; Yuan, W.; Deng, G.; Wang, P.; Yang, P.; Aggarwal, B. Pharm. Crops 2011, 2, 2854,  DOI: 10.2174/2210290601102010028
    37. 37
      Napolitano, J. G.; Lankin, D. C.; Chen, S. N.; Pauli, G. F. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2012, 50, 569575,  DOI: 10.1002/mrc.3829
    38. 38
      Niemitz, M.; Laatikainen, R.; Chen, S. N.; Kleps, R.; Kozikowski, A. P.; Pauli, G. F. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2007, 45, 878882,  DOI: 10.1002/mrc.2061
    39. 39
      Seebacher, W.; Simic, N.; Weis, R.; Saf, R.; Kunert, O. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2003, 41, 636638,  DOI: 10.1002/mrc.1214
    40. 40
      Sy-Cordero, A. A.; Pearce, C. J.; Oberlies, N. H. J. Antibiot. 2012, 65, 5419,  DOI: 10.1038/ja.2012.71
    41. 41
      Kao, D.; Flores-Bocanegra, L.; Raja, H. A.; Darveaux, B. A.; Pearce, C. J.; Oberlies, N. H. Phytochemistry 2020, 172, 112238,  DOI: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2019.112238
    42. 42
      https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-and-kratom (accessed January 20, 2020).
    43. 43
      Hollingsworth, M. L.; Andra Clark, A.; Forrest, L. L.; Richardson, J.; Pennington, R. T.; Long, D. G.; Cowan, R.; Chase, M. W.; Gaudeul, M.; Hollingsworth, P. M. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2009, 9, 439457,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02439.x
    44. 44
      Kress, W. J.; Wurdack, K. J.; Zimmer, E. A.; Weigt, L. A.; Janzen, D. H. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2005, 102, 83698374,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0503123102
    45. 45
      Kress, W. J.; Erickson, D. L. PLoS One 2007, 2, e508  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000508
    46. 46
      Li, X.; Yang, Y.; Henry, R. J.; Rossetto, M.; Wang, Y.; Chen, S. Biol. Rev. 2015, 90, 157166,  DOI: 10.1111/brv.12104
    47. 47
      Ebihara, A.; Nitta, J. H.; Ito, M. PLoS One 2010, 5, e15136  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015136
    48. 48
      Brown, P. N.; Lund, J. A.; Murch, S. J. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2017, 202, 302325,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2017.03.020
    49. 49
      Raffa, R. B. Kratom and Other Mitragynines: The Chemistry and Pharmacology of Opioids from a Non-opium Source; CRC Press, 2014.
    50. 50
      Takayama, H.; Kurihara, M.; Kitajima, M.; Said, I. M.; Aimi, N. Tetrahedron 1998, 54, 84338440,  DOI: 10.1016/S0040-4020(98)00464-5
    51. 51
      León, F.; Habib, E.; Adkins, J. E.; Furr, E. B.; McCurdy, C. R.; Cutler, S. J. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2009, 4, 907910,  DOI: 10.1177/1934578X0900400705
    52. 52
      Beckett, A.; Shellard, E.; Phillipson, J.; Lee, C. M. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 1965, 17, 753755,  DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-7158.1965.tb07599.x
    53. 53
      Shellard, E. J.; Hougton, P. J.; Resha, M. Planta Med. 1978, 33, 223227,  DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1097379
    54. 54
      Cao, X.-F.; Wang, J.-S.; Wang, X.-B.; Luo, J.; Wang, H.-Y.; Kong, L.-Y. Phytochemistry 2013, 96, 389396,  DOI: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2013.10.002
    55. 55
      Beckett, A. H.; Lee, C. M.; Tackie, A. N. Tetrahedron Lett. 1963, 4, 17091714,  DOI: 10.1016/S0040-4039(01)90899-8
    56. 56
      Hemingway, S. R.; Houghton, P. J.; Phillipson, J. D.; Shellard, E. J. Phytochemistry 1975, 14, 557563,  DOI: 10.1016/0031-9422(75)85128-4
    57. 57
      Ali, Z.; Demiray, H.; Khan, I. A. Tetrahedron Lett. 2014, 55, 369372,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tetlet.2013.11.031
    58. 58
      Cu, N. Bull. Soc. Chim. Fr. 1957, 12921294
    59. 59
      Shellard, E. Planta Med. 1978, 34, 2636,  DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1097410
    60. 60
      Kitajima, M.; Misawa, K.; Kogure, N.; Said, I. M.; Horie, S.; Hatori, Y.; Murayama, T.; Takayama, H. J. Nat. Med. 2006, 60, 2835,  DOI: 10.1007/s11418-005-0001-7
    61. 61
      Lee, C. M.; Trager, W. F.; Beckett, A. H. Tetrahedron 1967, 23, 375385,  DOI: 10.1016/S0040-4020(01)83323-8
    62. 62
      1H NMR Properties of Piperidine Derivatives. In Studies in Organic Chemistry; Rubiralta, M.; Giralt, E.; Diez, A., Eds.; Elsevier, 1991; Vol. 43, pp 3487.
    63. 63
      Alkorta, I.; Elguero, J. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2004, 42, 955961,  DOI: 10.1002/mrc.1460
    64. 64
      Trager, W.; Lee, C. M.; Phillipson, J.; Haddock, R.; Dwuma-Badu, D.; Beckett, A. Tetrahedron 1968, 24, 523543,  DOI: 10.1016/0040-4020(68)88002-0
    65. 65
      Xu, J.; Shao, L.-D.; Li, D.; Deng, X.; Liu, Y.-C.; Zhao, Q.-S.; Xia, C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 1796217965,  DOI: 10.1021/ja5121343
    66. 66
      Berner, M.; Tolvanen, A.; Jokela, R. Acid-catalysed Epimerization of Bioactive Indole Alkaloids and Their Derivatives. In Studies in Natural Products Chemistry; Atta ur Raman, Ed.; Elsevier, 2001; Vol. 25, pp 342.
    67. 67
      Laus, G.; Wurst, K. Helv. Chim. Acta 2003, 86, 181187,  DOI: 10.1002/hlca.200390009
    68. 68
      Wanner, M. J.; Ingemann, S.; van Maarseveen, J. H.; Hiemstra, H. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2013, 2013, 11001106,  DOI: 10.1002/ejoc.201201505
    69. 69
      Reinhardt, J. K.; Klemd, A. M.; Danton, O.; De Mieri, M.; Smieško, M.; Huber, R.; Bürgi, T.; Gründemann, C.; Hamburger, M. J. Nat. Prod. 2019, 82, 14241433,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.8b00791
    70. 70
      Bustos-Brito, C.; Joseph-Nathan, P.; Burgueño-Tapia, E.; Martínez-Otero, D.; Nieto-Camacho, A.; Calzada, F.; Yépez-Mulia, L.; Esquivel, B.; Quijano, L. J. Nat. Prod. 2019, 82, 12071216,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.8b00952
    71. 71
      El-Kashef, D. H.; Daletos, G.; Plenker, M.; Hartmann, R.; Mándi, A.; Kurtán, T.; Weber, H.; Lin, W.; Ancheeva, E.; Proksch, P. J. Nat. Prod. 2019, 82, 24602469,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.9b00125
    72. 72
      Cao, F.; Meng, Z.-H.; Mu, X.; Yue, Y.-F.; Zhu, H.-J. J. Nat. Prod. 2019, 82, 386392,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.8b01030
    73. 73
      Arreaga-González, H. M.; Rodríguez-García, G.; del Río, R. E.; Ferreira-Sereno, J. A.; García-Gutiérrez, H. A.; Cerda-García-Rojas, C. M.; Joseph-Nathan, P.; Gómez-Hurtado, M. A. J. Nat. Prod. 2019, 82, 33943400,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.9b00734
    74. 74
      Raja, H. A.; Baker, T. R.; Little, J. G.; Oberlies, N. H. Food Chem. 2017, 214, 383392,  DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.07.052
    75. 75
      Dunning, L. T.; Savolainen, V. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2010, 164, 19,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01071.x
    76. 76
      Ford, C. S.; Ayres, K. L.; Toomey, N.; Haider, N.; Van Alphen Stahl, J.; Kelly, L. J.; Wikström, N.; Hollingsworth, P. M.; Duff, R. J.; Hoot, S. B. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2009, 159, 111,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2008.00938.x
    77. 77
      Pawar, R. S.; Handy, S. M.; Cheng, R.; Shyong, N.; Grundel, E. Planta Med. 2017, 83, 921936,  DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-107881
    78. 78
      Cheng, T.; Xu, C.; Lei, L.; Li, C.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, S. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2016, 16, 138149,  DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12438
    79. 79
      Löfstrand, S. D.; Krüger, Å.; Razafimandimbison, S. G.; Bremer, B. Syst. Bot. 2014, 39, 304315,  DOI: 10.1600/036364414X678116
    80. 80
      Razafimandimbison, S. G.; Bremer, B. Am. J. Bot. 2002, 89, 10271041,  DOI: 10.3732/ajb.89.7.1027
    81. 81
      Tnah, L.; Lee, S.; Tan, A.; Lee, C.; Ng, K.; Ng, C.; Farhanah, Z. N. Food Control 2019, 95, 318326,  DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.08.022
    82. 82
      Raja, H. A.; Miller, A. N.; Pearce, C. J.; Oberlies, N. H. J. Nat. Prod. 2017, 80, 756770,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.6b01085
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.0c00257.

    • 1H NMR, 13C NMR, and HRESIMS data for compounds 119; 2D NMR data (COSY, HSQC, and HMBC) for new compounds 7, 11, 17, and 18; ECD data for compounds 114 and 1619 (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.