Cited by 189Microbial Natural Products and BiosynthesisMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesChromatography in Natural Products

Biochemometrics for Natural Products Research: Comparison of Data Analysis Approaches and Application to Identification of Bioactive Compounds

Open access
Kellogg, Joshua J., Todd, Daniel A., Egan, Joseph M., Raja, Huzefa A., Oberlies, Nicholas H., Kvalheim, Olav M., Cech, Nadja B.·2016·Journal of Natural Products

Abstract

A central challenge of natural products research is assigning bioactive compounds from complex mixtures. The gold standard approach to address this challenge, bioassay-guided fractionation, is often biased toward abundant, rather than bioactive, mixture components. This study evaluated the combination of bioassay-guided fractionation with untargeted metabolite profiling to improve active component identification early in the fractionation process. Key to this methodology was statistical modeling of the integrated biological and chemical data sets (biochemometric analysis). Three data analysis approaches for biochemometric analysis were compared, namely, partial least-squares loading vectors, S-plots, and the selectivity ratio. Extracts from the endophytic fungi Alternaria sp. and Pyrenochaeta sp. with antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus served as test cases. Biochemometric analysis incorporating the selectivity ratio performed best in identifying bioactive ions from these extracts early in the fractionation process, yielding altersetin (3, MIC 0.23 μg/mL) and macrosphelide A (4, MIC 75 μg/mL) as antibacterial constituents from Alternaria sp. and Pyrenochaeta sp., respectively. This study demonstrates the potential of biochemometrics coupled with bioassay-guided fractionation to identify bioactive mixture components. A benefit of this approach is the ability to integrate multiple stages of fractionation and bioassay data into a single analysis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.5b01014

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [1]1. Kinghorn, A. D.; Fong, H. H. S.; Farnsworth, N. R.; Mehta, R. G.; Moon, R. C.; Moriarty, R. M.;Pezzuto, J. M. Curr. Org. Chem. 1998, 2, 597-612
  2. [2]2. Wall, M. E.; Wani, M. C. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1996, 51, 239-253 DOI: 10.1016/0378- 8741(95)01367-9 · DOI
  3. [7]7. Prince, E. K.; Pohnert, G. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2010, 396, 193-197 DOI: 10.1007/s00216- 009-3162-5 · DOI
  4. [17]17. Okada, T.; Afendi, F. M.; Katoh, A.; Hirai, A.; Kanaya, S. In Biotechnology for Medicinal Plants; Chandra, S.;Lata, H.; Varma, A., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2013; pp 413-438.
  5. [22]22. Ali, K.; Iqbal, M.; Yuliana, N. D.; Lee, Y. J.; Park, S.; Han, S.; Lee, J. W.; Lee, H. S.; Verpoorte, R.;Choi, Y. H. Metabolomics 2013, 9, 778-785 DOI: 10.1007/s11306-013- 0498-9 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kellogg, J. J., Todd, D. A., Egan, J. M., Raja, H. A., Oberlies, N. H., Kvalheim, O. M., & Cech, N. B.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
  • University of Bergen (NO)
Corresponding author
Cech, Nadja B.
Venue
Journal of Natural Products
Published
2016-02-03
Volume
79
Issue
2
Pages
376-386
ISSN
  • 0163-3864 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6025
OpenAlex
W2346462946
Cited by
189
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8
FWCI
15.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Natural Products (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (1R01 AT006860)
  • North Carolina Biotechnology Center (2011-BRG-1206)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Microbial Natural Products and Biosynthesis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Chromatography in Natural Products
Keywords
bioassay-guided fractionation, untargeted metabolomics, bioactive compound identification, selectivity ratio, endophytic fungi, Alternaria, Pyrenochaeta, antimicrobial activity, Staphylococcus aureus, natural product mixtures
MeSH terms
Alternaria, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Biological Products, Heterocyclic Compounds, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Staphylococcus aureus, Molecular Structure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review