Microwave Irradiation Assisted Synthesis 4-Hydroxy 3-Iodobenzylguanidine(HIBG)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X20832Abstract
Meta-iodo benzyl guanidine(MIBG) is an analogue of Noradernalin transmitter. When radiolabelled with 123 I and 131I , used for scan and diagnosis Adernal’s tumor. Labeled MIBG with 131I used in therapy of Neuroblastoma , Pheochromocytoma , Carcinoidsyndome and Neuroendocrine tumors. In our continuing efforts to develop MIBG analogues with higher therapeutic efficacy, we recently evaluated the structure-activity characteristics of several analogues of MIBG. We are interested in developing HIBG analogues containing hydroxyl at the 4-postion oF HIBG.generous of the some groups to activate the aromatic ring of a drug towards electrophilic radiodiodination may have merit .The resistance of HIBG to in vivo radiodiodination and amenability to kit production make it a strong candidate for clinical evaluation as a pheochromocytoma and neuroblastoma localzing agent. Microwave assisted heating under controlled conditions has been shown to be an invaluable technology for organic chemistry and during discovery applications since it often rise yield and dramatically reduce reaction times, typically form days or hours to minutes or even seconds.Microwave Irradiation Assisted Synthesis of HIBG is started to produce 4-methoxybenzylamine. 4-methoxybenzylamine and hydriodic acid are mixed and heated for this purpose. Then under MBR condition 4-Hydroxybenzyl guanidine in sulphate form is prepared with additional Cyanamide and Sulphuric acid. After that Iodination is preformed under MBR condition and 4-Hydroxy-3-iodobenzyl guanidine sulphate formed , that can labeled with 131I and exchange to labeled 4-Hydroxy-3-iodobenzyl guanidine sulphate.Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.