Thiazolidinedione or Rhodanine: A Study on Synthesis and Anticancer Activity Comparison of Novel Thiazole Derivatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A new series of thiazolyl-2,4-thiazolidinedione / rhodanine compounds T1-T23 was synthesized and tested for their anticancer activities. Hepatocellular carcinoma cell lines were chosen due to their strong drug resistance to test the new compounds. METHODS: All compounds were synthesized via Knoevenagel Condensation reaction and thiazolidinedione ester compounds (T3,T9,T15,T20) were hydrolyzed for obtaining the acidic compounds (T6,T12,T17,T23). All compounds were firstly screened for their anticancer activity against two hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cell lines, Huh7 and Plc/Prf/5 (Plc) cell lines by sulforhodamine B assay. Further IC50 values were calculated for three candidates (T4, T15, T21) in five different HCC (Huh7, Plc, Snu449, HepG2, Hep3B) and one breast cancer (Mcf7) cell line. RESULTS: Compounds T4, T15, T21 had very strong anticancer effects even though their 10 µM concentration in Huh7 cell line. According to IC50 values, T21 was the most effective compound with IC50 values in a range from 2 to 16 µM in 6 cancer cell lines. In terms of cytotoxicity T21 mostly affected Huh7 and interestingly it was less effective against Plc. CONCLUSIONS: Considering these results it can be suggested that compounds T4, T15 and T21 may lead to the development of more potent anticancer drugs in the future. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.
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 | 0.000 |
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".