MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404320118 · doi:10.5267/j.ccl.2024.9.002

Synthesis, antimicrobial and antioxidant activity evaluation, DFT-calculation, and docking studies of 3-aryl-5,6-dihydroimidazo[2,1-b][1,3]thiazoles

2024· article· en· W4404320118 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vasyl Zhylko, Lesya Saliyeva, Nataliia Slyvka, A. N. Grozav, N. D. Yakovychuk, Dmytro Melnyk, Oksana Melnyk, Мария Б. Литвинчук, М. В. Вовк

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Chemistry Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSynthesis and biological activity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryAntimicrobialDocking (animal)ArylAntioxidantCombinatorial chemistryStereochemistryComputational chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of 3-aryl-5,6-dihydroimidazo[2,1-b][1,3]thiazoles were synthesized by cyclocondensation of imidazolidine-2-thione with phenacyl bromides, and their antimicrobial and antioxidant activity was evaluated. Bioscreening confirmed the moderate antibacterial activity against the reference strains of bacteria Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Proteus vulgaris and excellent antifungal activity against Candida albicans. It was found that 3-(4-chlorophenyl)-5,6-dihydroimidazo[2,1-b]thiazole 4h (MIC = 15.625 μg/ml) has twice the antifungal effect compared to the control drug Furacilin. The study of the antioxidant activity of the synthesized compounds proved their ability to inhibit 60–97% of DPPH radicals. The best antiradical effect was found for 4-(5,6-dihydroimidazo[2,1-b]thiazol-3-yl)phenol 4e (I = 97%). A probable mechanism of its action was proposed involving the formation of a radical cation by the SET process. For the most active antioxidants 4e-g, reactivity and electrostatic surface potential were evaluated using the DFT method, and molecular docking was studied on the human peroxiredoxin 5 protein model.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Chemistry LettersSame topicSynthesis and biological activityFrench-language works237,207