Click Glycosylation for the Synthesis of 1,2,3‐Triazole‐Linked Picropodophyllotoxin Glycoconjugates and Their Anticancer Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cu(I)‐catalyzed azide‐alkyne cycloaddition (CuAAC) reaction was employed successfully to prepare a series 4 β ‐triazole‐linked picropodophyllotoxin glycoconjugates ( 25 – 34 ). Maltose residue, 1,6‐ β ‐D‐diglucose residue, and several triazole‐linked disaccharide and trisaccharide residues were coupled to 4 β ‐azido‐podophyllotoxin derivatives through click glycosylation strategy. The initial click glycosylation products were treated with catalytic amount of NaOCH 3 to facilitate global deacylation and epimerization at C‐2 position to yield the cis ‐γ‐lactone moiety in the picropodophyllotoxin glycoconjugates. Most of these picropodophyllotoxin glycoconjugates show weak cytotoxicity (IC 50 > 40 μ M) against a panel of five human cancer cell lines (HL‐60, SMMC‐7721, A‐549, MCF‐7, SW480) as indicated by in vitro MTT [3‐(4,5‐dimethylthiazol‐2‐yl)‐2,5‐diphenyltetrazolium bromide] assay. However, compound 27 that contains a 1,6‐ β ‐D‐di‐glucose residue displays strong anticancer activity against all cancer cell lines tested, with IC 50 values ranging from 0.67 to 7.41 μ M, which is significantly more potent than the control drug etoposide against four of the five cancer cells tested. Structure activity relationship analysis suggests that the 4’‐ O ‐methyl group on the E ring of podophyllotoxin scaffold is perhaps important for the anticancer activity of glycosylated picropodophyllotoxin derivatives with a cis ‐γ‐lactone moiety.
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".