↓ Skip to main content

Synthesis and anti-Candidaactivity of novel benzothiepino[3,2-c]pyridine derivatives

Overview of attention for article published in Chemical Biology & Drug Design, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Synthesis and anti-Candidaactivity of novel benzothiepino[3,2-c]pyridine derivatives
Published in
Chemical Biology & Drug Design, July 2016
DOI 10.1111/cbdd.12809
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nina Božinović, Sandra Šegan, Sandra Vojnovic, Aleksandar Pavic, Bogdan A. Šolaja, Jasmina Nikodinovic-Runic, Igor M. Opsenica

Abstract

A novel series of thiepine derivatives were synthesized and evaluated as potential antimicrobials. All the synthesized compounds were evaluated for their antimicrobial activities in vitro against the fungi Candida albicans (ATCC 10231), C. parapsilosis (clinical isolate), Gram-negative bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 44752), and Gram-positive bacterium Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 25923). Synthesized compounds showed higher antifungal activity than antibacterial activity indicating that they could be used as selective antimicrobials. Selected thiepines efficiently inhibited Candida hyphe formation, a trait necessary for their pathogenicity. Thiepine 8-phenyl[1]benzothiepino[3,2-c]pyridine (16) efficiently killed Candida albicans at 15.6 μg/mL and showed no embryotoxicity at 75 μg/mL. Derivative 8-[4-(4,5-dihydro-1H-imidazol-2-yl)phenyl][1]benzothiepino[3,2-c]pyridine (23) caused significant hemolysis and in vitro DNA interaction. The position of the phenyl ring was essential for the antifungal activity, while the electronic effects of the substituents did not significantly influence activity. Results obtained from in-vivo embryotoxicity on zebrafish (Danio rerio) encourage further structure optimizations. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 15%
Chemistry 2 15%
Unknown 5 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,547,644
of 18,217,263 outputs
Outputs from Chemical Biology & Drug Design
#792
of 1,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,642
of 270,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chemical Biology & Drug Design
#30
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,217,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,296 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,860 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.