Synthesis and Characterization of (PTU)I<sub>2</sub> (PTU = 6‐<i>n</i>‐propyl‐2‐thiouracil) and (CMBZT)I<sub>2</sub> (CMBZT = 5‐chloro‐2‐mercaptobenzothiazole) and Possible Implications for the Mechanism of Action of Anti‐Thyroid Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Direct reaction of 6‐n‐propyl‐2‐thiouracil (PTU), a widely used anti‐thyroid drug against hyperthyroidism (Graves’ disease), or 5‐chloro‐2‐mercaptobenzothiazole (CMBZTH) with iodine in a molar ratio of 1:1 resulted in the formation of the charge‐transfer (CT) complexes [(PTU)I2] (1) or [(CMBZT)I2] (2). All reactions were carried out in dichloromethane and water solutions. Compounds 1 and 2 were characterized by elemental analyses, FT‐Raman, FT‐IR, UV/Vis and 1H NMR spectroscopy. The crystal structures of both complexes were determined by X‐ray diffraction at 120(1) K (1) and 293(2) K (2). The charge‐transfer nature of the bonds in the adducts 1 and 2 was verified by the lengthening of the I−I bond lengths as compared to the S−I bond lengths and by the characteristic CT bands observed in the UV spectra of the complexes. Compound 1 [(C7H10N2OS)I2] [monoclinic with space group P21/c and a = 9.8501(7), b = 10.3101(7), c = 12.0287(8) Å, β = 99.707(6)°, Z = 4] consists of a propylthiouracil ligand bonded with an iodine atom through sulfur. Extended intermolecular N−H···O contacts link the molecules forming a supramolecular assembly. Compound 2 {(C7H4ClNS2)I2} [orthorhombic, space group P212121, a = 4.1650(10), b = 9.691(2), c = 28.471(6) Å, Z = 4] consists of a 5‐chloro‐2‐mercaptobenzothiazole ligand bonded with an iodine atom through sulfur. An extended intermolecular linkage via I···H−N bonds leads to the formation of an extended structure. Attempts to draw conclusions on the behavior of a thioamide — when used as an anti‐thyroidal drug — towards iodine have been made. (© Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 69451 Weinheim, Germany, 2003)
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".