4 (Ar C–H), 1,676–1,645 (C=O), 1,625–1,594 cm−1 (C=N), 1,517–1,530.9 (Ar C–C), 1,270 cm−1 (C–N), 1,177–1,125 cm−1 (sulphonamide), 1,128–1,030 cm−1 (S=O) and 756–662 cm−1 (thiadiazole C–S). The 1H-NMR spectra of all compounds indicated expected

peaks in the region of 1.249–1.254 δ ppm (s, Ar–SO2NH), 3.569–4.116 δ ppm (s, Schiff base CH=N) and 8.24–8.523 δ ppm (s, amide C(=O)N–H), while multiplets of aromatic ring are in the range of 6.6–8.2 δ ppm. Thin-layer chromatography (TLC) was run throughout the reaction to optimize the reaction for purity and completion. Pharmacological evaluation Antioxidant and free radical scavenging activity ABTS ·+ radical, lipid peroxidation, DPPH radical, superoxide anion and nitric oxide anion radical scavenging activity has been used as a quick and reliable parameter to assess the in vitro antioxidant activity. Each method relates to the generation of a different radical, acting through a variety of mechanisms and the measurement of a range selleck of end points at a fixed time point or over a range (Miller and Rice-Evans, 1994, 1996). The different concentrations of the synthesized compounds showed antioxidant activities in a dose-dependent manner. Comparative IC50 (nM/mL) inhibitory concentrations of synthesized compounds against different free radicals are reported in Table 1. All the tested compounds showed statistically Idasanutlin significant (P < 0.05) IC50 values. Among the tested compounds, (9c) is

the most potent compound and had lowest IC50 (nM/mL) value against DPPH radical, nitric oxide anion and lipid peroxidation, while (9e) and (9f) showed maximum potency against ABTS ·+ radical and superoxide anion radical, respectively. The study also indicates that the compounds (9c), (9d) and (9f) showed the smaller IC50 (nM/mL) values even than respective standards, indicating that these compounds are more potent than the standard, and reveals that the electron-donating Cell press functional group like –OCH3

(9c and 9d) or the functional group like –OH having the ability to bind with free radical (9f) is responsible for the potency. Table 1 Comparative IC50 inhibitory selleck compound concentration of synthesized compounds and standards against different free radicals Compound no. IC50 inhibitory concentration (nM/mL)a ABTS+ radicalb Lipid peroxidationc DPPH radicald Superoxide anione Nitric oxide radicalf 9a 73.30 ± 7.05* [4.07] 121.63 ± 18.60 [10.74] 134.07 ± 12.90* [22.34] 151.89 ± 14.42* [24.97] 103.67 ± 7.50* [12.99] 9b 93.30 ± 10.67* [6.16] 133.02 ± 11.53* [6.65] 88.19 ± 11.09* [6.40] 76.31 ± 11.80* [6.81] 52.57 ± 16.73* [9.66] 9c 196.17 ± 16.60* [9.58] 101.78 ± 14.51** [8.38] 41.27 ± 4.23** [2.44] 128.09 ± 21.74* [12.55] 81.90 ± 10.44* [6.02] 9d 55.61 ± 6.98* [4.03] 164.49 ± 14.56* [8.41] 63.56 ± 8.35** [4.82] 74.52 ± 8.3* [4.79] 53.03 ± 6.74* [3.89] 9e 47.89 ± 9.90* [5.72] 134.34 ± 14.70** [8.49] 107.28 ± 18.13** [10.46] 135.52 ± 22.55* [13.02] 155.21 ± 17.64* [10.19] 9f 207.14 ± 17.41* [10.05] 203.74 ± 20.11** [11.61] 80.