Cited by 0Structural and Chemical Analysis of Organic and Inorganic CompoundsSynthesis and Biological EvaluationSynthesis and biological activity

Exploring the Antimicrobial Potential of 1,3,4-Oxadiazole Derivatives: Synthesis, Characterization, and Activity Against Clinically Significant Pathogens

Open access
Pınar, İbrahim, Tekintaş, Yamaç, Kuzu, Burak·2026·Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Pharmacy

Abstract

The 1,3,4-oxadiazole ring is a structurally stable and pharmacologically active scaffold widely explored in drug discovery. This study presents a practical synthetic approach for 2,5-diaryl-substituted 1,3,4-oxadiazole scaffolds and evaluates their antimicrobial and antibiofilm potential. A total of 14 novel compounds were synthesized and screened for antibacterial activity against four clinically relevant bacterial strains: Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 25923), Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC 29212), Escherichia coli (NCTC 13846), and Salmonella enterica (RSKK 04059). Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined in micromolar (μM) ranges, and several compounds demonstrated promising antibacterial effects. Among them, compounds 11h and 11i were selected for further evaluation of antibiofilm activity. Both compounds significantly inhibited biofilm formation by S. aureus, E. faecalis, and S. enterica, even at concentrations below their MIC values. A dose-dependent inhibition profile was observed, indicating potential utility in targeting bacterial biofilms at low doses. Interestingly, no antibiofilm activity was observed against E. coli NCTC 13846; instead, biofilm formation appeared to increase at certain concentrations. In summary, the synthesized 1,3,4-oxadiazole derivatives, particularly 11h and 11i, exhibited promising antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities, indicating their potential as core scaffolds for the design of new therapeutic agents targeting resistant bacterial strains.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.52794/hujpharm.1782013

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 40

Authors
Pınar, İ., Tekintaş, Y., & Kuzu, B.
Affiliations
  • Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi (TR)
  • Izmir Kâtip Çelebi University (TR)
Corresponding author
Kuzu, Burak
Venue
Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Pharmacy
Published
2026-06-01
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
99-111
ISSN
2458-8806 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7163024873
Cited by
0
References
40
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Pharmacy (publishedVersion)
  • Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Academic Data Management System (submittedVersion)
  • DergiPark (Istanbul University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Structural and Chemical Analysis of Organic and Inorganic Compounds
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Synthesis and Biological Evaluation
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Synthesis and biological activity
Keywords
1,3,4-oxadiazole derivatives, antimicrobial activity, antibiofilm activity, bacterial biofilm inhibition, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Escherichia coli, Salmonella enterica, minimum inhibitory concentration, antibiotic resistance, heterocyclic synthesis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review