The synthesis of a carbohydrate-like dihydrooxazine and tetrahydrooxazine as putative inhibitors of glycoside hydrolases: A direct synthesis of isofagomine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment of benzyl 2,3-O-isopropylidene-β-L-xylopyranoside with N-hydroxyphthalimide under Mitsunobu conditions, followed by protecting-group interchange, gave benzyl 4-O-[(tert-butoxycarbonyl)amino]-2,3- O-isopropylidene-α-D-arabinoside. Mild acid hydrolysis and catalytic hydrogenolysis afforded 4-O-[(tert-butoxycarbonyl)amino]-D-arabinose that, upon heating in water, gave the dihydrooxazine [(4R,5S,6R)-5,6-dihydro-4,5-dihydroxy-6-hydroxymethyl-4H-1,2-oxazine] as a crystalline solid. A single-crystal structure determination of this solid showed it to exist in the 5H6 conformation. Reduction of the dihydrooxazine gave the tetrahydrooxazine [(4R,5S,6R)-4,5-dihydroxy-6-hydroxymethyl-3,4,5,6-tetrahydro-2H-1,2-oxazine]. The dihydrooxazine was an effective inhibitor of two β-glucosidases (Ki = 27 and 35 µM). Benzyl 2,3-O-isopropylidene-β-L-xylopyranoside, via the derived imidazylate, was converted into a nitrile that, upon reduction and protecting-group manipulations, gave benzyl 4-C-aminomethyl-4-deoxy-α-D-arabinoside. Treatment of this amine with hydrogen and palladium-on-carbon gave isofagomine.Key words: dihydrooxazine, tetrahydrooxazine, isofagomine, iminosugars, glycosidase inhibitors.
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) | 0.001 | 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".