MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chloramphenicol and Analogues

2000· other· en· W1741159976 on OpenAlex
Tattanahalli L. Nagabhushan, George H. Miller, Kanwal J. Varma

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueKirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology · 2000
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChloramphenicolThiamphenicolAntibioticsMicrobiologyBiologyAmpicillinMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chloramphenicol, C 11 H 12 Cl 2 N 2 O 5 , is a commercially significant antibacterial agent. Although widespread use of this antibiotic declined in the United States in the 1960s because of reports of serious toxic effects, this situation changed a decade later when ampicillin‐resistant Hemophilus influenzae emerged on the clinical scene. The appearance of Bacteroides species and of Streptococcus pneumoniae resistant to β‐lactam antibiotics contributed further to the resurgence. In the 1970s, chloramphenicol also became important in the treatment of serious Salmonella invasive gastroenteritis in infants less than three months of age. Because chloramphenicol crosses the blood brain barrier, it is indicated in infections of the central nervous system caused by susceptible organisms. The emergence of quinolones and other antibiotics is expected to curtail the use of chloramphenicol in the future, but this drug is relatively inexpensive, orally active, and the toxicity, except for the rare idiosyncratic aplastic anemia, can be managed through monitoring of blood levels by sensitive modern analytical procedures. However, clinical use is being further curtailed by the emergence of chloramphenicol‐resistant organisms. Both chloramphenicol and thiamphenicol cause reversible bone marrow suppression. The irreversible, often fatal, aplastic anemia, however, is only seen for chloramphenicol. Thiamphenicol lacks potency and has never found much usage in the United States. An analogue of thiamphenicol having antimicrobial potencies equivalent to chloramphenicol was sought. Florfenicol was selected for further development. Of the many mechanisms of bacterial resistance to chloramphenicol and thiamphenicol, the plasmid‐mediated transmissible resistance conferred by the presence in resistant bacteria of chloramphenicol‐acetyltransferases (CAT) is the most important. Structure–activity and mechanism of action studies indicate that the requirements for chloramphenicol activity are the D ‐threo‐configuration, the 1,3‐propanediol moiety, and a strong electron‐withdrawing group on the aromatic ring. Because the lack of biological activity of 3‐substituted chloramphenicols, biological activity of 3‐fluorochloramphenicol against chloramphenicol‐sensitive and ‐resistant organisms was determined. The synthesis and biological evaluation of a number of amphenicols containing a fluorine atom at the 3‐position resulted. The most promising florfenicol, 3‐fluorothiamphenicol, is not only active against the chloramphenicol‐thiamphenicol‐resistant strains, but its potency against sensitive organisms is also superior to any of the other amphenicols. The absolute ban on the use of chloramphenicol in food‐producing animals in the United States and Canada has accentuated the need for an effective broad‐spectrum antibiotic in animal food medicine. Florfenicol and other antibiotics commonly used in veterinary medicine have been evaluated in vitro against a variety of important veterinary and aquaculture pathogens. Florfenicol was broadly active. Florfenicol was also superior to chloramphenicol, thiamphenicol, oxytetracycline, ampicillin, and oxolinic acid against the most commonly isolated bacterial pathogen of fish in Japan. The inhibitory activities of chloramphenicol, thiamphenicol, and florfenicol against a sensitive E. coli strain have been studied. In two different liquid media, both chloramphenicol and florfenicol allowed only 20–30% residual growth at a drug concentration of 2 mg/L. Florfenicol was also found to be a selective inhibitor of prokaryotic cells. Florfenicol is similar to thiamphenicol in acute toxicity by oral and subcutaneous (sc) administration, but is comparable to chloramphenicol by intraperitoneal (ip) and intravenous (iv) routes. A dramatic effect was seen for florfenicol against Shigella (3 mg/kg sc, 2 mg/kg oral) as compared to chloramphenicol and thiamphenicol (100 mg/kg by both routes). Against resistant strains of Enterobacter, Klebsiella, Providencia, Serratia, Salmonella , and Staphylococcus , the PD 50 values for florfenicol ranged from 5 to 60 mg/kg whereas chloramphenicol and thiamphenicol were practically ineffective.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it