MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074093728 · doi:10.1021/ja0103750

Synthesis of Nitrogen Analogues of Salacinol and Their Evaluation as Glycosidase Inhibitors

2001· article· en· W2074093728 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Ghavami, Blair D. Johnston, Morten T. Jensen, Birte Svensson, B. Mario Pinto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCarbohydrate Chemistry and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryGlycoside hydrolaseStereochemistryEnzymeOrganic chemistryCombinatorial chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The syntheses of two nitrogen analogues (11 and 12) of the naturally occurring sulfonium ion, salacinol (7) are described. The latter compound is one of the active principles in the aqueous extracts of Salacia reticulata that are traditionally used in Sri Lanka and India for the treatment of diabetes. The synthetic strategy relies on the nucleophilic attack of a 1,4-dideoxy-1,4-imino-D- or L-arabinitol at the least hindered carbon of 2,4-O-benzylidene D- or L-erythritol-1,3-cyclic sulfate. The nitrogen analogues bear a permanent positive charge and serve as mimics of the sulfonium ion. We reasoned that these ammonium derivatives should function in a manner similar to that of known glycosidase inhibitors of the alkaloid class such as castanospermine (4) and deoxynojirimycin (5). Enzyme inhibition assays indicate that salacinol (7) is a weak (K(i) = 1.7 mM) inhibitor of glucoamylase, whereas compounds 11 and 12 inhibit glucoamylase with K(i) values in the range approximately 10-fold higher. The nitrogen analogues 11 and 12 showed no significant inhibitory effect of either barley alpha-amylase (AMY1) or porcine pancreatic alpha-amylase (PPA) at concentrations of 5 mM. In contrast, salacinol (7) inhibited AMY1 and PPA in the micromolar range, with K(i) values of 15 +/- 1 and 10 +/- 2 microM, respectively.

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)0.000
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations61
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicCarbohydrate Chemistry and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207