Synthesis andin Vitro Antifungal and Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Thiazolo-4H-1,2,4-triazoles and 1,2,3-Thiadiazolo-4H-1,2,4-triazoles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing clinical importance of drug-resistant fungal pathogens has lent additional urgency to microbiological and antifungal research. Various thiazolo(or 1,2,3-thiadiazolo)thiosemicarbazides (2a-2e), 3-thiono-1,4-dihydrotriazolothiazoles-(or 1,2,3-thiadiazoles) (3a-3e), their related substituted thio-4H-1,2,4-triazoles (4a-4p) and sulfones (5a-5o) were synthesized. Most of the compounds tested for antifungal activity exhibited significant effects against Cryptococcus neoofrmans and Sacchromyces cerevisiae at MIC ranges of 0.53 to 12.5 micrograms/mL, whereas their activities were moderate against Candida albicans and weak against Aspergillus fumigatus. At 10 ppm concentration, all compounds showed low toxicity on brine shrimps (higher than 80% survival), except compounds 4c and 2c. At 100 ppm concentration most of the compounds showed toxicity except compounds 2b, 2e, 3c, 3d, 3e, and 4e. Compounds 4b, 4c, and 4h showed in vitro cytotoxicity against Kbalb cell lines and compounds 4c and 4g against 143B cell lines at 0.1 mM concentration.
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 | 0.001 |
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".