Synthesis and Biochemical Evaluation of Nicotinamide Derivatives as NADH Analogue Coenzymes in Ene Reductase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nicotinamide and pyridine‐containing conjugates have attracted a lot of attention in research as they have found use in a wide range of applications including as redox flow batteries and calcium channel blockers, in biocatalysis, and in metabolism. The interesting redox character of the compounds’ pyridine/dihydropyridine system allows them to possess very similar characteristics to the natural chiral redox agents NAD + /NADH, even mimicking their functions. There has been considerable interest in designing and synthesizing NAD + /NADH mimetics with similar redox properties. In this research, three nicotinamide conjugates were designed, synthesized, and characterized. Molecular structures obtained through X‐ray crystallography were obtained for two of the conjugates, thereby providing more detail on the bonding and structure of the compounds. The compounds were then further evaluated for biochemical properties, and it was found that one of the conjugates possessed similar functions and characteristics to the natural NADH. This compound was evaluated in the active enzyme, enoate reductase; like NADH, it was shown to help reduce the C=C double bond of three substrates and even outperformed the natural coenzyme. Kinetic data are reported.
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".