Synthesis and quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) studies of novel rosin-based diamide insecticides

Jian Li*a, Yanqing Gao*b, Shibin Shangc, Xiaoping Raoc, Jie Songd and Zongde Wange
aCollege of Forestry, Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, People’s Republic of China. E-mail: ericlee99@nwsuaf.edu.cn; gaoyanqinggc@163.com; Fax: +86-029-87082392; Tel: +86-029-87082392
bResearch & Development Center of Biorational Pesticide, College of Plant Protection, Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, People’s Republic of China
cInstitute of Chemical Industry of Forest Products, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210042, People’s Republic of China
dDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Michigan-Flint, Flint, Michigan 48502, USA
eCollege of Forestry, Jiangxi Agriculture University, Nanchang, Jiangxi 330045, People’s Republic of China

Received 10th September 2014 , Accepted 20th October 2014

First published on 21st October 2014


Abstract

In a continuing effort to develop novel natural product-based insecticidal agents endowed with low mammalian toxicity, two series of rosin-based diamides have been synthesized, and their insecticidal activities against Plutella xylostella and Mythimna separata were evaluated. Most of the synthesized compounds exhibited moderate to significant insecticidal activity. Among them, thiadiazole-containing diamides 6a–n displayed better activity than others, especially compounds 6f and 6n which exhibited excellent insecticidal activity against P. xylostella, with LC50 values of 0.223 and 0.214 mg L−1, respectively, which approximate to, or are lower than that of, the control flubendiamide (0.222 mg L−1). The preliminary structure–activity relationship analysis indicated that rosin-based diamides with electron-withdrawing groups on the benzene ring showed better insecticidal activity than those with electron-donating groups. Via a best multilinear regression analysis, the generated quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) model (R2 = 0.9566) revealed a strong correlation of insecticidal activity against P. xylostella with molecular structures of these compounds. These consequences can be expected to instruct the design and development of new rosin-based insecticides.


1. Introduction

Synthetic insecticides that protect crops from plant insects and diseases are still playing an important role in current agricultural practice.1 However, the continual application and excessive use of all these conventional insecticides over the years has led to environmental problems and the undesired development of resistance to pests.2,3 Therefore, the search of potential insecticides with new targets and low mammalian toxicity remains desirable in the field of crop protection.4,5

Diamides constitute a new class of insecticides for the control of the lepidopteron pest.6,7 Studies have shown that diamides are activators of the ryanodine receptors (RyRs) which regulate Ca2+ release from intracellular stores located in the sarcoplasmic reticulum.8 Owing to their exceptional activity, unique mode of action, and low mammalian toxicity, diamides have received considerable attention.9 So far, three diamide insecticides, i.e., flubendiamide, chlorantraniliprole (Rynaxypyr) and cyantraniliprole (Cyazypyr) have been discovered and commercialized (Fig. 1).10–12 However, the chemical synthesis of these diamide insecticides is time-consuming and expensive because of their complicated molecular structure and chiral centers. As a feasible solution, a class of secondary metabolites from natural sources can be chemically modified with similar structures and chiral centers.


image file: c4ra10125a-f1.tif
Fig. 1 Chemical structures of diamide insecticides.

Plant secondary metabolites are obtained in the process of coevolution between plants and the environment.13 Currently, a range of secondary metabolites from natural sources such as flavonoids, alkaloids and terpenoids have been developed as the lead compounds for the preparation of potent insecticides.14 With the advantage of a good environmental profile and the rare development of resistance, these botanical insecticides have been considered as attractive alternatives to synthetic agrochemicals for pest management.

Rosin, a major component of secretion from pine trees, is considered as one of the most abundant and popular natural terpenoid resources in China.15 The broad-spectrum biological activities of rosin and its derivatives, such as antitumor, antibacterial, antivirus, and hormone regulation have been well documented.16 Even so, investigations reporting on the systematic study of the quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) of rosin-based insecticidal agents are few. Due to the rising cost, synthesizing all possible compounds and screening a few candidates from thousands of compounds has become economically and practically impossible. One approach to improve this time-consuming and expensive process is to apply QSAR. QSAR methodology is an essential tool, which enables the calculation of numerous quantitative descriptors solely on the basis of molecular structural information. Based on the constructed QSAR models, some vital features responsible for insecticidal activity can be identified, and the potential target sites can even be speculated. Meanwhile, the use of the computational approaches and methodologies of the QSAR study may provide further guidance for the design of novel potent insecticides.17–22

In order to obtain novel natural product-based insecticides, a series of rosin-based diamides were synthesized on the basis of molecular similarity. In addition, the thiadiazole heterocyclic group, an important pharmacophore, was introduced into the backbone structure of the diamides for designing insecticides with higher activity. The insecticidal activities of the title compounds against diamondback moth (P. xylostella) and oriental armyworm (M. separata) were evaluated. Moreover, the QSAR was also performed on all of the title compounds using the Gaussian and CODESSA software packages, which can account for their structural features responsible for the insecticidal activity. This exploration is expected to improve the application of rosin as an insecticide material.

2. Experimental sections

2.1 Synthetic procedures and characterisations

Gum rosin (grade one) was obtained from a commercial source (Wu Zhou Pine Chemicals Ltd., Guangxi, China) and used without further purification. All other chemicals used were of reagent grade. The IR spectra were taken on a Nicolet IS10 FT-IR (Nicolet, Madison, USA) spectrophotometer. The 1H NMR spectra were recorded on a Bruker AV-300 (Bruker, Karlsruhe, Germany) nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer with either CDCl3 or DMSO-d6 as the solvent and TMS as an internal standard. The MS spectra were taken on an Agilent-5973 (Agilent, Santa Clara, USA) spectrophotometer. The melting points were determined using XT-5 (Saiao, Beijing, China) melting point apparatus. The elemental analysis (C, H, and N) was carried out on a Vario EL-III (Elementar, Hanau, Germany) elemental analyzer and the results were in good agreement with the calculated values. All reactions were traced by thin layer chromatography (TLC).
2.1.1 Syntheses of 1b. Following the procedures described in previous literature,23 1000 g of gum rosin and 5 g of hydroquinone were added to a flask equipped with a stirrer, dropping funnel, N2 inlet, thermometer, and water trap topped with a water-cooled condenser. The rosin was first heated under a slow stream of nitrogen and then stirred after melting had occurred. The temperature was adjusted to 220 °C, and the acrylic acid was added dropwise within 0.3 h. The mixture was then heated to 230 °C for a residence time of 4 h and the products were collected after cooling to 170 °C. Two isomers of the rosin-acrylic acid adduct (RAAA) (1a and 1b in Scheme 1, with contents of 15% and 55%, respectively, in the products) were found by gas chromatography. The target chemical 1b was obtained by recrystallization with ethanol to give colorless crystals (0.30 mm × 0.20 mm × 0.20 mm) suitable for X-ray single crystal diffraction as shown in Fig. 2 and 3 with the following crystallographic parameters: a = 12.682 (3) Å, b = 12.476 (3) Å, c = 14.629 (3) Å, β = 90.12 (3)°, λ = 0.71073 Å, θ = 9–12°, V = 2314.6 (12) Å3, Z = 4, μ = 0.08 mm−1, F000 = 868, R = 0.0498, T = 293 K, wR(F2) = 0.194, S = 1.02, final R factor = 7.70%.24
image file: c4ra10125a-s1.tif
Scheme 1 Preparation of compounds 3 and 4a–n.

image file: c4ra10125a-f2.tif
Fig. 2 Molecular structure of the compound 1b.

image file: c4ra10125a-f3.tif
Fig. 3 Packing diagram of the compound 1b.
2.1.2 Syntheses of 16-isopropyl-5,9-dimethyltetracyclo[10.2.2.01,10.04,9]hexadec-15-ene-5,14-dicarbonyl chloride (2). A solution of 1b (7.50 g; 20 mmol) and 80 mL dichloromethane (DCM) were added to a 250 mL flask equipped with a water-cooled condenser, thermometer, drying tube, and dropping funnel. The solution was stirred until the solid dissolved. After that, thionyl chloride (5.95 g; 50 mmol) was added dropwise through a dropping funnel within 1 h. After refluxing for 4 h at 65 °C, acrylpimaryl chloride (2) was obtained as a yellow oil after removing the DCM and excess thionyl chloride under reduced pressure. Yield: 7.40 g (90%). IR (cm−1): 2926, 2854 (–CH3, –CH2); 1741 (C[double bond, length as m-dash]O). 1H NMR (CDCl3 δ/ppm 300 MHz), 5.50 (s, H, C[double bond, length as m-dash]CH–); 2.52–1.41 (m, 5H, –CH–); 1.86–1.24 (m, 14H, –CH2–); 1.27–1.10 (m, 12H, CH3). ESI-MS m/z = 412 [M + H] +. Anal. calcd for C23H32Cl2O2: C, 67.15; H, 7.84. Found: C, 67.21; H, 7.89.
2.1.3 Syntheses of 16-isopropyl-5,9-dimethyltetracyclo[10.2.2.01,10.04,9]hexadec-15-ene-5,14-dicarbonylamide (3). A solution of compound 2 (7.40 g; 18 mmol) in 15 mL of tetrahydrofuran (THF) was added dropwise to a solution of 200 mL of ammonium water (80%) in 40 mL THF within 30 minutes at 0 °C. After reacting for 12 h, the THF solvent and excess ammonium water were removed under vacuum. Then, the mixture was washed with deionized water three times and recrystallized with ethyl acetate to give a yellow solid 3. Yield: 4.71 g (70.4%); yellow powder; m.p. 152.8–153.6 °C. IR (cm−1): 3359 (N–H); 2933, 2849 (–CH3, –CH2); 1663 (N–C[double bond, length as m-dash]O). 1H NMR (CDCl3 δ/ppm 300 MHz), 5.78 (m, 4H, CONH2); 5.49 (s, H, C[double bond, length as m-dash]CH–); 2.61 (m, H, –CH–(Me)2); 2.42 (s, H, –CH–C[double bond, length as m-dash]O–); 2.12–1.43 (m, 3H, –CH–); 1.82–1.26 (m, 14H, –CH2–); 1.34–1.06 (m, 12H, CH3). ESI-MS m/z = 373 [M + H]+. Anal. calcd for C23H36N2O2: C, 74.15; H, 9.74; N, 7.52. Found: C, 74.11; H, 9.69; N, 7.56.
2.1.4 Syntheses of 16-isopropyl-5,9-dimethyltetracyclo[10.2.2.01,10.04,9]hexadec-15-ene-5,14-dicarboxamides (4a–n). A solution of compound 2 (7.40 g; 18 mmol) in 15 mL of DCM was added dropwise to a solution of 60 mmol of amine and 60 mmol of triethylamine (Et3N) in 40 mL of DCM within 30 minutes at room temperature. After reacting for 12 h, the mixture was washed using 50 mL of 0.1 M hydrochloric acid and deionized water three times. Purification of the residue by silica gel chromatography [v (ethyl acetate)/v (petroleum ether) = 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10] gave the fourteen resulting derivatives, 4a to 4n. The example data of compounds 4a and 4b are shown as follows, whereas data of compounds 4c–n can be found in the ESI.
Data for compound 4a. Yield: 7.77 g (70.4%); white powder; m.p. 140.8–141.6 °C. IR (cm−1): 3363, 3259 (N–H); 2926, 2854 (–CH3, –CH2); 1659 (N–C[double bond, length as m-dash]O); 738, 697 (Ar–H). 1H NMR (DMSO-d6 δ/ppm 300 MHz): 9.61, 9.06 (m, 2H, CONH–); 7.61–6.96 (m, 10H, Ar–H); 5.29 (s, H, C[double bond, length as m-dash]CH–); 4.71–4.30 (m, 4H, Ar–CH2–); 2.57 (s, H, –CH–C[double bond, length as m-dash]O–); 2.01–1.83 (m, 3H, –CH–); 1.82–1.24 (m, 14H, –CH2–); 1.53 (m, H, –CH–(Me)2); 1.14–0.61 (m, 12H, CH3). ESI-MS m/z = 553 [M + H]+. Anal. calcd for C37H48N2O2: C, 80.39; H, 8.75; N, 5.07. Found: C, 80.27; H, 9.00; N, 4.86.
Data for compound 4b. Yield: 7.55 g (72%); white powder; m.p. 135.6–137.4 °C. IR (cm−1): 3354 (N–H); 2961, 2861 (–CH3, –CH2); 1663 (N–C[double bond, length as m-dash]O); 754, 691 (Ar–H). 1H NMR (DMSO-d6 δ/ppm 300 MHz): 8.08, 7.95 (m, 2H, CONH–); 7.29–7.20 (m, 10H, Ar–H); 5.25 (s, H, C[double bond, length as m-dash]CH–); 2.68 (s, H, –CH–C[double bond, length as m-dash]O–); 2.50–1.28 (m, 14H, –CH2–); 2.11–1.90 (m, 3H, –CH–); 1.57 (m, H, –CH–(Me)2); 1.17–0.55 (m, 12H, CH3). ESI-MS m/z = 525 [M + H]+. Anal. calcd for C35H44N2O2: C, 80.11; H, 8.45; N, 5.34. Found: C, 79.90; H, 8.54; N, 5.08.
2.1.5 Syntheses of 16-isopropyl-5,9-dimethyltetracyclo[10.2.2.01,10.04,9]hexadec-15-ene-5,14-dicarbonylamide (5). A mixture of 1b (3.75 g; 10 mmol) and thiosemicarbazide (1.90 g; 20 mmol) in phosphorus oxychloride (25 mL) was refluxed. After reacting for 2 h, the mixture was cooled and adjusted to pH = 10 with aqueous sodium hydroxide. The solid was collected by filtration and then recrystallized with ethanol to give compound 5. Yield: 4.60 g (95%); white powder; m.p. 135.9–136.7 °C. IR (cm−1): 3412, 3298, 1614 (N–H); 1635 (C[double bond, length as m-dash]N); 1099 (C–S–C). 1H NMR (DMSO-d6 δ/ppm 300 MHz), 5.44 (s, H, C[double bond, length as m-dash]CH–); 4.00 (m, 4H, –NH2); 2.74–1.78 (m, 5H, –CH–); 1.80–1.25 (m, 14H, –CH2–); 1.33–1.05 (m, 12H, CH3). ESI-MS m/z = 485 [M + H]+. Anal. calcd for C25H36N6S2: C, 61.95; H, 7.49; N, 17.34. Found: C, 61.93; H, 7.51; N, 17.05.
2.1.6 Syntheses of 16-isopropyl-5,9-dimethyltetracyclo[10.2.2.01,10.04,9]hexadec-15-ene-5,14-[1,3,4]thiadiazol-2-yl]-diamide (6a–n). A solution of the chloride (20 mmol) in 15 mL of DCM was added dropwise to a solution of 5 (4.85 g; 10 mmol) and 60 mmol of Et3N in 40 mL of DCM within 30 minutes at 0 °C. After reacting for 12 h, the mixture was washed using 50 mL of 0.1 M hydrochloric acid and deionized water three times. Purification of the residue by silica gel chromatography [v (ethyl acetate)/v (petroleum ether) = 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]5] gave the fourteen resulting derivatives, 6a to 6n. The example data of compounds 6a and 6b are shown as follows, whereas data of compounds 6c–n can be found in the ESI.
Data for compound 6a. Yield: 3.98 g (70%); white powder; m.p. 235.9–236.7 °C. IR (cm−1): 3370, 3159 (N–H); 2926, 2854 (–CH3, –CH2); 1660 (N–C[double bond, length as m-dash]O); 1633 (C[double bond, length as m-dash]N); 1080 (C–S–C). 1H NMR (DMSO-d6 δ/ppm 300 MHz), 8.01, 7.95 (s, 2H, –CONH–); 5.44 (s, H, C[double bond, length as m-dash]CH–); 2.80–1.80 (m, 5H, –CH–); 2.02, 1.95 (m, 6H, –COCH3); 1.86–1.24 (m, 14H, –CH2–); 1.34–0.98 (m, 12H, –CH3). ESI-MS m/z = 569 [M + H]+. Anal. calcd for C29H40N6O2S2: C, 61.24; H, 7.09; N, 14.78. Found: C, 61.33; H, 7.01; N, 14.75.
Data for compound 6b. Yield: 4.50 g (65%); white powder; m.p. 222.3–223.2 °C. IR (cm−1): 3329, 3100 (N–H); 2961, 2880 (–CH3, –CH2); 1659 (N–C[double bond, length as m-dash]O); 1632 (C[double bond, length as m-dash]N); 1079 (C–S–C); 751, 690 (Ar–H). 1H NMR (DMSO-d6 δ/ppm 300 MHz): 8.18, 8.02 (m, 2H, –CONH–); 7.59–7.44 (m, 10H, Ar–H); 5.25 (s, H, C[double bond, length as m-dash]CH–); 2.81–1.79 (m, 5H, –CH–); 1.95–1.28 (m, 14H, –CH2–); 1.37–0.55 (m, 12H, CH3). ESI-MS m/z = 693 [M + H]+. Anal. calcd for C39H44N6O2S2: C, 67.60; H, 6.40; N, 12.13. Found: C, 67.63; H, 6.41; N, 12.05.

2.2 Biological assay

The P. xylostella and M. separata used in the bioassay were provided by the research & development center of biorational pesticide, Northwest A&F University. The bioassays were performed in an artificial greenhouse with a constant temperature (25 ± 0.5 °C), relative humidity (75 ± 5%), and photoperiod (L/D = 14/10). All test compounds were dissolved in DMSO and diluted with sterile water to obtain required concentrations. Assessments were made on a dead/alive basis, and mortality rates were corrected using Abbott’s formula. Evaluations were based on a percentage scale of 0–100, where 0 = no activity and 100 = complete eradication. The standard deviations of the tested biological values were ±5%. LC50 values were calculated by probit analysis. For comparative purposes, the commercial product flubendiamide was tested under the same conditions.25,26
2.2.1 Larvicidal activity against P. xylostella. The larvicidal activity of the title compounds and contrast compound flubendiamide against P. xylostella were estimated according to the leaf-dip method using the reported procedure.27–30 Briefly, leaf disks (6 cm × 2 cm) of fresh cabbage leaves were dipped into the test solution for 3–5 s and dried. The treated leaf disks were placed individually into glass tubes. Each dried treated leaf disk was infested with 30 second-instar P. xylostella. Leaves treated with DMSO and sterile water were provided as a control. All experiments were conducted in triplicate to ensure reproducibility at a given concentration.
2.2.2 Larvicidal activity against M. separata. The larvicidal activity of the title compounds and contrast compound flubendiamide against M. separata were also estimated according to the leaf-dip method using the reported procedure.26,31,32 Briefly, leaf disks (about 5 cm diameter) of fresh corn leaves were dipped into the test solution for 10–15 s. After air drying, the treated leaf disks were placed on plates. Each dried treated leaf disk was infested with 10 third-instar M. separata. Percentage mortalities were evaluated 72 h after treatment. Leaves treated with DMSO and sterile water were provided as a control. All experiments were conducted in triplicate to ensure reproducibility at a given concentration.

2.3 Building and validation of the QSAR model

Firstly, the optimal conformers with the lowest energy of the title compounds were performed at the DFT/6-31G (d) level using a Gaussian 03W package of programs.30 Secondly, the calculated results were changed into a form compatible with CODESSA 2.7.1533 using Ampac 9.1.3.34 Finally, all the molecular descriptors involved in these compounds were calculated by CODESSA 2.7.15. In order to find out which structural features play an important role in insecticidal activity against P. xylostella, the best multiple regression analysis was selected to generate the QSAR model equation. In this equation, the statistical criteria were indicated by the squared correction coefficient (R2), the squared standard error of the estimates (S2), and the Fisher significance ratio (F). Tested LC50 values were converted into the corresponding log[thin space (1/6-em)]LC50 and used as dependent variables in the QSAR studies. The quality of the final model was determined using both an internal validation and the “leave-one-out” cross-validation methods.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Synthesis

The syntheses of two series of rosin-based diamide derivatives developed in the present work are illustrated in Scheme 1 and 2 respectively. As a dicarboxylic acid, the RAAA was obtained by the Diels–Alder addition reaction between rosin and acrylic acid; the content of the RAAA in the products was 70%. Additional purifications were required to remove other reactants and separate the two isomers 1a and 1b from the RAAA. According to the literature, the target isomer 1b was separated by recrystallization with an overall yield of 95%.15 Acrylopimaryl chloride (2) was prepared from the reaction of 1b with thionyl chloride and used without purification. The target compounds 3 and 4a–n were prepared by a simple and convenient three-step procedure starting from rosin. At room temperature, compounds 4a–n were synthesized in high yields (60–90%) by the reaction of acrylopimaryl chloride (2) with various aromatic amines in DCM using Et3N as the acid acceptor. However, compound 3 was prepared by the reaction of NH3·H2O with acrylopimaryl chloride (2) at 0 °C in THF with a satisfactory yield (70%). As shown in Scheme 2, compound 1b and thiosemicarbazide refluxed in POCl3 to give the corresponding thiadiazole substituted amine 5 via a cyclization reaction. The reaction of 5 with various chlorides can give thiadiazole-containing amides, 6a to 6n. The structures of the title compounds were well-characterized by IR, 1H NMR, MS, and elemental analysis.
image file: c4ra10125a-s2.tif
Scheme 2 Preparation of compounds 6a–n.

3.2 Biological activity and structure–activity relationships

3.2.1 Larvicidal activity against P. xylostella. All of the compounds were initially tested at a concentration of 10 mg L−1, and consequently the compounds with high insecticidal potency were investigated further at low concentrations. The result of the larvicidal activity of the title compounds against P. xylostella is summarized in Table 1, from which we can see that compounds 3, 4a–n and 6a–n exhibited moderate to significant insecticidal activity. The introduction of a thiadiazole heterocyclic group increased the insecticidal activity of the title compounds. From Table 1, we can see that at 5 mg L−1, compounds 6c–f, 6h and 6k–n exhibited 90–100% larvicidal activities, and eight of those compounds still possessed 50–80% activities at 1 mg L−1, respectively. It is worth noting that 6f and 6n showed a death rate of 77% at 0.25 mg L−1, which is more effective than flubendiamide (70%) against P. xylostella. The LC50 values correspondingly were 0.223 and 0.214 mg L−1, which were similar to, or lower than, that of the control flubendiamide (0.222 mg L−1). On the one hand, most compounds with electron-withdrawing substituents F, Cl, Br, and –CF3 displayed a higher larvicidal activity against P. xylostella (the compound 6j, possessing the electron-withdrawing substituent NO2, which did not display a higher larvicidal activity, needs further study), while compounds with electron-donating substituents –OCH3 and –OCF3 led to a significant decrease in activity (4k–n > 4h–j, 6d–f, 6h, 6k–n > 6g, 6i and 6j). It can be concluded that the electronic effect of the substituent on the benzene ring is important in the insecticidal activity of amide groups.25 On the other hand, the steric effect should be considered, when substituents of –OCH3 and –OCF3 were introduced, their activities were comparably low, which indicated that the larger substituents in the position have a negative effect on the activity. These observations revealed that substitution patterns on the benzene ring have an important influence on the larvicidal activity.11,35
Table 1 Insecticidal activity of compounds against P. xylostella
No. Compound Larvicidal activity (%) at a concentration of (mg L−1) LC50 y = a + bx R2 log[thin space (1/6-em)]LC50
10 5 2.5 1 0.5 0.25 0.1 0.05
1 3 100 67 40 20 0 2.759 y = −1.210 + 2.746x 0.985 0.441
2 4a 100 73 40 7 0 2.949 y = −1.672 + 3.560x 1.000 0.470
3 4b 100 73 40 7 0 2.949 y = −1.672 + 3.560x 1.000 0.470
4 4c 100 77 40 7 0 2.879 y = −1.681 + 3.659x 1.000 0.459
5 4d 100 73 37 10 0 2.923 y = −1.563 + 3.355 x 0.992 0.466
6 4e 100 77 37 10 0 2.853 y = −1.567 + 3.443x 0.986 0.455
7 4f 100 80 57 7 0 2.506 y = −1.463 + 3.667x 0.974 0.399
8 4g 100 73 40 7 0 2.949 y = −1.672 + 3.560x 1.000 0.470
9 4h 70 40 17 3 0 6.193 y = −1.948 + 2.460x 0.998 0.792
10 4i 70 37 17 3 0 6.379 y = −1.968 + 2.446x 0.995 0.805
11 4j 67 40 20 3 0 6.339 y = −1.837 + 2.290x 0.998 0.802
12 4k 100 83 50 23 3 0 2.131 y = −0.924 + 2.813x 0.983 0.329
13 4l 100 80 50 20 3 0 2.246 y = −0.988 + 2.812x 0.993 0.351
14 4m 100 77 50 23 3 0 2.244 y = −0.931 + 2.652x 0.980 0.351
15 4n 100 77 50 27 3 0 2.185 y = −0.875 + 2.578x 0.964 0.339
16 6a 100 87 50 30 3 0 2.076 y = −0.922 + 2.906x 0.982 0.317
17 6b 100 87 57 30 3 0 1.982 y = −0.874 + 2.942x 0.992 0.297
18 6c 100 90 57 27 3 0 1.879 y = −0.816 + 2.977x 0.983 0.274
19 6d 100 90 70 57 23 7 0 1.096 y = −0.084 + 2.115x 0.972 0.040
20 6e 100 90 70 53 23 7 0 1.123 y = −0.107 + 2.125x 0.981 0.050
21 6f 100 100 90 80 77 60 33 7 0.223 y = 1.004 + 1.543x 0.953 −0.652
22 6g 100 70 40 10 0 2.927 y = −1.516 + 3.250x 1.000 0.466
23 6h 100 90 70 50 20 7 0 1.182 y = −0.155 + 2.136x 0.974 0.073
24 6i 100 67 37 10 0 3.068 y = −1.559 + 3.201x 0.999 0.487
25 6j 100 73 40 7 0 2.949 y = −1.672 + 3.560x 1.000 0.470
26 6k 100 90 70 53 23 7 0 1.123 y = −0.107 + 2.125x 0.981 0.050
27 6l 100 90 67 50 20 7 0 1.211 y = −0.178 + 2.147x 0.983 0.083
28 6m 100 90 70 57 23 7 0 1.096 y = −0.084 + 2.115x 0.972 0.040
29 6n 100 100 90 80 77 60 33 13 0.214 y = 1.001 + 1. 494x 0.966 −0.670
  Flubendiamide 100 100 97 80 73 60 30 10 0.222 y = 1.125 + 1.722x 0.977 −0.654


3.2.2 Larvicidal activity against M. separata. The results of larvicidal activity of the title compounds against M. separata are listed in Table 2, from which we can see that compounds 3, 4a–n, and 6a–n exhibited moderate larvicidal activity against M. separata. The death rate of most of these compounds at 50 mg L−1 was about 30–40%, which was less effective than larvicidal activity against P. xylostella.
Table 2 Insecticidal activity of compounds against M. separata
Compd Larvicidal activity (%) at a concentration of (mg L−1)
50 20 10
3 40 0
4a 30 0
4b 40 0
4c 40 0
4d 37 0
4e 37 0
4f 27 0
4g 40 0
4h 17 0
4i 17 0
4j 20 0
4k 40 0
4l 30 0
4m 40 0
4n 40 0
6a 37 0
6b 37 0
6c 20 0
6d 40 0
6e 17 0
6f 17 0
6g 20 0
6h 40 0
6i 30 0
6j 40 0
6k 40 0
6l 37 0
6m 37 0
6n 30 0
Flubendiamide 100 100 100


3.3 QSAR

There are many regression approaches available for CODESSA 2.7.15 software, such as best multi-linear regression, multi-linear regression, principal component analysis, partial least-square regression, and heuristic regression.36 Taking into account the number of samples and descriptors used in this study, the best multi-linear regression was selected for developing the QSAR model. The “breaking point” rule for the determination of the number of the descriptors was employed as described in Fig. 4. The best multi-linear regression showed a significant increase in R2 when the number of the descriptors was no more than 5. However, there was negligible change in R2 when the number of descriptors increased from 5 to 6. Descriptors with high t values were accepted and those with low t values were rejected. A “breaking point” indicates that the improvement of the regression model has become insignificant (ΔR2 < 0.02–0.04).37 In addition, the number of the descriptors complies to the linear regressions given by eqn (1).
 
N ≥ 3(K + 1) (1)
where N is the number of sample compounds and K is the number of descriptors. Therefore, the final model with five descriptors was selected as the best model. The values of all five descriptors can be found in the ESI (Table S1).

image file: c4ra10125a-f4.tif
Fig. 4 The “breaking point” rule results.

The statistically optimized QSAR equation for the log[thin space (1/6-em)]LC50 data has the following statistical characteristics: R2 = 0.9566, F = 101.46, S2 = 0.0040 (Table 3). This model includes five descriptors in descending order according to their statistical significance (t values), where X and ΔX are the regression coefficients and their standard errors. The comparison between the experimental and predicted log[thin space (1/6-em)]LC50 is listed in Table 4. Fig. 5 shows the plot of predicted versus experimental activity of the 29 compounds. The five-descriptor QSAR model equation and corresponding statistical criteria are described in the following eqn (2) (Fig. 6).

 
log[thin space (1/6-em)]LC50 = 2.8005 + 3.4038 × HOMO − 9.2784 × DM + 2.7178 × qOmax − 2.3561 × qNmin + 2.4803 × μh (2)

N = 29, R2 = 0.9566, F = 101.46, S2 = 0.0040

Table 3 The best five-descriptor model
Descriptor No. X ±ΔX t-Test Descriptor
a Energy of the highest occupied molecular orbit in atomic units.b Dipole moment.c Max. net atomic charge for a O atom.d Min. net atomic charge for a N atom.e Tot hybridization composite of the molecular dipole.
0 2.8005 4.9272 × 10−1 5.6838 Intercept
1 3.4038 3.0849 × 10−1 11.0338 HOMOa
2 −9.2784 9.1786 × 10−1 −10.1086 DMb
3 2.7178 4.0462 × 10−1 6.7169 qOmaxc
4 −2.3561 2.6446 × 10−1 −8.9090 qNmind
5 2.4803 7.6091 × 10−1 3.2596 μhe


Table 4 The difference between the experimental log[thin space (1/6-em)]LC50 and predicted log[thin space (1/6-em)]LC50
No. Compd Calc. log[thin space (1/6-em)]LC50 Exp. log[thin space (1/6-em)]LC50 Difference
1 3 0.508 0.441 0.067
2 4a 0.463 0.470 −0.007
3 4b 0.431 0.470 −0.039
4 4c 0.469 0.459 0.010
5 4d 0.469 0.466 0.003
6 4e 0.474 0.455 0.019
7 4f 0.443 0.399 0.044
8 4g 0.505 0.470 0.035
9 4h 0.779 0.792 −0.013
10 4i 0.749 0.805 −0.056
11 4j 0.803 0.802 0.001
12 4k 0.269 0.329 −0.060
13 4l 0.257 0.351 −0.094
14 4m 0.248 0.351 −0.103
15 4n 0.355 0.339 0.016
16 6a 0.268 0.317 −0.049
17 6b 0.228 0.297 −0.069
18 6c 0.270 0.274 −0.004
19 6d 0.139 0.040 0.099
20 6e 0.118 0.050 0.068
21 6f −0.619 −0.652 0.033
22 6g 0.563 0.466 0.097
23 6h 0.051 0.073 −0.022
24 6i 0.418 0.487 −0.069
25 6j 0.500 0.470 0.030
26 6k 0.083 0.050 0.033
27 6l 0.154 0.083 0.071
28 6m 0.094 0.040 0.053
29 6n −0.766 −0.670 −0.096



image file: c4ra10125a-f5.tif
Fig. 5 Experimental log[thin space (1/6-em)]LC50 versus predicted log[thin space (1/6-em)]LC50.

image file: c4ra10125a-f6.tif
Fig. 6 HOMO energy maps for compounds 6f and 6n from DFT calculation of Gaussian 03W. The green parts represent positive molecular orbitals, and the red parts represent negative molecular orbitals.

The internal validation and “leave-one-out” cross-validation methods were used to validate the developed QSAR model.37,38 The internal validation was carried out by dividing the compound data into three subsets A, B and C, with 10, 10 and 9 compounds respectively. The compounds 1, 4, 7, 10, etc., went into subset (A); 2, 5, 8, 11, etc., went into subset (B); and 3, 6, 9, 12, etc., went into the third subset (C). Two of the three subsets, (A and B), (A and C), and (B and C), made up the training set while the remaining subset was treated as a test set. The correlation equations were derived from each of the training sets using the same descriptors and then applied to predict values for the corresponding test set. Internal validation results are presented in Table 5. The RTraining2 and RTest2 are within 5% for all three sets, and the average values of RTraining2 = 0.9575 and RTest2 = 0.9530 were close to the overall R2 value. Therefore, the QSAR model obtained demonstrated the predictive power of 3-fold cross-validation. The “leave-one-out” method was completed in a similar manner to the internal validation. In the “leave-one-out” method, a set of seven compounds (4, 8, 12, etc.) was used as the external test set and the remaining compounds were left in the training subset. The QSAR model containing the same five descriptors was obtained with R2 = 0.9868 from the training set. When the same QSAR model was applied on the test set, R2 = 0.9793 was observed. Therefore, the “leave-one-out” cross-validation results were also satisfactory.

Table 5 Internal validation of the QSAR modela
Training set N R2 F S2 Test set N R2 F S2
a Compds A: 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28. Compds B: 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29. Compds C: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27.
A + B 20 0.9600 100.26 0.0053 C 9 0.9644 112.34 0.0037
B + C 19 0.9599 98.44 0.0031 A 10 0.9433 100.52 0.0039
A + C 19 0.9526 118.20 0.0048 B 10 0.9515 108.75 0.0048
Average   0.9575 105.63 0.0044 Average   0.9530 107.20 0.0041


By interpreting the descriptors involved in the model, we gained some insight into the structural features influencing insecticidal activity. The foremost important descriptor was the HOMO energy (the energy of the highest occupied molecular orbital). This descriptor has a significant effect on the activity as the energy of the HOMO is directly related to the ionization potential of the compounds and characterizes the susceptibility of the molecule to electrophilic attack.39,40 The negative contribution of HOMO energy also suggested that the electron withdrawing substitution groups of rosin-based diamides are favorable for the insecticidal activity against P. xylostella.

The second important descriptor was the dipole moment. This descriptor was important in modulating insecticidal activity against P. xylostella because of the presence of C[double bond, length as m-dash]O, N–H, and thiadiazole groups, which exhibited permanent polarization due to an electronegativity difference between the atoms.37,39 The O (C[double bond, length as m-dash]O), N (N–H/thiadiazole group), and S (thiadiazole group) atoms may be involved in binding interactions with insect cells present at the target site. The dipole moment thus played a critical role in modulating the insecticidal activity of the test compounds.41,42

The 3rd and 4th descriptors obtained in the model were max. net atomic charge for a O atom and min. net atomic charge for a N atom. These two descriptors belonged to electrostatic descriptors, and reflected characteristics of the charge distribution of the molecules.39,41–43 The 5th descriptor obtained in the model was tot hybridization composite of the molecular dipole, which belonged to quantum-chemical descriptors. This descriptor reflected the quantitative measure of the lipophilic and hydrophobic properties of the compounds, and was essential for the penetration and distribution of the compounds as well as the interaction of compounds with receptors.44,45 In eqn (2), appearance with a negative sign in the model indicates that a molecule with a lower descriptor value has a higher log[thin space (1/6-em)]LC50, and contrary to that a positive sign in the model indicates that a molecule with a higher descriptor value has a higher log[thin space (1/6-em)]LC50.

4. Conclusions

In summary, 29 rosin-based diamides 3, 4a–n and 6a–n were synthesized and their insecticidal activities against P. xylostella and M. separata were evaluated. Thiadiazole-containing diamides 6a–n displayed better activity than others, especially compounds 6f and 6n which exhibited excellent insecticidal activities against P. xylostella. A QSAR study indicated that the involved descriptors for rosin-based diamides may account for their structural features responsible for the insecticidal activity. These promising results are of significant importance to the development of insecticides from common, inexpensive, and non-toxic natural products.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project no. 31400509 and Project no. 31401783), Forestry Industry Research Special Funds for Public Welfare Projects (Project no. 201404701) and Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of Northwest A&F University (Project no. 2013BSJJ048).

Notes and references

  1. G. P. Lahm, T. M. Stevenson, T. P. Selby, J. H. Freudenberger, D. Cordova, L. Flexner, C. A. Bellin, C. M. Dubas, B. K. Smith, K. A. Hughes, J. G. Hollingshaus, C. E. Clark and E. A. Benner, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 2007, 17, 6274–6279 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  2. G. P. Lahm, D. Cordova and J. D. Barry, Bioorg. Med. Chem., 2009, 17, 4127–4133 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  3. G. P. Lahm, D. Cordova, J. D. Barry, T. F. Pahutski, B. K. Smith, J. K. Long, E. A. Benner, C. W. Holyoke, K. Joraski, M. Xu, M. E. Schroeder, T. Wagerle, M. J. Mahaffey, R. M. Smith and M. Tong, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 2013, 23, 3001–3006 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  4. L. A. Teixeira and J. T. Andaloro, Pestic. Biochem. Physiol., 2013, 106, 76–78 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  5. T. P. Selby, G. P. Lahm, T. M. Stevenson, K. A. Hughes, D. Cordova, I. B. Annan, J. D. Barry, E. A. Benner, M. J. Currie and T. F. Pahutski, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 2013, 23, 6341–6345 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  6. A. Jeanguenat, Pest Manage. Sci., 2013, 69, 7–14 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  7. M. Liu, Y. Wang, W. Wangyang, F. Liu, Y. Cui, Y. Duan, M. Wang, S. Liu and C. Rui, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2010, 58, 6858–6863 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  8. B. Troczka, C. T. Zimmer, J. Elias, C. Schorn, C. Bass, T. G. E. Davies, L. M. Field, M. S. Williamson, R. Slater and R. Nauen, Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol., 2012, 42, 873–880 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  9. C. Gnamm, A. Jeanguenat, A. C. Dutton, C. Grimm, D. P. Kloer and A. J. Crossthwaite, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 2012, 22, 3800–3806 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  10. B. Wang, H. Zhu, Y. Ma, L. Xiong, Y. Li, Y. Zhao, J. Zhang, Y. Chen, S. Zhou and Z. Li, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2013, 61, 5483–5493 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  11. M. Feng, Y. Li, H. Zhu, L. Zhao, B. Xi and J. Ni, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2010, 58, 10999–11006 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  12. A. K. Isaacs, S. Qi, R. Sarpong and J. E. Casida, Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2012, 25, 1571–1573 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  13. Y. Wang, Y. Shao, Y. Wang, L. Fan, X. Yu, X. Zhi, C. Yang, H. Qu, X. Yao and H. Xu, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2012, 60, 8435–8443 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  14. C. L. Cantrell, F. E. Dayan and S. O. Duke, J. Nat. Prod., 2012, 75, 1231–1242 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  15. J. Li, J. Song, S. Shang, X. Rao and Y. Gao, Nat. Prod. Res., 2012, 27, 702–710 CrossRef PubMed.
  16. E. J. Alvarez-Manzaneda, R. Chahboun, J. J. Guardia, M. Lachkar, A. Dahdouh, A. Lara and I. Messouri, Tetrahedron Lett., 2006, 47, 2577–2580 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  17. G. Liu, X. Ju, J. Cheng and Z. Liu, Chemosphere, 2010, 78, 300–306 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  18. A. Speck-Planche, M. Natalia Dias Soeiro Cordeiro, L. Guilarte-Montero and R. Yera-Bueno, Curr. Comput.–Aided Drug Des., 2011, 7, 304–314 CrossRef CAS.
  19. A. Speck-Planche, V. V. Kleandrova and M. T. Scotti, Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst., 2012, 111, 39–45 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  20. C. Hansch and R. P. Verma, Eur. J. Med. Chem., 2009, 44, 260–273 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  21. P. K. Naik, S. T. Singh and H. Singh, SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 2009, 20, 551–566 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  22. H. Xu, J. Wang, H. Sun, M. Lv, X. Tian, X. Yao and X. Zhang, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2009, 57, 7919–7923 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  23. J. Li, X. Rao, S. Shang, Y. Gao and J. Song, BioResources, 2012, 17, 1961–1971 Search PubMed.
  24. H. Wang, S. Shang, Y. Yin, X. Rao and X. Xu, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. E: Struct. Rep. Online, 2009, 65, o1521 CAS.
  25. Y. Zhou, B. Wang, F. Di, L. Xiong, N. Yang, Y. Li, Y. Li and Z. Li, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 2014, 24, 2295–2299 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  26. Q. Feng, Z. Liu, L. Xiong, M. Wang, Y. Li and Z. Li, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2010, 58, 12327–12336 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  27. M. Feng, Y. Li, H. Zhu, J. Ni, B. Xi and L. Zhao, Pest Manage. Sci., 2012, 68, 986–994 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  28. J. Shang, W. Wang, Y. Li, H. Song, Z. Li and J. Wang, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2012, 60, 8286–8293 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  29. F. Huang, M. Zhao, X. Zhang, C. Wang, K. Qian, R. Kuo, S. Morris-Natschke, K. Lee and S. Peng, Bioorg. Med. Chem., 2009, 17, 6085–6095 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  30. M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, G. E. Scuseria, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, J. A. Montgomery, T. Vreven, K. N. Kudin, J. C. Burant, J. M. Millam, S. S. Iyengar, J. Tomasi, V. Barone, B. Mennucci, M. Cossi, G. Scalmani, N. Rega, G. A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, M. Hada, M. Ehara, K. Toyota, R. Fukuda, J. Hasegawa, M. Ishida, T. Nakajima, Y. Honda, O. Kitao, H. Nakai, M. Klene, X. Li, J. E. Knox, H. P. Hratchian, J. B. Cross, V. Bakken, C. Adamo, J. Jaramillo, R. Gomperts, R. E. Stratmann, O. Yazyev, A. J. Austin, R. Cammi, C. Pomelli, J. W. Ochterski, P. Y. Ayala, K. Morokuma, G. A. Voth, P. Salvador, J. J. Dannenberg, V. G. Zakrzewski, S. Dapprich, A. D. Daniels, M. C. Strain, O. Farkas, D. K. Malick, A. D. Rabuck, K. Raghavachari, J. B. Foresman, J. V. Ortiz, Q. Cui, A. G. Baboul, S. Clifford, J. Cioslowski, B. B. Stefanov, G. Liu, A. Liashenko, P. Piskorz, I. Komaromi, R. L. Martin, D. J. Fox, T. Keith, M. A. Al-Laham, C. Y. Peng, A. Nanayakkara, M. Challacombe, P. M. W. Gill, B. Johnson, W. Chen, M. W. Wong, C. Gonzalez and J. A. Pople, Gaussian 03, Gaussian, Inc., Wallingford CT, 2004 Search PubMed.
  31. J. Zhang, J. Xu, B. Wang, Y. Li, L. Xiong, Y. Li, Y. Ma and Z. Li, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2012, 60, 7565–7572 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  32. M. Mao, Y. Li, Y. Zhou, X. Zhang, Q. Liu, F. Di, H. Song, L. Xiong, Y. Li and Z. Li, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2014, 62, 1536–1542 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  33. A. Katritsky, M. Karelson, V. S. Lobanov, R. Dennington, T. A. Keith and R. D. A. T. Keith, Codessa 2.7.15, Semichem, Inc., Shawnee, KS, 2004 Search PubMed.
  34. M. J. S. Dewar, A. J. Holder, I. Roy, D. Dennington, D. A. Liotard, D. G. Truhlar, T. A. Keith, J. M. Millam and C. D. Harris, AMPAC 9.3.1, Semichem, Inc., Shawnee, KS, 2004 Search PubMed.
  35. S. Kang, B. Song, J. Wu, M. He, D. Hu, L. Jin, S. Zeng, W. Xue and S. Yang, Eur. J. Med. Chem., 2013, 67, 14–18 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  36. J. Song, Z. Wang, A. Findlater, Z. Han, Z. Jiang, J. Chen, W. Zheng and S. Hyde, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 2013, 23, 1245–1248 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  37. Z. Wang, J. Song, J. Chen, Z. Song, S. Shang, Z. Jiang and Z. Han, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 2008, 18, 2854–2859 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  38. S. Liao, J. Song, Z. Wang, J. Chen, G. Fan, Z. Song, S. Shang, S. Chen and P. Wang, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 2014, 24, 773–779 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  39. P. Sharma, A. Kumar, S. Upadhyay, V. Sahu and J. Singh, Eur. J. Med. Chem., 2009, 44, 251–259 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  40. D. Sharma, B. Narasimhan, P. Kumar and A. Jalbout, Eur. J. Med. Chem., 2009, 44, 1119–1127 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  41. A. D. Pillai, S. Rani, P. D. Rathod, F. P. Xavier, K. K. Vasu, H. Padh and V. Sudarsanam, Bioorg. Med. Chem., 2005, 13, 1275–1283 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  42. K. Kalani, D. Yadav, F. Khan, S. Srivastava and N. Suri, J. Mol. Model., 2012, 18, 3389–3413 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  43. P. P. Roy, S. Kovarich and P. Gramatica, J. Comput. Chem., 2011, 32, 2386–2396 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  44. R. Kumar, A. Kumar, S. Jain and D. Kaushik, Eur. J. Med. Chem., 2011, 46, 3543–3550 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  45. M. Witschel, Bioorg. Med. Chem., 2009, 17, 4221–4229 CrossRef CAS PubMed.

Footnote

Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: IR, 1H NMR, MS, and elemental analysis data for the target compounds. The values of all descriptors of rosin-based diamides with insecticidal activity against P. xylostella are also available. See DOI: 10.1039/c4ra10125a

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.