| Literature DB >> 25226034 |
Radka Křikavová1, Jan Hošek1, Ján Vančo1, Jakub Hutyra1, Zdeněk Dvořák2, Zdeněk Trávníček1.
Abstract
A series ofEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25226034 PMCID: PMC4167326 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107373
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Schematic representations of gold(I) complexes used as anti-inflammatory drugs.
A: Sodium aurothiomalate (Myochrysin, sodium {(2-carboxy-1-carboxylatoethyl)thiolato}gold(I)); B: Aurothioglucose (Solganol, {(2 S,3R,4 S,5 S,6R)-3,4,5-trihydroxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)-oxane-2-thiolato}gold(I)); C: Auranofin (Ridaura, triethylphosphine-(2,3,4,6-tetra-O-acetyl-1-D-thiopyranosato-S)gold(I)).
Figure 2Schematic representation of the prepared gold(I) complexes 1–9.
1H and 13C NMR coordination shifts (Δδ = δcomplex–δligand; ppm) of calculated for 1–9.
| 1H NMR | 13C NMR | ||||||
| C2 H | C8 H | C2 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C8 | |
|
| –0.05 | –0.08 | –0.90 | 4.80 | –1.14 | –1.04 | 4.40 |
|
| –0.05 | –0.10 | –0.60 | 4.82 | –0.59 | –0.21 | 3.57 |
|
| –0.11 | –0.23 | 0.98 | 2.20 | –0.56 | –0.24 | 5.11 |
|
| –0.13 | –0.23 | 0.86 | 3.00 | –0.81 | 0.50 | 5.03 |
|
| –0.12 | –0.25 | –0.01 | 2.16 | –1.29 | –0.32 | 5.85 |
|
| n.a. | –0.27 | –0.16 | 2.02 | –1.17 | 0.05 | 6.02 |
|
| n.a. | –0.10 | –0.04 | 4.01 | –0.54 | –0.73 | 6.89 |
|
| n.a. | –0.12 | –0.49 | 2.38 | –0.74 | –0.35 | 4.89 |
|
| n.a. | –0.24 | –0.53 | 3.22 | –1.01 | –0.18 | 5.70 |
n.a. – not available.
Figure 3Molecular structure of [Au(L1)(PPh3)] (1).
The molecular structure of 1 showing the atom numbering scheme. Non-hydrogen atoms are displayed as ellipsoids at the 50% probability level.
Figure 4Molecular structure of [Au(L3)(PPh3)] (3).
The molecular structure of 3 showing the atom numbering scheme. Non-hydrogen atoms are displayed as ellipsoids at the 50% probability level.
In vitro cytotoxicity of complexes 1–9 and cisplatin against MCF7 and HOS cancer cell lines.
| Cell Line | |||
| Compound | MCF7 | HOS | THP-1 |
|
| 15.22±0.78 | 19.20±0.71 | 1.17±0.04 |
|
| 27.10±0.21 | 30.02±2.13 | 1.03±0.04 |
|
| 12.40±1.07 | 15.60±1.10 | 1.87±0.09 |
|
| 3.66±0.48 | 11.30±0.67 | 2.15±0.19 |
|
| 6.30±0.80 | 6.56±0.97 | 1.89±0.11 |
|
| 5.23±0.68 | 3.96±0.29 | 1.94±0.12 |
|
| >50 | >50 | 1.97±0.14 |
|
| >25 | 18.80±0.70 | 5.28±0.21 |
|
| >25 | 16.80±0.27 | >10 |
|
| 17.90±1.17 | 20.50±0.10 | - |
|
| 1.10±0.30 | n.d. | 0.88±0.04 |
The results of the in vitro cytotoxic activity testing of 1–9 and cisplatin against human breast adenocarcinoma (MCF7) and osteosarcoma (HOS): cells were treated with the tested compounds for 24 h; measurements were performed in triplicate, and cytotoxicity experiment was repeated in three different cell passages; data are expressed as IC50±SE (µM).
adopted from Ref. [42]; n.d. – not determined.
In vitro cytotoxicity of complexes 4–6 and cisplatin against a panel of cancer cell lines.
| Cell Line | ||||||
| Compound | A549 | G-361 | HeLa | A2780 | A2780R | 22Rv1 |
|
| 16.8±0.7 | 3.9±0.5 | 14.2±0.5 | 3.6±0.1 | 4.3±0.2 | 3.8±0.1 |
|
| 19.3±0.8 | 3.4±0.1 | 19.8±0.9 | 4.2±0.2 | 4.8±0.6 | 4.4±0.3 |
|
| 21.7±0.4 | 3.0±0.1 | 21.6±0.3 | 4.2±0.3 | 5.1±0.4 | 3.6±0.1 |
|
| >50 | 5.3±0.2 | >50 | 12.0±0.3 | 27.0±1.5 | 26.9±1.2 |
The results of the in vitro cytotoxic activity testing of 4–6 and cisplatin against the human cancer cell lines. Cells were treated with the tested compounds for 24 h; measurements were performed in triplicate, and cytotoxicity experiments were repeated in three different cell passages; data are expressed as IC50±SE (µM).
Figure 5The results of in
cytotoxicity against selected cancer cell lines for complexes 4–6 and . The cells were exposed to the employed complexes for 24 h. Measurements were performed in triplicate and each cytotoxicity experiment was repeated three times. The given IC50±SE (µM) values represent an arithmetic mean. The asterisk (*) denotes significant difference (ANOVA, p<0.05) between 4–6 and cisplatin.
Figure 6Effects of the Au(I) complexes 1–9, reference drug Auranofin, [AuCl(PPh3)], AuCl, PPh3 and HL1–9 on LPS-induced TNF-α (A) and IL-1β (B) secretion.
The cells were pretreated with the tested compounds (300 nM) or the vehicle (0.1% DMSO) only. After 1 h of the incubation, the inflammatory response was induced by LPS [except for the control cells (CTRL)]. The secretion was determined 24 h after the LPS addition. The results are expressed as means±SE of three independent experiments. Significant difference in comparison to: *vehicle-treated cells (p<0.05), **vehicle-treated cells (p<0.01), ***vehicle-treated cells (p<0.001).
Figure 7Effects of the Au(I) complexes 2 and 7, and reference drug Auranofin on gene expression of TNF-α (A) and IL-1β (B).
THP-1 macrophages were pretreated with complexes 2, 7 and Auranofin at the concentration of 300 nM or the vehicle (0.1% DMSO) only. After 1 h of the incubation, the inflammatory response was induced by LPS [except for the control cells (CTRL)]. After 2 h, the level of TNF-α and IL-1β mRNA was evaluated by RT-qPCR. The amount of cytokine mRNA was normalised to β-actin mRNA. The results are expressed as means±SE of three independent experiments. A.U. = arbitrary unit. Significant difference in comparison to: *vehicle-treated cells (p<0.05), **vehicle-treated cells (p<0.01).
Figure 8The results of the ESI-MS study of complex 1 (A) and 6 (B) solutions and interacting systems involving the mixture of physiological levels of cysteine and reduced glutathione and complex 1 (C) or complex 6 (D).