MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061781147 · doi:10.1039/b304500e

Synthesis and antifungal and antibacterial bioactivity of cyclic diamines containing boronate esters

2003· article· en· W2061781147 on OpenAlexaff
Alison M. Irving, Christopher M. Vogels, Liliya G. Nikolcheva, Janet Edwards, Xiaofeng He, Michael G. Hamilton, Mark O. Baerlocher, Felix J. Baerlocher, A. Decken, Stephen A. Westcott

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Journal of Chemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicOrganoboron and organosilicon chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryBenzaldehydeDiethylenetriamineAspergillus nigerAmine gas treatingEthylenediamineAntifungalMedicinal chemistryAspergillus flavusAntibacterial activityThioureaOrganic chemistryLigand (biochemistry)Polymer chemistryBacteriaCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Novel N2B heterocycles (1–5) are formed from the reaction of ethylenediamine derivatives with 2-(4,4,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3,2-dioxaborolan-2-yl)benzaldehyde (2-HC(O)C6H4Bpin; pin = 1,2-O2C2Me4). X-ray diffraction studies have been carried out on four examples and show that reactions are selective in giving the isomer where the least substituted amine coordinates to the Lewis-acidic boron atom. Reaction of 2-HC(O)C6H4Bpin with diethylenetriamine gave a heterocycle (6) with a pendant primary amine group, which reacts further with 2-pyridinecarboxaldehyde to give a potential ligand (7) for transition metals. All new compounds show considerable antifungal activity against Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus flavus and moderate antibacterial activity against Bacillus cereus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations68
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Journal of ChemistrySame topicOrganoboron and organosilicon chemistryFrench-language works237,207