MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400089013 · doi:10.1016/j.carres.2024.109198

Synthesis and glycosidase inhibition of 3,4,5-trihydroxypiperidines using a one-pot amination-cyclisation cascade reaction

2024· article· en· W4400089013 on OpenAlexaff
Emma M. Dangerfield, Michael A. Meijlink, Alex A. Hunt‐Painter, Seyed A. Nasseri, Stephen G. Withers, Bridget L. Stocker, Mattie S. M. Timmer

Bibliographic record

VenueCarbohydrate Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCarbohydrate Chemistry and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMarsden FundRoyal Society Te Apārangi
KeywordsIminosugarChemistryAminationReductive aminationAlkylAmine gas treatingCascade reactionStereoselectivityStereochemistryGlucocerebrosidasePiperidineCombinatorial chemistryCascadeGlycoside hydrolaseProtecting groupEnzymeOrganic chemistryCatalysisChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trihydroxypiperidines are a therapeutically valuable class of iminosugar. We applied a one-pot amination-cyclisation cascade reaction to synthesise 3,4,5-trihydroxypiperidine stereoisomers in three steps from commercially available pentoses and in excellent overall yields. Using our methodology, the yields of the syntheses of meso-1, meso-2 and 3L are the highest reported to date. The synthetic methodology was readily extended to the three-step synthesis of N-alkyl derivatives by replacing the ammonia nitrogen source with a primary amine. The trihydroxypiperidines and N-alkyl analogues were screened for enzyme inhibitory activity using Fabrazyme (Fabry disease), GCase (Gaucher's disease), Agrobacterium sp. β-glucosidase, and Escherichia coli β-galactosidase. N-Phenylethyl 3,4,5-trihydroxypiperidine (N-phenylethyl-1-(3R,4R,5S)-piperidine-3,4,5-triol) showed good inhibitory activity of Fabrazyme (Ki = 46 μM). This activity was abolished when the N-phenylethyl group was removed or replaced with a non-aromatic alkyl chain.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarbohydrate ResearchSame topicCarbohydrate Chemistry and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207