Synthesis, antimicrobial and antioxidant activity evaluation, DFT-calculation, and docking studies of 3-aryl-5,6-dihydroimidazo[2,1-b][1,3]thiazoles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".