Computational analysis investigates solvent impact on triazole derivative's properties and interactions with Chlamydia trachomatis, suggesting enhanced drug potential.
This study highlights an extensive computational inquiry of the solvent effect on the chemical properties of a newly synthesized 1-(4-Chlorophenyl)-3-(3,5-dimethylphenyl)-5-(3-fluorophenyl)-4H-1,2,4-triazol-4yl) urea (CDF-TU) . The study aims to examine the effects of solvents on the chemical properties and lead compound potentials of compound CDF-TU against Chlamydia trachomatis . Density functional theory at the B3LYP-D3(BJ)/aug-cc-evqz level of theory was used for the study of the electronic effect of the compound (CDF-TU) in ethanol, water, and gas. This study examined the pharmacokinetic attributes of CDF-TU, confirming its alignment with Lipinski's rule, and other parameters such as molecular weight of 435.88 g/mol. Moreover, the HOMO-LUMO analysis revealed the ionization energies of CDF-TU showed that water had more stabilizing effect on the compound with the highest energy gap of 5.2543 eV. Also, CDF-TU in water had the highest electronegativity of 3.9136eV compared to Ethanol (3.8884eV) and gas (3.2068eV). Molecular docking analysis revealed that, compared with doxycycline, the standard drug, CDF-TU had higher binding affinity (-8.9 Kcal/mol) compared to Doxycycline (-7.8 Kcal/mol) with protein 1RCW when surrounded by water molecules. Hence, CDF-TU records a lower inhibition (0.298µM) constant when compared to Doxycycline (1.876µM). However, in the absence of water, CDF-TU records the same magnitude of binding affinity with Doxycycline (-6.3 Kcal/mol). More hydrogen bonds were formed with CDF-TU and protein 1RCW in water compared to the compound's interaction with protein 1RCW without water. However, these findings demonstrate the biological potential of CDF-TU due to its docking performance amidst the presence of water.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adalikwu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: