ArticleScientific reports2026
Design, synthesis, molecular modelling and biological evaluation of oxiconazole-based 1,2,3-triazoles as dually acting antifungal and antitumor agents.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rise of azole-resistant and the elevated prevalence of fungal infections in immuno-compromised cancer patients emphasize the necessity for strategies that can tackle both fungal resistance and tumor expansion. We postulated that the appropriate alteration of the azole pharmacophore through the inclusion of a 1,2,3-triazole ring might result in dual-acting drugs that preserve antifungal efficacy while exhibiting anticancer properties. In accordance with the aforementioned reasoning, a targeted library of oxiconazole-derived 1,2,3-triazoles was synthesized and assessed for antifungal potency, cytotoxicity, and mechanism of action. Different analogues (4, 5b, 6, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 19c) exhibited significant antifungal activity against fluconazole-sensitive C. albicans strains (S1, S2), with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) ranging from 16 to 64 μg/mL, while reduced activity was observed against resistant strains (S3, S4). Compound 11, the nearest structural counterpart of oxiconazole, proved to be the most powerful alternative, markedly suppressing ergosterol biosynthesis in both susceptible (S1) and resistant (S3) strains by 65.65% and 61.89%, respectively. Checkerboard assays demonstrated additive to indifferent relationships between 11 and fluconazole, with fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI) values of 2 and 0.75 against S1 and S3, respectively. Docking study revealed that 11 occupied the lanosterol 14α-demethylase active pocket. In addition, compounds (5b, 5c, 7-9, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 19c) had moderate to modest cytotoxic activity against A549, Caco-2, and MCF7 cancer cells, with IC
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.