| Literature DB >> 20369265 |
Lukas K Filak1, Gerhard Mühlgassner, Michael A Jakupec, Petra Heffeter, Walter Berger, Vladimir B Arion, Bernhard K Keppler.
Abstract
The synthesis of ruthenium(II) andEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20369265 PMCID: PMC2908761 DOI: 10.1007/s00775-010-0653-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biol Inorg Chem ISSN: 0949-8257 Impact factor: 3.358
Structure 1
Structure 2
Structure 3Kenpaullone and its thiolactam derivative
Structure 4Underlining indicates compounds that were characterized by X-ray crystallography
Crystal data and details of data collection for L ·HCl, 4·H2O, 5, and 9·2.5H2O
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Empirical formula | C17H17ClN4 | C27H32Cl2N4ORu | C29H34Cl2N4Ru | C30H41Cl2N4O2.5Ru |
| Formula weight | 312.80 | 600.54 | 610.57 | 669.65 |
| Space group |
|
|
|
|
|
| 19.552(2) | 11.2077(4) | 10.7821(6) | 12.9729(7) |
|
| 6.5845(12) | 15.5943(5) | 20.7288(12) | 19.1797(11) |
|
| 11.6690(18) | 15.5918(5) | 12.0944(7) | 13.1560(6) |
|
| 103.277(2) | 93.834(4) | 109.911(3) | |
|
| 1,502.3(4) | 2,652.24(15) | 2,697.0(3) | 3,077.8(3) |
|
| 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
|
| 0.71073 | 0.71073 | 0.71073 | 0.71073 |
|
| 1.383 | 1.504 | 1.504 | 1.445 |
| Crystal size (mm3) | 0.20 × 0.04 × 0.04 | 0.20 × 0.20 × 0.15 | 0.13 × 0.10 × 0.03 | 0.12 × 0.12 × 0.10 |
|
| 100 | 100 | 296 | 100 |
|
| 0.256 | 0.820 | 0.805 | 0.718 |
|
| 0.0894 | 0.0279 | 0.0425 | 0.0414 |
|
| 0.2049 | 0.0652 | 0.0965 | 0.0993 |
| GOFc | 1.015 | 1.014 | 0.956 | 1.031 |
GOF goodness of fit
a R 1 = Σ||F o| − |F c||/Σ|F o|.
b wR 2 = {Σ[w(F o2 − F c2)2]/Σ[w(F o2)2]}1/2
cGOF = {Σ[w(F o2 − F c2)2]/(n − p)}1/2, where n is the number of reflections and p is the total number of parameters refined
Fig. 1Structure of the protonated ligand in L ·HCl, showing the disorder in the ethylenediamine moiety
Fig. 2Structure of the complex cation in 4·H2O with thermal ellipsoids drawn at the 50% probability level
Fig. 3Fragment of the crystal structure of 5 with thermal ellipsoids drawn at the 30% probability level with one intramolecular hydrogen bond N2–H···Cl1 and one intermolecular hydrogen bond N1–H···Cl2i
Fig. 4Projection of the structure of the complex cation in 9·2.5H2O with thermal ellipsoids drawn at the 50% probability level with an intramolecular hydrogen-bonding interaction N2–H···Cl1
Selected bond distances (angstroms) and angles (degrees) for complexes 4·H2O, 5, and 9·2.5H2O
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ru–N3 | 2.1174(15) | 2.105(3) | 2.122(3) |
| Ru–N4 | 2.1257(15) | 2.204(3) | 2.177(3) |
| Ru–Cl1 | 2.4208(5) | 2.4229(11) | 2.4168(11) |
| Ru–C(18–23)av/Ru–C(20–25)av/Ru–C(21–26)av | 2.186(14) | 2.191(24) | 2.197(8) |
| C–C(18–23)av/C–C(20–25)av/C–C(21–26)av | 1.416(14) | 1.404(20) | 1.412(17) |
| N3–Ru–N4 | 79.26(6) | 80.45(12) | 79.44(14) |
| N3–Ru–Cl1 | 88.79(4) | 87.15(9) | 85.01(10) |
| N4–Ru–Cl1 | 85.12(4) | 88.27(10) | 88.41(10) |
Cytotoxicity of indoloquinoline and indolobenzazepine derivatives, their osmium(II) and ruthenium(II) arene complexes, and flavopiridol in three human cancer cell lines
| Compound | IC50 (μM)a | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CH1 | SW480 | A549 | |
|
| 0.51 ± 0.05 | 0.28 ± 0.01 | 0.92 ± 0.18 |
|
| 0.44 ± 0.03 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 0.50 ± 0.05 |
|
| 0.39 ± 0.04 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.82 ± 0.06 |
|
| 0.44 ± 0.07 | 0.27 ± 0.003 | 0.58 ± 0.10 |
|
| 21 ± 3 | 25 ± 1 | 44 ± 1 |
|
| 4.3 ± 0.4 | 5.7 ± 0.3 | 9.7 ± 1.6 |
|
| 1.3 ± 0.1 | 2.8 ± 0.2 | 6.5 ± 1.0 |
|
| 3.5 ± 0.1 | 5.8 ± 0.2 | 13 ± 0.5 |
|
| 2.0 ± 0.6 | 3.6 ± 0.3 | 8.8 ± 0.3 |
| Flavopiridol | 0.029 ± 0.005 | 0.070 ± 0.004 | 0.13 ± 0.01 |
aThe 50% inhibitory concentrations (mean ± standard deviations from at least three independent experiments), as obtained by the MTT assay (continuous exposure for 96 h)
Fig. 5Concentration–effect curves of indoloquinoline derivative L in comparison with ruthenium complex 5 and osmium complexes 6 and 7 in the human cancer cell lines A549 (a), SW480 (b) and CH1 (c), as obtained by the 3-(4,5-dimethyl-2-thiazolyl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay (continuous exposure for 96 h)
Fig. 6Concentration–effect curves of indolobenzazepine derivative L in comparison with ruthenium complexes 8 and 9 and osmium complexes 10 and 11 in the human cancer cell lines A549 (a), SW480 (b), and CH1 (c), as obtained by the MTT assay (continuous exposure for 96 h)
Fig. 7Concentration–effect curves of osmium complexes 6, 7, 10, and 11 in comparison with uncomplexed ligands L and L in the human cancer cell lines A549 (a), SW480 (b), and CH1 (c), as obtained by the MTT assay (continuous exposure for 96 h)
Fig. 8Replacement of methyl green from salmon sperm DNA as a measure for DNA intercalation, using ethidium bromide (EtBr) as a positive control (mean ± standard deviations)
Fig. 9Concentration-dependent inhibition of cdk2/cyclin E activity (mean ± standard deviations) by indoloquinoline L , indolobenzazepine derivative L , and the corresponding osmium complexes 7 and 11, in vitro. Flavopiridol (FP) was used as a positive control
Fig. 10Concentration-dependent inhibition of cdk1/cyclin B activity (mean ± standard deviations) by indoloquinoline L , indolobenzazepine derivative L , and the corresponding osmium complexes 7 and 11, in vitro. Flavopiridol (FP) was used as a positive control
Fig. 11Concentration-dependent impact of L , L , 7, and 11 on the cell cycle distribution of A549 cells after exposure for 24 h. The DNA content of cells stained with propidium iodide was analyzed by flow cytometry