Synthesis and biological evaluation of structurally simplified noscapine analogues as microtubule binding agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the results of chemical synthesis and biological assays performed on several new analogues of noscapine. We have successfully synthesized four noscapine analogues called 1a–4a, as well as their four corresponding enantiomers called 1b–4b. The chemical pathway consisted of three steps with yields in excess of 60% in each step. Subsequently, we have performed biological activity assays intended to reveal the mode of action of these compounds on microtubules in buffer and in cancer cell lines. We have assayed fluorescence quenching effects in microtubule polymerization experiments, cytotoxicity evaluation in breast cancer cell lines, as well as microtubule dynamicity assessments, for each of the synthesized compounds. Finally, we performed computational docking simulations to two binding sites on β-tubulin: (a) the colchicine binding site and (b) the noscapine binding site. Our results indicate that these compounds have relatively low cytotoxicity profile and less pronounced effects on microtubule dynamics compared with noscapine. Our computational results indicate that these compounds bind to both putative binding sites but have higher affinity for the colchicine site.
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) | 0.002 | 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".