Synthesis, Characterization, and Biological Studies of Organotin(IV) Derivatives with o‐ or p‐hydroxybenzoic Acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organotin(IV) complexes with o- or p-hydroxybenzoic acids (o-H(2)BZA or p-H(2)BZA) of formulae [R(2)Sn(HL)(2)] (where H(2)L = o-H(2)BZA and R = Me- (1), n-Bu- (2)); [R(3)Sn(HL)] (where H(2)L = o-H(2)BZA and R = n-Bu- (3), Ph- (4) or H(2)L = p-H(2)BZA and R = n-Bu- (5), Ph- (6)) were synthesized by reacting a methanolic solution of di- and triorganotin(IV) compounds with an aqueous solution of the ligand (o-H(2)BZA or p-H(2)BZA) containing equimolar amounts of potassium hydroxide. The complexes were characterized by elemental analysis, FT-IR, Far-IR, TGA-DTA, FT-Raman, Mössbauer spectroscopy, (1)H, (119)Sn-NMR, UV/Vis spectroscopy, and Mass spectroscopy. The X-ray crystal structures of complexes 1 and 2 have also been determined. Finally, the influence of these complexes 1-6 upon the catalytic peroxidation of linoleic acid to hydroperoxylinoleic acid by the enzyme lipoxygenase (LOX) was kinetically studied and the results showed that triorganotin(IV) complex 6 has the lowest IC(50) value. Also complexes 1-6 were studied for their in vitro cytotoxicity against sarcoma cancer cells (mesenchymal tissue) from the Wistar rat, and the results showed that the complexes have high activity against these cell lines with triphenyltin((IV) complex 4 to be the most active one.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".