Synthesis and evaluation of antimicrobial activity of some new 3-(pyrrol-4-yl)acrylamide derivatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of new derivatives of 3-(pyrrol-4-yl)acrylamides 3a-l with the pyrrole nucleus functionalized by chlorine atoms and ester group, have been synthesized by simple preparative methods from the available esters of 5-chloro-4-formylpyrrol-3-carboxylic acids 1a-e. At first, 3-(pyrrol-4-yl)acrylic acids 2a-e were synthesized by the Knoevenagel’s reaction between malonic acid and the esters 1a-e. Then the target compounds were obtained with a high yield in the reactions between chloroanhydrides of the synthesized acrylic acids and aromatic or aliphatic amines in the boiling benzene. The structure of all obtained compounds was confirmed by elemental analysis, IR, 1H-NMR, and 13C-NMR spectroscopy, and additionally checked by the mass-spectrometry. Then the antimicrobial activity of all amides was tested in vitro on some gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria and fungi. It has been found that the gram-negative bacteria are resistant against the synthesized chemicals, while the gram-positive bacteria are sensitive to the amides 3с, e, f, g, i. The highest activity against Staphylococcus aureus MR and Staphylococcus epidermidis MS was registered for the amide 3f, and the retardation area diameter for this amide was greater than that for the control drugs.
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) | 0.000 | 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".