Subscriber access provided by UB + Fachbibliothek Chemie | (FU-Bibliothekssystem)
Perspective
An unambiguous nomenclature for the acylquinic acids commonly known as chlorogenic acids László Abrankó, and Michael N. Clifford J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b00729 • Publication Date (Web): 18 Apr 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on May 1, 2017
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 31
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
An unambiguous nomenclature for the acyl-quinic acids commonly known as chlorogenic acids László Abrankó† and Michael N. Clifford*§
†László Abrankó Faculty of Food Science, Department of Applied Chemistry Szent István University, 1118 Budapest, Hungary
§ Michael N. Clifford School of Bioscience and Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK *Author too whom correspondence should be addressed
[email protected] Key words: Chlorogenic acids, Nomenclature, Quinic acids,
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Suggested referees Dr Adriana Farah Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
[email protected] Professor Christian Zidorn University of Kiel, Germany
[email protected] Professor Paula Castilho University of Madeira Portugal
[email protected] Dr Pedro Mena University of Parma Italy
[email protected] Dr Simona Piccolella Second University of Naples
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 2 of 31
Page 3 of 31
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Department of Environmental, Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technologies Caserta, Campania, Italy
[email protected] ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Table of Contents TOC ART
dica ciniuQ Quinic acid
?
dica ciniuQ
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 4 of 31
Page 5 of 31
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 6 of 31
1
Abstract
2
The history of the acyl-quinic acids is briefly reviewed, the merits and limitations of the
3
various nomenclature systems applicable critically compared, and their limitations
4
highlighted, in particular their inability to provide an unambiguous description of all quinic
5
acid
6
Recommendations are made for a nomenclature system which in combination with IUPAC
7
numbering achieves this objective. A comprehensive set of structures for the quinic acid
8
enantiomers and diastereo-isomers is presented. The supplementary information provides
9
an explanation of trivial names and a decision tree to determine which quinic acid isomer a
10
enantiomers
and
diastereo-isomers
and
associated
structure represents.
11
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
acyl-quinic
acids.
Page 7 of 31
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
12
Introduction
13
Quinic acid was first reported in 1790,1 but the first acyl-quinic acid was not characterised
14
until 1932 when Fischer and Dangschat proposed that a substance isolated from green
15
coffee beans was 3-O-caffeoylquinic acid (3-CQA).2
16
described by Payen as ‘chlorogen acid’,3, 4 leading to the trivial name ‘chlorogenic acid’. In
17
1950 Barnes et al.5 reported the presence in coffee of the isomer 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid (5-
18
CQA) to which they gave the trivial name neochlorogenic acid
19
structure assignments have stood the test of time, the numbering system applied to the
20
quinic acid moiety was revised by IUPAC in the 1976 recommendations for the numbering of
21
the carbon atoms of cyclitols.6
22
becomes 5-CQA IUPAC, and Barnes et al’s 5-CQA becomes 3-CQA IUPAC,2, 6 (Figure 1).
This substance in 1846 had been
Although both these
In the IUPAC system, Fischer and Dangschat’s 3-CQA
23
Figure 1 here
24
Use is also made of the Cahn–Ingold–Prelog (CIP) sequence rules, but the structure
25
designation obtained depends on whether the 1964 rules,7 or 1966 revision,8 is used. The
26
orientation of substituents in quinic acid can be described also by comparing their
27
orientation relative to that of the C1-COOH, but as pointed out by Eliel and Ramirez,1 one
28
system uses α to describe a substituent trans to the carboxyl, and another uses α to
29
describe a substituent cis to the carboxyl.
30
Both systems of numbering, both sets of CIP rules, and both α,β systems remain in use,
31
sometimes with different approaches used in conjunction, creating confusion which is worse
32
confounded when structures are drawn without regard to the three dimensional nature of
33
the quinic acid moiety, or that three dimensional structure is misrepresented, as highlighted
34
by Kremr et al.9 A review of the botanical distribution of acyl-quinic acids and close allies
35
(e.g. acyl-alkyl quinates, acyl-quinic acid glycosides) confirmed Kremr et al’s observations
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
36
and located a significant number of publications with incorrect structures and even some
37
publications that used both IUPAC and non-IUPAC numbering interchangeably.10, 11 Similar
38
errors were found in supplier’s on-line catalogues and on-line databases, all further
39
exacerbated by inconsistent use of trivial names.12, 13
40
This perspective examines the various systems employed to describe free quinic acids and
41
acyl-quinic acids and seeks to identify the minimum information required to define their
42
structure unambiguously.
43 44
Quinic acid enantiomers and diastereo-isomers
45
The simple term ‘quinic acid’ term encompasses two pairs of optically active enantiomers
46
((±)-quinic acid (1–2) and (±)-epi-quinic acid (3–4)) and four diastereo-isomers, optically
47
inactive meso forms (muco-quinic 5, cis-quinic 6, neo-quinic 7 and scyllo-quinic 8) (Table 1).
48
1L-(–)-Quinic acid 1 is the only isomer commercially available (although frequently described
49
in catalogues as D-quinic acid rather than L-quinic acid) and generally assumed to be the
50
isomer present in the majority of reported acyl-quinic acids, but only rarely has this been
51
proven.14-18 At least one acyl-(±)-epi-quinic acid has been reported (originally as isoquinic
52
acid), and the quinic acid moiety released by saponification shown to be distinct from 1L-(–)-
53
quinic acid.16
54
fragmentation data that acyl derivatives of a quinic acid isomer, as yet incompletely
55
characterised, occur in several species.21-23 Roasted coffee beans contain a 3-caffeoyl-muco-
56
quinic acid and a 3-feruloyl-muco-quinic acid,24, 25 along with free muco-quinic, free scyllo-
57
quinic and free (±)-epi-quinic acid,26 all of which have been confirmed by synthesis.
58
A recent survey located in excess of 300 closely related mono-, di-, tri- and tetra-acyl-quinic
59
acids and a comprehensive listing thereof and their botanical distribution is available on
19 20
There are reports arising from distinctive retention time and LC–MSn
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 8 of 31
Page 9 of 31
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
60
Researchgate,11, 13 and will not be repeated here. Note, however, that in addition to the
61
well-known trans-cinnamic acids, the acyl moiety might be a dihydrocinnamic acid which
62
may have a side chain hydroxyl or methoxyl substituent, a phenylacetic acid, a benzoic acid
63
or an aliphatic or hydroxy-aliphatic acid, any one of which might occur alone or in numerous
64
permutations. Any nomenclature system must cope unambiguously and conveniently with
65
all of these variations.
66 67
1. The IUPAC system
68
In 1976 IUPAC published their views on how best to define the configuration of cyclitols,
69
cycloalkanes with one hydroxyl on each of at least three ring carbons. Special procedures
70
were required because cyclitols possess features of relative and absolute configuration that
71
are not clearly displayed by general methods of stereochemical nomenclature. IUPAC
72
recognised that the CIP sequence rule system for absolute stereochemistry could be used,
73
but that the sequence rule procedure was complex in this application, a view also held by
74
Corse and Lundin.27 IUPAC considered the Maquenne fractional system, the Posternak
75
system, the Fletcher, Anderson and Lardy system, and the Angyal and Gilman system, but
76
recommended the adoption of the McCasland fractional system with prefixes.
77
Accordingly, IUPAC recommended inter alia that the most common naturally occurring
78
quinic acid should be described as 1L-1(OH),3,4/5-tetrahydroxy-cyclohexanecarboxylic acid
79
with the trivial names (–)-quinic acid or L-quinic acid.6 For quinic acids, according to IUPAC
80
recommendations, the lowest numbered carbon (i.e. C1) is applied to the substituent ‘other
81
than an unmodified hydroxyl group’.
82
recommendations to a pair of enantiomers, e.g. (+)-quinic acid and (–)-quinic acid or (+)-epi-
Note that the application of the IUPAC
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 10 of 31
83
quinic acid and (–)-epi-quinic acid, results in one enantiomer being numbered clockwise and
84
the other being numbered anticlockwise (Figure 2a).
85
Figure 2 here
86
As discussed by Corse and Lundin,27 clockwise and anticlockwise numbering can make
87
certain tasks extremely difficult, and in discussions of routes of chemical synthesis they
88
preferred to use the Maquenne fractional system to avoid this complication. However, the
89
Maquenne system uses non-IUPAC numbering, but does permit a convenient distinction
90
between (–)-quinic acid, which is (–)-(3/145) tetrahydroxy-cyclohexane carboxylic acid, and
91
(+)-quinic acid, which is the (+)-(5/134) isomer, with the fraction indicating which hydroxyls
92
are cis to the carboxyl (drawn above the plane of the cyclohexane ring) and which are trans.
93
For the absolute configuration IUPAC stated that a Fischer–Tollens projection should be
94
used with C1 at the top and C2 and C3 at the front edge of the ring (Figure 2b). The
95
configuration is
96
projects to the left. The prefix
97
compound name. A numeral may precede the prefix to identify the defining centre of
98
chirality. Omission of a prefix, or the use of the prefix DL, identifies a meso form.
99
However, it has since become apparent that the IUPAC system applied to quinic acid
D
if the lowest numbered chiral centre projects to the right, and D
L
if it
or L, followed by a hyphen, is itself followed by the
100
derivatives is not without its problems, with some basic IUPAC priority rules being flouted.
101
If one considers, for example, a 3,5-disubstituted formyl-acetylquinic acid, the acetyl group
102
has higher priority than the formyl group. Hence, two obviously very different compounds
103
would have the same recommended name, 3-O-acetyl-5-O-formyl-quinic acid (Figure 2c).
104
Nomenclature software will always suggest this numbering. To avoid this problem the
105
original numbering of the quinic acid parent compound must be maintained in all quinic acid
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 11 of 31
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
106
derivatives, in this case yielding 3-O-acetyl-5-O-formyl-quinic acid and 3-O-formyl-5-O-
107
acetyl-quinic acid.
108 109
2. Use of α and β to designate the orientation of substituents cis and trans to the quinic
110
acid carboxyl
111
The complications inherent in defining the configuration of quinic acid were addressed again
112
in 1997 by Eliel and Ramirez,1 who drew attention to inconsistencies in reference
113
compendia. The configuration of (–)-quinic acid can be defined by the use of the α,β system
114
designed to denote the configuration of the hydroxyl substituents relative to the carboxyl.
115
If substituents trans to the carboxyl are designated α, and those cis are designated β, then
116
(–)-quinic acid is either 1α,3α,4α,5β or 1α,3β,4α,5α depending on which way the ring
117
carbons are numbered. They pointed out that Dictionary of Organic Compounds (6th edition
118
1966) specifies that the cis hydroxyl is on C3, consistent with Beilsteins Handbuch der
119
Organischen Chemie (3rd supplement 1971 and 4th supplement 1983), thus favouring
120
1α,3β,4α,5α. Unfortunately, Chemical Abstracts uses 1α,3α,4α,5β, and this is perpetuated
121
by the RSC’s Chemspider.28
122
Fortunately, because the hydroxyl at C1 must be trans to the carboxyl in any quinic acid or
123
acyl-quinic acid it is possible to deduce which α,β system is being used even if it is not stated
124
explicitly, but this remains a potential source of confusion.
125 126
3. The CIP sequence rules
127
The second problem to which Eliel and Ramirez 1 drew attention arises from the use of the
128
CIP sequence rules — specifically that incorrect configurational descriptors were applied to
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
129
C1 and C4 of (–)-quinic acid in several reference compendia.1 While Eliel and Ramirez
130
concur that using the CIP sequence rules establishes the C3 and C5 configuration as R, they
131
point out that neither C1 nor C4 are centres of chirality because two of the branches
132
attached to these atoms are identical (–CHOH for C4 and –CH2 for C1). Accordingly C1 and
133
C4 cannot be assigned an R or S priority under the CIP sequence rules as published in 1964.7
134
Never the less, in a footnote to this paper, Eliel and Ramirez following discussion with the Dr
135
J.E. Blackwood, editor of Chemical Abstracts, modify their opinion. They accept that (–)-
136
quinic acid, (+)-quinic acid, (–)-epi-quinic acid and (+)-epi-quinic acid all differ in their
137
descriptors at C1 and C4 if the sequence rule seqcis>seqtrans (i.e. as though the cis
138
substituent had a larger atomic number than the trans substituent), as later proposed by
139
Cahn et al.,8 is utilised, amply illustrating IUPAC’s opinion that the CIP system is complex in
140
this particular application. However, the comment by Blackwood notwithstanding, Eliel and
141
Ramirez recommended that (–)-quinic acid should be defined as 1α,3R,4α,5R-
142
tetrahydroxycyclohexane carboxylic acid, i.e. with α defining a trans substituent.
143
If the rule seqcis>seqtrans as introduced in 1966
144
clearly S and C1 is R because –CH2–CHOH with cis OH at C3 IUPAC is deemed larger than the
145
–CH2–CHOH with trans OH at C5 IUPAC. Accordingly (–)-quinic acid becomes 1R,3R,4S,5R,
146
and fortuitously this designation is valid for both IUPAC and non-IUPAC numbering.
147
Although use of the seqcis>seqtrans rule apparently resolves the problem associated with
148
the CIP descriptors for C1 and C4 of (–)-quinic acid it produces another when muco-quinic or
149
cis-quinic acid are considered. Inversion at C3 (muco-quinic acid) or C5 (cis-quinic acid)
150
produces isomers where C4 has two identical substituents (i.e. either both are cis or both
151
trans), and this is maintained if the substituents are extended further (i.e. to C2 and C6
8
is applied to (–)-quinic acid, then C4 is
1
Note that the structures in the electronic version of this paper must be viewed at high magnification in order to visualise clearly the subtle differences in configuration.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 12 of 31
Page 13 of 31
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
152
which are both methylenes), and further extension brings C1 into play for each of these
153
substituents. The analogous situation occurs with neo-quinic acid (inverted at C3 and C4)
154
and scyllo-quinic acid (inverted at C4 and C5).
155
However, in these four compounds, C3 and C5 never have the same CIP designation, i.e. one
156
is R and the other is S. Accordingly, this complication can be accommodated only by
157
invoking the rule that ‘a ligand with the descriptor R has priority over its enantiomorph with
158
the descriptor S’.8
159
Inversion only at C4 (i.e. (–)-epi-quinic acid) reverses the cis and trans substituents relative
160
to C4 in (–)-quinic acid but because the position from which the substituents are observed
161
also changes, the nett result is no change and (–)-epi-quinic acid has the same CIP
162
description as (–)-quinic acid, creating another complication, because there does not seem
163
to be a CIP rule to distinguish between the two (+)-quinic acids or the two (–)-quinic acids.
164
Corse and Lundin also noted this anomaly and circumvented it by incorporating the
165
Maquenne fractional formula into the name, thus describing (–)-quinic acid as
166
‘(1R;3R:4S;5R)-3/1,4,5-tetrahydroxycyclohexane-1-carboxylic acid’2 and then stated ‘(–)-epi-
167
quinic acid is probably (1R;3R:4S;5R)-3,4/1,5-tetrahydroxycyclohexane-1-carboxylic acid’,27
168
but, unfortunately using non-IUPAC numbering. With IUPAC numbering (–)-quinic acid
169
becomes (1R,3R,4S,5R)-5/1,3,4-tetrahydroxycyclohexane-1-carboxylic acid and (–)-epi-
170
quinic acid is (1R,3R,4S,5R)-4,5/1,3-tetrahydroxycyclohexane-1-carboxylic acid in the
171
combined CIP–Maquenne designation.
172
Similarly, inversion only at C1 of (–)-quinic acid or (+)-quinic acid produces (–)-epi-quinic acid
173
or (+)-epi-quinic acid, respectively, again with the nett result of no change in the CIP
174
descriptors. However, this introduces another problem because it is the orientation of the 2
Note that there is a typographical error in the paper by Corse and Lundin with the carboxyl of (–)-quinic acid described as at C3 rather than C1 as correctly given by them for (–)-epi-quinic acid.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
175
C1-OH that is used in the 1976 IUPAC rule to distinguish L-enantiomers from D-enantiomers,
176
i.e.
177
“…when the formula is drawn in a way that the substituent (i.e. OH group) on the
178
lowest numbered asymmetric carbon atom is above the plane of the ring, and the
179
numbering is clockwise, the compound is L; if anti-clockwise, it is D”.
180
Possibly IUPAC intended this rule to be applied only when the C1-OH was above the plane of
181
the ring, but simply flipping the C1-inverted structure places the C1-OH above the plane of
182
the ring, albeit at the bottom of the structure rather than at the top, and applying the rule
183
quoted above suggests that there has been a change from the L-enantiomer to the D-
184
enantiomer.
185
descriptors and this as noted above has not occurred.
This is incorrect, because such a change requires inversion of all CIP
186 187
Conclusions regarding the adequacy of the CIP rules and other nomenclature systems
188
We conclude that none of the existing systems provide an unambiguous description that can
189
be applied to the eight quinic acids and their acyl derivatives. Our reasoning is set out
190
below:
191
1) In the case of the optically active quinic acids, merely defining the cis / trans
192
orientation of the hydroxyls relative to the carboxyl is insufficient to distinguish
193
between 1L-(–)-quinic acid (1) and 1D-(+)-quinic acid (2) or 1L-(–)-epi-quinic acid (3),
194
and 1D-(+)-epi-quinic acid (4) because both enantiomers are identical (1α, 3α, 4α, 5β
195
and 1α, 3α, 4β, 5β, respectively) if IUPAC numbering is applied.
196
To enable these enantiomers to be distinguished it is necessary to apply the CIP
197
descriptors to the meta-hydroxyls (i.e C3 and C5) which in the case of 1L-(–)-
198
enantiomers are both R and in the case of 1D-(+)-enantiomers are both S.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 14 of 31
Page 15 of 31
199
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
2) In the case of meso forms (muco-quinic acid (5), cis-quinic acid (6), neo-quinic acid (7)
200
and scyllo-quinic acid (8)) the indication of the cis/trans orientations of the OH
201
groups relative to the COOH group is sufficient to distinguish between all species of
202
free acids, but not if these meso-acids are asymmetrically substituted because this
203
creates new R / S enantiomers.
204
For the avoidance of doubt the asymmetrical derivatives would include, for example, 3-acyl
205
and 5-acyl-meso-quinic acids, and 3,5-diacyl derivatives where two different acyl residues
206
are present, e.g. 3-caffeoyl-5-feruloyl-meso-quinic acid and 3-feruloyl-5-caffeoyl-meso-
207
quinic acid.
208
If such asymmetric acyl-meso-quinic acids derivatives were synthesized from 1L-(–)-quinic
209
acid the acyl-meso-quinic acid would be named as if it had a negative rotation, but if
210
synthesized from 1D-(+)-quinic acid would be named as if it had a positive rotation, because
211
the position of acylation would be defined by the 1976 IUPAC rule applied to the precursor:
212
“…when the formula is drawn in a way that the substituent (i.e. OH group) on the
213
lowest numbered asymmetric carbon atom is above the plane of the ring, and the
214
numbering is clockwise, the compound is L; if anti-clockwise, it is D”.
215
Figure 3 demonstrates the marked and confusing influence on perceived structure of two
216
pairs of asymmetrically substituted acyl-meso-quinic acids associated with which
217
enantiomer was chosen as their synthetic precursor. This is exactly the problem
218
encountered and discussed by Corse and Lundin.27.
219
Figure 3 here
220
Accordingly, a convention must be defined so that a meso-quinic acid, whether or not it is
221
substituted, is numbered independently of its actual or perceived precursor. Corse and
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
222
Lundin favoured the Maquenne system, but that uses non-IUPAC numbering and therefore
223
we suggest:
224 225
“Clockwise numbering should be used for meso forms, with the formula drawn in such
226
a way that the OH group at C1 is above the plane of the ring”.
227 228
Adoption of this convention then permits distinct and unambiguous descriptions for all eight
229
quinic acids and their acyl derivatives, as presented below:
230 231
(±)-Quinic acid and (±)-epi-quinic acid
232
The minimum requirement for unambiguous description of (±)-quinic acid and (±)-epi-quinic
233
acid and their acyl derivatives is the use of IUPAC numbering, and:
234
a)
1L-(–)-quinic acid
3R, 5R-(1α, 3α, 4α, 5β)
235
b)
1D-(+)-quinic acid
3S, 5S-(1α, 3α, 4α, 5β)
236
c)
1L-(–)-epi-quinic acid
3R, 5R-(1α, 3α, 4β, 5β)
237
d)
1D-(+)-epi-quinic acid
3S, 5S-(1α, 3α, 4β, 5β)
238 239
Meso-quinic acids
240
The minimum requirement for unambiguous description of the meso-quinic acids, including
241
the asymmetric acyl-meso-quinic acids is the use of IUPAC numbering and the convention
242
given above, yielding:
243
a)
muco-quinic acid
3S, 5R (1α, 3β, 4α, 5β)
244
b)
cis-quinic acid
3R, 5S (1α, 3α, 4α, 5α)
245
c)
neo-quinic acid
3S, 5R (1α, 3β, 4β, 5β)
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 16 of 31
Page 17 of 31
246
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
d)
scyllo-quinic acid
3R, 5S (1α, 3α, 4β, 5α)
247 248
Guidelines for presenting the structure of these various acyl-quinic acids.
249
It is not easy to convert the descriptions listed above into the associated structures.
250
Moreover, such three dimensional structures are not easily presented on a plane surface, in
251
part because a subtle change in perspective generates structures for a single compound that
252
appear very different to the untrained eye. Accordingly, Table 1 presents for all eight quinic
253
acid isomers the relevant CIP description, the proposed unambiguous description, the
254
Fischer–Tollens structure, both ideal chair conformations, and the two-dimensional
255
structure as viewed from four different perspectives.
256
These different perspectives are ‘from in front’, ‘from behind’, from the left’ and ‘from the
257
right’, these latter necessary because in these structures the carboxyl and hydroxyl at C1 are
258
projecting at right angles to the plane of the medium on which they are presented — the
259
substituent with the hatched bond is projected into the medium and away from the
260
observer and the substituent with the solid bond is projected out of the medium and
261
towards the observer. If the observer is looking straight down the C–C bond of the carboxyl,
262
or the C–O of the hydroxyl, as appropriate, then the other substituent projecting into the
263
medium would be masked by the substituent projecting out of it.
264
Accordingly, the structures have to be presented with the observer looking at an angle
265
either slightly less than 90° (i.e. from the left) or slightly more than 90° (i.e. from the right) in
266
order to see both C1 substituents. Depending on which of these positions is adopted by the
267
observer the carboxyl will either appear to the left and the hydroxyl to the right, or the
268
carboxyl to the right and the hydroxyl to the left, but it is the same compound. This is
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 18 of 31
269
possibly the most confusing feature associated with presenting three dimensional structures
270
in two dimensions.
271
It is hoped that the nomenclature system proposed here, used in combination with the
272
structures in Table 1 will ensure that free quinic acids and acyl-quinic acids are
273
unambiguously described and correctly presented. Two further problems remain. In the
274
introduction attention was drawn to publications in which IUPAC and non-IUPAC numbering
275
were used simultaneously and without qualification, with, for example, data reported in one
276
paper for 3-CQA non-IUPAC being discussed unwittingly with data from another paper for 3-
277
CQA IUPAC, resulting in unreliable conclusions as discussed elsewhere.10
278
unacceptable and it is essential that only one system is used, preferably IUPAC, and a brief
279
statement to this effect is desirable. To ensure consistency, suppliers’ descriptions of
280
commercial standards, and data from previous publications, should if necessary be
281
amended to the IUPAC numbering system and a clear statement made to this effect. If it is
282
not possible to define which system has been used in a previous publication then this should
283
be clearly noted when discussing that data along with a statement that the numbering and
284
name have been left unchanged.
285
Trivial nomenclature can be found in the literature with IUPAC and non-IUPAC numbering,
286
and there are other complications, for example, the term ‘isochlorogenic acid a’ does not
287
correspond to the term ‘isochlorogenic acid A’.29, 30 A comprehensive referenced listing of
288
trivial names with their IUPAC equivalent is provided as Supplementary Table 1.
289
The correct and unambiguous description of natural products is essential especially when
290
significant properties or attributes are claimed for one particular isomer.
291
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
This is
Page 19 of 31
292
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
References References
293 294 295
1.
296
Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 1997, 8, 3551-3554.
297
2.
298
Chinasäure und Derivate). Berichte 1932, 65, 1037-1040.
299
3.
Payen, Untersuchung des Kaffees. Annalen 1846, 60, 286-294.
300
4.
Payen, Memoire sur le café (3o Part). Comptes Rendus 1846, 23, 244-251.
301
5.
Barnes, H. M.; Feldman, J. R.; White, W. V., Isochlorogenic acid isolation from coffee and
302
structure studies. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1950, 72, 4178-4182.
303
6.
IUPAC, Nomenclature of cyclitols. Biochem. J. 1976, 153, 23-31.
304
7.
Cahn, R. S., An introduction to the sequence rule: A system for the specification of absolute
305
configuration. J. Chem. Ed. 1964, 41, 116-125.
306
8.
307
1966, 5, 385-415.
308
9.
309
chlorogenic acid nomenclature: A review. Qumica Nova 2016, 39.
310
10.
311
Researchgate 2017, 10.13140/RG.2.2.21311.71848
312
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312590923_Some_Notes_on_the_Chlorogenic_Acids_2_
313
NMR_Characterisation_Version_3_January_2017 (Access Date), 15/02/2017
314
11.
315
Distribution of the Chlorogenic acids. Researchgate 2017, 10.13140/RG.2.2.23428.53126
316
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312591202_Some_Notes_on_the_Chlorogenic_Acids_Pa
Eliel, E. L.; Ramirez, M. B., (−)-Quinic acid: configurational (stereochemical) descriptors.
Fischer, H. O. L.; Dangschat, G., Konstitution der Chlorogensäure (3. Mitteil. über
Cahn, R. S.; Ingold, C.; Prelog, V., Specification of molecular chirality. Angew. Chem.,-Int. Ed.
Kremr, D.; Bajer, T.; Bajerova, P.; Surmova, S.; Ventura, K., Unremitting problems with
Clifford, M. N., Some Notes on the Chlorogenic Acids. 2. NMR Characterisation.
Clifford, M. N., Technical Report: Some Notes on the Chlorogenic Acids. Part 4. Botanical
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
317
rt_4_Botanical_Distribution_of_the_Chlorogenic_acids_Version_1_January_2017 (Access Date),
318
15/02/2017
319
12.
320
10.13140/RG.2.2.10825.95844
321
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312590947_Some_Notes_on_the_Chlorogenic_Acids_3_
322
LC_and_LC-MS_Version_3_January_2017 (Access Date), 15/02/2017
323
13.
324
Nomenclature. Researchgate 2017, 10.13140/RG.2.2.22301.31202
325
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312647842_Some_Notes_on_the_Chlorogenic_Acids_1_
326
Numbering_and_Nomenclature_Version_5_January_2017_with_table_margins_corrected (Access
327
Date), 15/02/2017
328
14.
329
)-shikimic acid from Quercus mongolica and Q. mysinaefolia. Phytochem. 1987, 26, 1501-1504.
330
15.
331
stenophylla. Phytochem. 1984, 23, 2621-2623.
332
16.
333
derivatives from Psiadia trinervia. Helv. Chim. Acta 1992, 75, 269-275.
334
17.
335
Pluchea symphytifolia. Planta Med. 1994, 60, 360-364.
336
18.
337
microbiological assay in the characterization of chlorogenic acids and related compounds.
338
Phytochem. 1965, 4, 773-775.
339
19.
340
Mongolian medicinal plant Scorzonera radiata. Z. Naturforsch., C 2012, 67, 135-143.
Clifford, M. N., Some Notes on the Chlorogenic Acids. 3. LC and LC–MS. Researchgate 2017,
Clifford, M. N.; Abranko, L., Some Notes on the Chlorogenic Acids. 1. Numbering and
Ishimaru, K.; Nonaka, G.-I.; Nishioka, I., Gallic acid esters of protoquercitol, quinic acid and (–
Nishimura, H.; Nonaka, G.-I.; Nishioka, I., Seven quinic acid gallates from Quercus
Wang, Y.; Hamburger, M.; Gueho, J.; Hostettmann, K., Cyclohexanecarboxylic acid
Scholz, E.; Heinrich, M.; Hunkler, D., Caffeoylquinic acids and some biological activities of
Cookman, G.; Sondheimer, E., The determination of D-quinic and D-shikimic acids by
Wang, Y.; Wray, V.; Tsevegsuren, N.; Lin, W.; Proksch, P., Phenolic compounds from the
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 20 of 31
Page 21 of 31
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
341
20.
Ono, M.; Masuoka, C.; Odake, Y.; Ikegashira, S.; Ito, Y.; Nohara, T., Antioxidative constituents
342
from Tessaria integrifolia. Food Sci. Tech. Res. 2000, 6, 106-114.
343
21.
344
chlorogenic acids and hydroxycinnamoylshikimate esters in maté (Ilex paraguariensis). J. Agric. Food
345
Chem. 2010, 58, 5471-5484.
346
22.
347
Helianthus tuberosus, Carlina acaulis and Symphyotrichum novae-angliae leaves by LC-MS(n).
348
Phytochem. Anal. 2011, 22, 432-441.
349
23.
350
hydroxycinnamates of six Galium species from the Rubiaceae family. In Handbook of Chemical and
351
Biological Plant Analytical Methods Volume 2, Hostettmann, K.; Chen, S.; Marston, A.; Stuppner, H.,
352
Eds. Wiley: 2014; pp 505-524.
353
24.
354
and feruloyl-muco-quinates. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2012, 10, 5266-5277.
355
25.
356
chlorogenic acids in coffee roasting using mass spectrometry based targeted and non-targeted
357
analytical strategies. Food Funct. 2012, 3, 976-984.
358
26.
359
structure and tandem mass spectrometrical characterization of the diastereoisomers of quinic acid.
360
J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 7298-7306.
361
27.
362
resonance studies. J. Org. Chem. 1970, 35, 1904-1909.
363
28.
364
Structure.10246715.html?rid=6cb65cf3-03b5-4bae-8eb3-9696a069e9c9
365
29.
366
Tetrahedron Lett. 1964, 2851-2853.
Jaiswal, R.; Sovdat, T.; Vivan, F.; Kuhnert, N., Profiling and characterization by LC-MSn of the
Jaiswal, R.; Deshpande, S.; Kuhnert, N., Profiling the chlorogenic acids of Rudbeckia hirta,
Jaiswal, R.; Matei, M. F.; Deshpande, S.; Kuhnert, N., Identification and characterization of
Jaiswal, R.; Dickman, M. H.; Kuhnert, N., First diastereoselective synthesis of methyl caffeoyl-
Jaiswal, R.; Matei, M. F.; Golon, A.; Witt, M.; Kuhnert, N., Understanding the fate of
Deshpande, S.; Matei, M. F.; Jaiswal, R.; Bassil, B. S.; Kortz, U.; Kuhnert, N., Synthesis,
Corse, J.; Lundin, R. E., Diastereomers of quinic acid. Chemical and nuclear magnetic
ChemSpider. http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-
Scarpati, M. L.; Guiso, M., Structure of the three dicaffeoylquinic acids of coffee.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
367
30.
Corse, J.; Lundin, R. E.; Waiss, A. C., Identification of several components of isochlorogenic
368
acid. Phytochem. Anal. 1965, 4, 527-529.
369 370 371 372 373 374
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 22 of 31
Page 23 of 31
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
375
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
376
Figure 1 Non-IUPAC
IUPAC 1976
377 378
Figure 1. IUPAC and non-IUPAC numbering of 1L-1(OH),3,4/5-tetrahydroxy-cyclohexanecarboxylic
379
acid [1L-(–)-quinic acid].
380 381
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 24 of 31
Page 25 of 31
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
382 1L-(-)-Quinic acid (IUPAC)
1D-(+)-Quinic acid (IUPAC)
clockwise
anti-clockwise
A
B
Fisher-Tollens projections H O
C
HOOC 1 OH
O
4
5 3 O
OH CH3
O
383 384 385
Figure 2. Selected structures to illustrate the conflicts and complexity of presenting quinic acid
386
enantiomers and associated acyl-quinic acids when using IUPAC recommendations
387
2A. IUPAC recommendations for clockwise and anti-clockwise numbering of enantiomers
388
2B. Fischer–Tollens projections for 1L-(–)-quinic acid and 1D-(+)-quinic acid
389
2C. Two conflicting structures that strict application of IUPAC rules designate as 3-O-acetyl-5-O-
390
formyl-(–)-quinic acid
391
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
3-Acyl derivative prepared
3-Acyl derivative prepared
from 1L-(–)-quinic acid
from 1D-(+)-quinic acid
3,5-Di-acyl derivative
3,5-Diacyl derivative
prepared from 1L-(–)-quinic
prepared from 1D-(+)-
acid
quinic acid
392 393
394 395 396
Figure 3 Conflicting structures obtained if IUPAC rules are applied to asymmetrically
397
substituted meso-quinic acid enantiomers prepared from 1L-(–)-quinic acid and 1D-(+)-quinic
398
acid
399
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 26 of 31
Page 27 of 31
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Table 1 An unambiguous nomenclature for the acyl-quinic acids commonly known as chlorogenic acids
Isomer
1. 1L-(–)quinic acid
CIP description and recommended description 1R, 3R, 4S, 5R or 3R, 5R-(1α, 3α, 4α, 5β)
Fischer–Tollens Structure
2D structure using the recommended convention
Conformers
2D structures for individual isomers drawn from four different perspectives
HOOC
1R
OH 5R OH
3R HO (Top one with equatorial COOH and axial 4H is shown in 26 Corse and Lundin 1970. Carboxy 26 equatorial preferred.
OH 4S
1S, 3S, 4R, 5S or 3S, 5S-(1α, 3α, 4α, 5β)
HOOC
5R OH
1S
OH 3S OH
OH 4R HO
1S
1R HOOC OH 5R HO
3S OH OH 4R
HO
3R OH
1S
COOH 5S OH
3S HO 180 deg
COOH
5S HO
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
3R OH
OH 4S
5S HO (Top one with equatorial COOH and axial 4H is shown in 26 Corse and Lundin 1970). Carboxy 26 equatorial preferred.
COOH
5R HO
OH 4S 2. 1D-(+)quinic acid
1R
OH 180 deg 4S
HO 1R COOH 3R HO
HO
OH 4R
1S HOOC OH 3S HO
5S OH OH 4R
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
3. 1L-(–)-epiquinic acid (derived from 1L-(–)quinic acid by 4-OH inversion)
1R, 3R, 4S, 5R or 3R, 5R-(1α, 3α, 4β, 5β)
4. 1D-(+)epi-quinic acid (derived from 1D-(+)quinic acid by 4-OH inversion)
1S, 3S, 4R, 5S or 3S, 5S-(1α, 3α, 4β, 5β)
(Top one with axial COOH and 4H is suggested by Corse and Lundin 26 1970). Carboxy axial 26 preferred.
or
Carboxy axial preferred.26
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 28 of 31
Page 29 of 31
5. Mucoquinic acid (derived from 1L-(–)quinic acid by 3-OH inversion) meso form
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
1S, 3S, 4R, 5R or 3S, 5R (1α, 3β, 4α, 5β)
HOOC
1S
OH
3 or 5S HO
5 or 3R OH OH 4R
or
HO
1S
COOH R OH
6. Cis-quinic acid (derived from 1L-(–)quinic acid by 5-OH inversion) meso form
1S
COOH S OH
R HO 180 deg
S HO Carboxy equatorial preferred.26
HO
OH
HOOC
1S
OH
R HO
S OH OH
OH
1R, 3R, 4S, 5S or 3R, 5S (1α, 3α, 4α, 5α)
OH 2 1 COOH OH 6 3 OH OH 5
or
4
Carboxy axial preferred.26
7. Neoquinic acid (derived from 1L-(–)quinic acid by 3-OH and 4-OH inversion) meso form
1S, 3S, 4S, 5R or 3S, 5R (1α, 3β, 4β, 5β)
HOOC
1S
OH
3 or 5S HO
5 or 3R OH OH 4S
or
HO 1S COOH R OH
S HO Carboxy axial preferred.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
26
OH 4S
HO
1S
COOH S OH
R HO
OH 180 deg 4S 1S HOOC OH R HO
S OH OH 4S
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
8. scylloquinic acid (derived from 1L-(–)quinic acid by 4-OH and 5-OH inversion) meso form
Page 30 of 31
1R, 3R, 4R, 5S or 3R, 5S (1α, 3α, 4β, 5α)
or
Carboxy equatorial preferred.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
26
Page 31 of 31
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
ACS Paragon Plus Environment