MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Squaramide Tethered Clindamycin, Chloroquine, and Mortiamide Hybrids: Design, Synthesis, and Antimalarial Activity

2023· article· en· W4318040054 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas Tremblay, Catherine Bergeron, Dominic Gagnon, Christopher Bérubé, Normand Voyer, Dave Richard, Denis Giguère

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité Laval
KeywordsPlasmodium falciparumChloroquineClindamycinIC50HydroxychloroquineChemistryMalariaIn vitroPharmacologyBiologyMicrobiologyMedicineBiochemistryImmunologyAntibioticsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Malaria remains one of the major health problems in the world. In this work, a series of squaramide tethered chloroquine, clindamycin, and mortiamide D hybrids have been synthesized to assess their in vitro antiplasmodial activity against 3D7 (chloroquine-sensitive) and Dd2 strains of Plasmodium falciparum . The most active compound, a simple chloroquine analogue, displayed low nanomolar IC 50 value against both strains (3 nM for 3D7 strain and 18 nM for Dd2 strain). Moreover, all molecular hybrids incorporating the hydroxychloroquine scaffold showed the most potent activities, exemplified with a chloroquine dimer, IC 50 = 31 nM and 81 nM against 3D7 and Dd2 strains, respectively. These results highlight the first time use of clindamycin and mortiamide D as antimalarial molecular hybrids and establish these valuable hits for future optimization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Medicinal Chemistry LettersSame topicMalaria Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207