Synthesis, Crystal Structure, Spectral And Electrochemical Characterization, DNA Binding and Antioxidant studies of 1-(2- florobenzoyl)-3-(2-chloro, 4-ferrocenylphenyl) thiourea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this manuscript we have synthesized systematically 1-(2-florobenzoyl)-3-(2-chloro, 4-ferrocenylphenyl) thiourea (2F) and successfully determined the structure by single crystal X-rays diffraction analysis. The compound was spectrally characterized using multinuclear 1H and 13C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and fourier transform infra-red (FT-IR) spectroscopic techniques and electrochemical characterization was carried out using cyclic voltammetry. The compound (2F) was then screened for potential deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) binding and antioxidant activity. The single crystal XRD title compound 2F showed that ferrocenyl moiety had eclipsed conformation while the phenyl ring substituted on ferrocenyl is not in plane with cp-ring. The compound (2F) had shown a reversible process with one electron transfer, two peaks were observed for oxidation and reduction during scan. From voltametric measurements, the shifts in peak potential and peak current were used to review the mode of interaction which is found to be noncovalent electrostatic, drug-DNA binding constant and diffusion coefficients of the compound (2F) and 2F-DNA adduct. The binding constant (M-1) was found to be 2.92 × 103 with binding energy 19.76 kJ mol-1. The diffusion coefficient of free compound (2F) was calculated 1.75 × 10-7 whereas diffusion coefficient of 2F-DNA was found to less to i.e. 8.96 × 10-8 which was obvious as free molecules are easy to diffuse because of its low molecular weight whereas 2F interacted with DNA become heavier and the quantity of remained free molecules became less as a result decrease in current was observed. The compound (2F) showed significant activity with IC50 value 41.69 μg mL-1 using 1,1-diphenyl-2-picryl-hydrazyl (DPPH) assay.
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".