Three Schiff bases were synthesised by the condensation reaction between 2-napthaldehyde and aromatic amines to afford (E)-N-mesityl-1-(naphthalen-2-yl)methanimine (L1), (E)-N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-1-(naphthalen-2-yl)methanimine (L2) and (E)-N-(2,6-diisopropylphenyl)-1-(naphthalen-2-yl)methanimine (L3). The synthesised compounds were characterised using UV–visible, NMR (¹³C & ¹H), and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopic methods while their purity was ascertained by elemental analysis. Structural analysis revealed that the naphthalene ring is almost coplanar with the imine functional group as evident by C1–C10–C11–N1 torsion angles of 176.4(2)° and 179.4(1)° in L2 and L3, respectively. Of all the various intermolecular contacts, H⋯H interactions contributed mostly towards the Hirshfeld surfaces of both L2 (58.7 %) and L3 (69.7 %). Quantum chemical descriptors of L1 - L3 were determined using Density Functional Theory (DFT) and the results obtained showed that the energy band gap (ΔE) for L1, L2 and L3 are 3.872, 4.023 and 4.004 eV respectively. The antidiabetic potential of the three compounds were studied using α-amylase and α-glucosidase assay. Compound L1 showed very promising antidiabetic activities with IC₅₀ values of 58.85 μg/mL and 57.60 μg/mL while the reference drug (Acarbose) had 405.84 μg/mL and 35.69 μg/mL for α-amylase and α-glucosidase respectively. In-silico studies showed that L1 docking score as well as binding energies are higher than that of acarbose, which are recognized inhibitors of α-amylase together with α-glucosidase. Further insight from the RMSF, RMSD and RoG analysis predicted that, throughout the simulation L1 showcased evident influence on the structural stability of α-amylase. The antioxidant potential of the compounds was carried out using nitric oxide (NO), ferric reducing ability power (FRAP) and 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assays. The compounds exhibited good to fairly antioxidant properties with L1 as well as L3 having IC₅₀ values of 70.91 and 91.21 μg/mL respectively for NO scavenging activities assay, which comparatively outshined acarbose (reference drug) with IC₅₀ value of 109.95 μg/mL. Pharmacology and pharmacokinetics approximations of L1 – L3 showed minimal violation of Lipinski's Ro5 and this projects them to be less toxic and orally bioavailable as potential templates for the design of therapeutics with antioxidant and antidiabetic activities.

Three Schiff bases 1-(4-chlorophenyl)-N-(naphthalen-1-yl)methanimine (1), 1-(4-methoxy phenyl)-N-(naphthalen-1-yl)methanimine (2), and 1-(4-chlorophenyl)-N-(2,6-diisopropyl phenyl)methanimine (3) were synthesized and characterized by elemental analysis, 1H and 13C NMR, FT-IR and UV-Visible spectroscopic techniques. The crystal structure of compound 3 was obtained and it revealed that the compound crystallized in a monoclinic space group P21/n and there exists an intermolecular hydrogen bond in a phenyl-imine form with C-H⋯N. Crystal data for C19H22ClN: a = 7.28280(10) Å, b = 9.94270(10) Å, c = 24.0413(2) Å, β = 97.0120(10)°, V = 1727.83(3) Å3, Z = 4, μ(Mo Kα) = 0.215 mm-1, Dcalc = 1.1526 g/cm3, 14038 reflections measured (12.42° ≤ 2Θ ≤ 52.74°), 3448 unique (Rint = 0.0223, Rsigma = 0.0182) which were used in all calculations. The final R1 was 0.0337 (I≥2u(I)) and wR2 was 0.0927 (all data). The free radical scavenging activities of all three compounds were assayed using DPPH, FRAP, and OH assays. According to results obtained, compound 2 shows effective DPPH- (IC50 = 22.69±0.14 μg/mL), FRAP+ (IC50 = 28.44±0.12 μg/mL), and OH- (IC50 = 27.97±0.16 μg/mL) scavenging activities compared with compounds 1 and 3 but less than standard antioxidant compound Trolox (TRO). Additionally, theoretical calculations for the three complexes were performed by using density functional theory (DFT) calculations at the B3LYP/6-31++G(2d,2p) level in the ground state to obtain an optimized geometrical structure and to perform an electronic, molecular electronic potential surface and natural bond orbital (NBO) analysis. The geometrical calculation obtained was found to be consistent with the experimental geometry. Further analysis was conducted using the in silico technique to predict the drug likeness, molecular and ADME properties of these molecules.

Six Schiff bases with general name 5-(diethylamino)-2-(((halophenyl)imino)methyl)phenol (where halo = 4-fluoro (H1), 2-fluoro (H2), 2-bromo (H3), 4-bromo (H4), 4-chloro (H5) and 3-chloro-4-fluoro (H6)) were prepared by the condensation reaction between 4-(diethylamino)salicylaldehyde and suitable halogenated aromatic amines. The six halogenated Schiff bases were elucidated using different spectroscopic techniques and the structure of H3 and H6 were confirmed using single-crystal X-ray crystallography. The bond lengths of C7–N1, C7–C8 and C8–C9 obtained from structural analysis for both compounds depicted their enol-tautomeric characteristic form. The Hirshfeld analysis revealed that H‧‧‧H intermolecular contacts contributed most towards the Hirshfeld surfaces of both H3 (47.6%) and H6 (39.9%). Quantum chemical calculation studies showed that H1 and H2 have the highest and lowest energy band gap (∆E = 3.80 eV for H1 and ∆E = 3.73 eV for H2), depicting H2 and H1 as the most and least chemically reactive respectively among all the compounds. α-Amylase and α-glucosidase assay were used to evaluate the antidiabetes prowess of the synthesized compounds. All the compounds exhibited lower IC₅₀ values than acarbose (reference drug) in α-amylase assay experiments and H5 with lowest IC₅₀ value of 63.54 μM could be suggested to have the highest α-amylase inhibitory potential among the test samples. For α-glucosidase assay, H1–H6 displayed good antidiabetic potential. However, none of the compounds outshined acarbose with H6 having highest α-glucosidase inhibitory potential when compared to others i.e., IC₅₀ of H6 = 60.89 μM and IC₅₀ of acarbose = 51.42 μM. We measured the antioxidant potential of H1–H6 exploring 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), nitric oxide (NO) and ferric reducing ability power (FRAP) assays. The DPPH as well as NO radical scavenging assay showed that all the compounds exhibited excellent antioxidant results with some of the compounds surpassing catechin (reference drug). Compound H5 with IC₅₀ values of 30.32 mM and 31.73 mM outshined catechin with IC₅₀ values of 31.17 mM and 140.62 mM for DPPH and NO assays respectively. All the compounds fell within the threshold of Lipinski’s Ro5 projecting them as orally bioavailable and less toxic future therapeutics.