Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37692021›Full record

ArticleJournal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research

Farah Haidar Abdulredha, Monther Faisal Mahdi, Ayad Kareem Khan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Farah Haidar AbdulredhaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, Al-Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq.
Monther Faisal MahdiDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, Al-Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq.
Ayad Kareem KhanDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, Al-Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A series of eight novels' 1,3-diazetidin-2-ones have been proposed to assess their potential activities. They are intended to examine antiproliferative effects through inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression. These eight compounds strongly interact with the EGFR protein, responsible for the activity. As part of a present study, these compounds were docked to the crystal structure of the EGFR (Protein Data Bank code: 1 M17) to determine their binding affinity at the active site. Based on computer predictions, two compounds were demonstrated high scores of 80.80 and 85.89. After analyzing ADME properties, these compounds were found to have significant potential for binding. Consequently, the abilities of gefitinib, erlotinib, imatinib, and sorafenib were selected for comparison as controls. Computational methods were performed to predict the critical disposition of eight novels' 1,3-diazetidin-2-one derivatives to the EGFR. Moreover, a docking technique employing the Genetic Optimization for Ligand Docking program was conducted. Compounds 2 and 7 demonstrate a high docking peace-wise scoring function (PLP) fitness of 85.89 and 80.80, respectively. They fulfilled the Lipinski's rule, topological descriptors, and fingerprints of drug-like molecular structure keys. These compounds can be used as lead compounds to develop novel antiproliferative agents. The outcome of applying this study is novel series of 1,3-diazetidin-2-one compounds as new analogs were designed and evaluated for their antiproliferative activity with a higher potency profile and binding affinity within the active sites of EGFR.

Indexed as

Aza-beta-lactamepidermal growth factor receptormolecular dockingnonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Identifiers

PMID37692021
PMCPMC10483897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.