Synthesis and enhanced neuroprotective activity of C60-based ebselen derivatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A C 60 -based ebselen derivative 4 was synthesized through the cycloaddition of C 60 with the azide (3) containing the ebselen component. It was obtained in a four-step synthesis starting from 2-(chloroseleno)benzoyl chloride and 2-(2-aminoethoxy)ethanol in 53% yield (based on consumed C 60 ). Its structure was characterized by 1 H NMR, 13 C NMR, IR, UV, and FAB-MS. To verify that the C 60 -based ebselen derivative 4 had enhanced antioxidative and neuroprotective activity, the C 60 derivative 5 and the ebselen derivative 6 were selected to treat cortical neuronal cells using the same procedures as with the C 60 -based ebselen derivative 4. The cellular viability of different derivative treatment groups was estimated by LDH leakage assay and MTT assay. At the same final concentration (30 µmol/L), the results showed that the antioxidative and protective potencies of the C 60 -based ebselen derivative 4 (MTT (OD) 0.340 ± 0.035, LDH release (UL –1 ) 4.80 ± 0.16) against H 2 O 2 -mediated neuronal injury have an advantage over those of C 60 derivative 5 (MTT (OD) 0.297 ± 0.036, LDH release (UL –1 ) 5.37 ± 0.31) and ebselen derivative 6 (MTT (OD) 0.267 ± 0.027, LDH release (UL –1 ) 5.85 ± 0.26). Correspondingly, the GPX activity of 4 (1.62 U/µmol) was higher than that of 5 (0.77 U/µmol) and 6 (1.24 U/µmol). These findings demonstrate that the incorporation of two components with similar biological activity (C 60 component and ebselen component) may be a desirable way of obtaining a new and more biologically effective C 60 -based compound.Key words: fullerene, ebselen derivative, azide, neuroprotective activity, cellular viability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".