MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981915247 · doi:10.1021/jm3006492

Synthesis, Biological Evaluation, and Structure–Activity Relationships of Novel Substituted <i>N</i>-Phenyl Ureidobenzenesulfonate Derivatives Blocking Cell Cycle Progression in S-Phase and Inducing DNA Double-Strand Breaks

2012· article· en· W1981915247 on OpenAlexafffund
Vanessa Turcotte, Sébastien Fortin, Florence Vevey, Yan Coulombe, Jacques Lacroix, Marie‐France Côté, Jean‐Yves Masson, René C.‐Gaudreault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medicinal Chemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMetal complexes synthesis and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital Saint-François d'Assise
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsChemistryCisplatinCombretastatinCell cycleFibrosarcomaDNAChorioallantoic membraneCell cultureDNA synthesisStereochemistryDNA damageCellBiochemistryCell biologyIn vitroChemotherapyBiologyGeneticsTubulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twenty-eight new substituted N-phenyl ureidobenzenesulfonate (PUB-SO) and 18 N-phenylureidobenzenesulfonamide (PUB-SA) derivatives were prepared. Several PUB-SOs exhibited antiproliferative activity at the micromolar level against the HT-29, M21, and MCF-7 cell lines and blocked cell cycle progression in S-phase similarly to cisplatin. In addition, PUB-SOs induced histone H2AX (γH2AX) phosphorylation, indicating that these molecules induce DNA double-strand breaks. In contrast, PUB-SAs were less active than PUB-SOs and did not block cell cycle progression in S-phase. Finally, PUB-SOs 4 and 46 exhibited potent antitumor activity in HT-1080 fibrosarcoma cells grafted onto chick chorioallantoic membranes, which was similar to cisplatin and combretastatin A-4 and without significant toxicity toward chick embryos. These new compounds are members of a promising new class of anticancer agents.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medicinal ChemistrySame topicMetal complexes synthesis and propertiesFrench-language works237,207