Evidence Hub

Synthesis, characterization, and in vitro and in silico antibacterial evaluation of 5-(3-nitrophenyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-amine

Sehmi A, Boudou F, Keziz A, Belakredar A, Alsaeedi H, Bechelany M, Kinsella GK, Barhoum A

Frontiers in chemistry, 2026

Abstract

Introduction: This study reports the synthesis, structural characterization, and antibacterial evaluation of 5-(3-nitrophenyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-amine (NPTA), a commercially available thiadiazole derivative with potential antimicrobial activity.

Methods: NPTA was synthesized through a green, one-pot condensation reaction between thiosemicarbazide and 3-nitrobenzoic acid in absolute ethanol, affording a pale-yellow crystalline solid with a melting point of 110 °C-112 °C. The compound was characterized using Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, confirming its structure. In vitro antibacterial assays, in silico ADMET and toxicity profiling, molecular docking, frontier molecular orbital (FMO) analysis, and 200 ns molecular dynamics simulations were performed.

Results: In vitro antibacterial assays revealed significant activity against Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC 13883, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Listeria monocytogenes ATCC 19114, with growth inhibition zones of 25.63 ± 0.17 mm, 29.09 ± 1.31 mm, and 26.65 ± 0.19 mm, respectively, and minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) ranging from 50 to 100 μg/mL. In silico ADMET and toxicity profiling predicted favourable drug-likeness, absorption, and safety. Molecular docking indicated strong binding affinities (-6.2 to -7.0 kcal/mol) with key bacterial targets, i.e., DNA gyrase subunit B (PDB: 1KZN) and penicillin-binding protein 4 (PDB: 3HUN). Frontier molecular orbital (FMO) analysis…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a simulation / modelling, done in cell cultures (in vitro) and computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free