Synthesis, Antifungal Activities and Molecular Docking Studies of Benzoxazole and Benzothiazole Derivatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on benzoxazole and benzothiazole scaffold as an important pharmacophore, two series of 2-(aryloxymethyl) benzoxazole and benzothiazole derivatives were synthesized and their antifungal effects against eight phytopathogenic fungi were evaluated. Compounds 5a, 5b, 5h, and 5i exhibited significant antifungal activities against most of the pathogens tested. Especially 5a, 5b, 5h, 5i, 5j, and 6h inhibited the growth of F. solani with IC50 of 4.34–17.61 μg/mL, which were stronger than that of the positive control, hymexazol (IC50 of 38.92 μg/mL). 5h was the most potent inhibitor (IC50 of 4.34 μg/mL) against F. Solani, which was about nine times more potent than hymexazol. Most of the test compounds displayed significant antifungal effects against B. cinerea (IC50 of 19.92–77.41 μg/mL), among them, 5a was the best one (IC50 of 19.92 μg/mL). The structure-activity relationships (SARs) were compared and analyzed. The result indicates that the electron-drawing ability and position of the substituents have a significant impact on biological activities. Furthermore, docking studies were carried out on the lipid transfer protein sec14p from S. cerevisiae, and preliminarily verified the antifungal activities. Taken together, these results provide 2-(phenoxymethyl)benzo[d]oxazole as an encouraging framework that could lead to the development of potent novel antifungal agents.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".