Synthesis and In Vitro Cytotoxicity Studies of Novel L-Tryptophan–Polyamide Conjugates and L-Tryptophan Dimers Linked With Aliphatic Chains and Polyamides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The synthesis and biological evaluation of novel L-tryptophan pyrrole, imidazole polyamide conjugates (16-21), L-tryptophan-glycosylated pyrrole polyamide conjugates (28-30), L-tryptophan dimers (37-42) with straight carbon links of varying length, and L-tryptophan dimers (68-73) linked with pyrrole and imidazole polyamide from both sides by a flexible methylene chain of variable length are described. The compounds were prepared with varying numbers of pyrrole- and/or imidazole-containing polyamides and glycosylated pyrrole polyamides to determine the structural requirements for optimal in vitro antitumor activity. The compounds listed in Table 1 have been evaluated in a three cell line, one dose primary anticancer assay. The compounds listed in Table 2 have been evaluated against nine panels of 60 human cancer cell lines including leukemia, non-small cell lung cancer, colon cancer, CNS cancer, melanoma, ovarian cancer, renal cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer. It is observed from the initial cytotoxic data (Table 1) that compounds 16-19, 28-30, 68-69, and 71-73 have varying cytotoxic potencies against the three cancer cell lines. It is also observed, from the biological data from Table 2 for compounds 20-21, 37-42, and 70 against the 60 different tumor cells, that the L-tryptophan dimers 37-42 linked by a different number of carbon chains are more active than the L-tryptophan dimers linked by pyrrole or imidazole polyamides. The cytotoxic potency in tryptophan dimers, linked by a different number of carbon atoms increased the number of carbons between the two L-tryptophan rings.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".