4.6 Article

Conventional and Microwave-Assisted Synthesis, Antitubercular Activity, and Molecular Docking Studies of Pyrazole and Oxadiazole Hybrids

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 6, 期 42, 页码 28270-28284

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.1c04411

关键词

-

资金

  1. University Grant Commission, New Delhi under BSR Faculty-Fellowship 2019 [F18-1/2011 (BSR)]
  2. Department of Science and Technology, INSPIRE PROGRAM [IF180817]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microwave-assisted organic reaction enhancement (MORE) is becoming increasingly important in synthetic organic chemistry for efficient resource utilization. The microwave-assisted synthesis method allows for quicker synthesis with higher yields and better quality compounds compared to traditional methods.
Microwave-assisted organic reaction enhancement (MORE) has become more important in synthetic organic chemistry for efficient resource utilization. In this study, we synthesized bioactive compound , , using both traditional and microwave methods. Microwave-assisted synthesis takes less time and produces higher yields and quality than conventional approaches. We reported the synthesis of N'-(1-(2-(3-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-phenyl-1H-pyrazol-4-y1)-5-phenyl- 1,3,4- oxadiazol-3 (2H)-yl-ethylidene) substituted hydrazides (4a-t). We also tested them against two strains: M. tuberculosis H r Ra and M. bovis BCG. Against M. tuberculosis H37Ra, the compounds 4e, 4h, 4k, 4p, and 4s were the most effective. Compounds 4f, 4g, and 4s showed significant activity against M. bovis BCG. The structures of newly synthesized molecules were determined using spectral methods. Furthermore, molecular docking investigations into the active site of mycobacterial InhA yielded well-clustered solutions for these compounds' binding modalities producing a binding affinity in the range of -10.366 to -8.037. Theoretical results were in good accord with the observed experimental values. The docking score of compound 4e was -10.366, and the Glide energy was -66.459 kcal/mol.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据