We report the synthesis, characterization, and antiproliferative activity of 15 iridium(III) half-sandwich complexes of the type [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(R'-phenyl)-R-pyridine)Cl] bearing either an electron-donating (-OH, -CH2OH, -CH3) or electron-withdrawing (-F, -CHO, -NO2) group at various positions on the 2-phenylpyridine (2-PhPy) chelating ligand giving rise to six sets of structural isomers. The X-ray crystal structures of [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(2'-fluorophenyl)pyridine)Cl] (1) and [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(4'-fluorophenyl)pyridine)Cl] (2) exhibit the expected "piano-stool" configuration. DFT calculations showed that substituents caused only localized effects on the electrostatic potential surface of the chelating 2-PhPy ligand of the complexes. Hydrolysis of all complexes is rapid, but readily reversed by addition of NaCl. The complexes show preferential binding to 9-ethylguanine over 9-methyladenine and are active catalysts for the oxidation of NADH to NAD+. Antiproliferative activity experiments in A2780 ovarian, MCF-7 breast, A549 lung, and HCT116 colon cancer cell lines showed IC50 values ranging from 1 to 89 μM, with the most potent complex, [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(2'-methylphenyl)pyridine)Cl] (13) (A2780 IC50 = 1.18 μM), being 10× more active than the parent, [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-phenylpyridine)Cl], and 2× more active than [(η5-CpxPh)Ir(2-phenylpyridine)Cl]. Intriguingly, contrasting biological activities are observed between structural isomers despite exhibiting similar chemical reactivity. For pairs of structural isomers both the nature and position of the functional group can affect the hydrophobicity of the complex. An increase in hydrophobicity resulted in enhanced cellular-iridium accumulation in A2780 ovarian cells, which generally gave rise to an increase in potency. The structural isomers [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(4'-fluorophenyl)pyridine)Cl] (2) and [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-phenyl-5-fluoropyridine)Cl] (4) preferentially localized in the cytosol > membrane and particulate > nucleus > cytoskeleton. This work highlights the strong dependence of biological behavior on the nature and position of the substituent on the chelating ligand and shows how this class of organometallic anticancer complexes can be fine-tuned to increase their potency without using extended cyclopentadienyl systems.
We report the synthesis, characterization, and antiproliferative activity of 15 iridium(III) half-sandwich complexes of the type [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(R'-phenyl)-R-pyridine)Cl] bearing either an electron-donating (-OH, -CH2OH, -CH3) or electron-withdrawing (-F, -CHO, -NO2) group at various positions on the 2-phenylpyridine (2-PhPy) chelating ligand giving rise to six sets of structural isomers. The X-ray crystal structures of [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(2'-fluorophenyl)pyridine)Cl] (1) and [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(4'-fluorophenyl)pyridine)Cl] (2) exhibit the expected "piano-stool" configuration. DFT calculations showed that substituents caused only localized effects on the electrostatic potential surface of the chelating 2-PhPy ligand of the complexes. Hydrolysis of all complexes is rapid, but readily reversed by addition of NaCl. The complexes show preferential binding to 9-ethylguanine over 9-methyladenine and are active catalysts for the oxidation of NADH to NAD+. Antiproliferative activity experiments in A2780 ovarian, MCF-7 breast, A549 lung, and HCT116colon cancer cell lines showed IC50 values ranging from 1 to 89 μM, with the most potent complex, [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(2'-methylphenyl)pyridine)Cl] (13) (A2780 IC50 = 1.18 μM), being 10× more active than the parent, [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-phenylpyridine)Cl], and 2× more active than [(η5-CpxPh)Ir(2-phenylpyridine)Cl]. Intriguingly, contrasting biological activities are observed between structural isomers despite exhibiting similar chemical reactivity. For pairs of structural isomers both the nature and position of the functional group can affect the hydrophobicity of the complex. An increase in hydrophobicity resulted in enhanced cellular-iridium accumulation in A2780 ovarian cells, which generally gave rise to an increase in potency. The structural isomers [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(4'-fluorophenyl)pyridine)Cl] (2) and [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-phenyl-5-fluoropyridine)Cl] (4) preferentially localized in the cytosol > membrane and particulate > nucleus > cytoskeleton. This work highlights the strong dependence of biological behavior on the nature and position of the substituent on the chelating ligand and shows how this class of organometallic anticancer complexes can be fine-tuned to increase their potency without using extended cyclopentadienyl systems.
There is an increasing
interest in the design of organometallic
anticancer complexes,[1] especially complexes
that are active against cisplatin-resistant cancers,[2] and organo-iridium(III)complexes are showing promise in
this regard.[3] We have reported that the
biological activity of half-sandwich pentamethylcyclopentadienyl
(Cp*) iridium(III)complexes can be increased by the incorporation
of phenyl substituents, as in CpxPh and CpxBiPh ligands.[4] This increase in activity may
be due in part to an increase in hydrophobicity, resulting in enhanced
cellular accumulation. Extended cyclopentadienyl systems have also
been shown to strengthen interactions with DNA via intercalation between
DNA base pairs.[4a] The introduction of the
negatively charged C,N-chelating ligands in place
of neutral N,N ligands has also been shown to improve
antiproliferative activity.[5] Again, the
increase in activity may be attributed to an increase in hydrophobicity
of the resulting neutral complex. Anionic ligands in place of neutral
ligands in other iridium systems have also been explored.[3e,6]Chelated half-sandwich iridium(III)complexes have been shown
to
bind to DNA nucleobases via the monodentate site and can inhibit the
synthesis of DNA by DNA polymerases.[4a] Some
of these complexes also inhibit thioredoxin reductase 1 (Trx-R).[7] Intriguingly they can also catalyze the oxidation
of NADH to NAD+, and modulation of the NAD+/NADH
ratio has been demonstrated in A2780humanovarian cancer cells.[8] Disruption of this redox process may contribute
to a multitargeting mechanism of action.[9] Recently we reported that the highly potent and selective C,N-chelated complex [(η5-C6H5C6H4Cp*)Ir(2-PhPy)pyridine]PF6, which bears pyridine in place of chloride as a monodentate
ligand, can produce H2O2 upon the catalytic
reaction with NADH via hydride transfer to molecular O2.[10]The effect of incorporating
functionality on the chelating ligand
in half-sandwich iridium(III) anticancer complexes has not been widely
explored.[7,11] The aim of the present research was to synthesize
a novel set of complexes bearing functionally diverse 2-PhPy ligands.
2-PhPy has shown promise in half-sandwich iridium anticancer complexes.[5,12] Synthesis of 15 2-PhPy ligands that bear either −F, −CHO,
−NO2, −OH, −CH2OH, or −CH3 functional groups on different positions on the chelating
ligand (Chart 1) was accomplished by employing
Suzuki–Miyaura palladium cross-coupling. The resulting 15 novel
iridium(III) Cp* complexes [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(R′-phenyl)-R-pyridine)Cl]
(Chart 1) have been investigated for their
aqueous chemistry, electrostatic potential surfaces (EPS), interaction
with model DNA nucleobases, and ability to catalyze the oxidation
of reduced coenzyme nicotine adenine dinucleotideNADH to NAD+. Correlations between relative hydrophobicity, cellular accumulation
of iridium, and antiproliferative activity have been studied, along
with comparisons of the cellular distributions of a pair of structural
isomers. Importantly it is apparent that within this series there
are potent complexes even without the presence of extended cyclopentadienyl
systems.
Chart 1
[(η-Cp*)Ir(2-(R′-phenyl)-R-pyridine)Cl]
Complexes Studied in This Work
Results
Synthesis and Characterization of [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(R′-phenyl)-R-pyridine)Cl]
Complexes
Suzuki–Miyaura cross-coupling chemistry
was employed following an adapted protocol,[13] to synthesize chelating 2-PhPy ligands with electron-donating or
electron-withdrawing substituents, Scheme 1. They were purified using flash silica gel chromatography with mixtures
of chloroform/ethyl acetate, yielding 2-(R′-phenyl)-R-pyridine
ligands L1–15. The synthesis of the
corresponding complexes [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(R′-phenyl)-R-pyridine)Cl]
(1–15) was carried out using an adapted
literature procedure.[4b] The synthetic routes
for the complexes are shown in Scheme 1. The
introduction of electron-withdrawing nitro (−NO2) and aldehydic (−CHO) groups and an electron-donating hydroxymethyl
group (−CH2OH) in complexes 5–10 is the first to be reported in complexes of the type [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-PhPy)X]0/+. The complexes were characterized
by 1H and 13C NMR spectroscopy, ESI-MS, CHN
analysis, and RP-HPLC. Crystals of complexes 1 and 2 suitable for structure determination by X-ray diffraction
were obtained by slow evaporation from chloroform/hexane at 273 K.
Scheme 1
Synthetic Route for 2-(R′-phenyl)-R-pyridine Ligands L1–15 (A) and [(η-Cp*)Ir(2-(R′-phenyl)-R-pyridine)Cl] Complexes 1–15 (B)
Molecular Structures
The X-ray crystal structures of
complexes [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(2′-fluorophenyl)pyridine)Cl]
(1) and [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(4′-fluorophenyl)pyridine)Cl]
(2) were determined by X-ray diffraction and are shown
in Figure 1. X-ray crystallographic data are
listed in Table S1, and selected bond lengths
and angles in Table 1. The complexes exhibit
the expected pseudo-octahedral half-sandwich structure, with the Cp*
ring occupying three coordination sites, the 2-PhPy chelating ligand
occupying two sites, and the monodentate chlorido ligand occupying
the sixth coordination position. Ir–centroid distances are
1.828 and 1.833 Å for 1 and 2, respectively,
while the Ir–C distances of 2.0482(18) and 2.0346(19) Å
and Ir–N distances of 2.0797(17) and 2.0931(16) Å show
significant variation and Ir–Cl distances of 2.4056(5) and
2.4026(5) Å show small (>3σ) differences for complexes 1 and 2, respectively. The bond angles are similar,
with the angle between the chelating ligand and iridium center (C–Ir–N)
being the smallest, 77.84(7)° and 78.13(7)° for 1 and 2, respectively. Weak offset intermolecular π–π
stacking between the 2-PhPy ligands is observed for both complexes
with a centroid–centroid distance of 4.140 Å in complex 1 and 4.059 Å in complex 2 (Figure S1).
Figure 1
X-ray crystal structures of compounds 1 (A) and 2 (B). Hydrogen atoms have been omitted
for clarity, and thermal
ellipsoids are shown at 50% probability. The disorder observed for
complex 1 has been removed for clarity, but is described
in the Supporting Information.
Table 1
Selected Bond Lengths (Å) and
Bond Angles (deg) for Complexes 1 and 2
bond/angle
1
2
Ir–C (Cp* ring)
2.163(2)
2.160(2)
2.1675(19)
2.1609(19)
2.177(2)
2.172(2)
2.239(2)
2.2522(19)
2.247(2)
2.272(2)
Ir–C (centroid)
1.828
1.833
Ir–C
2.0482(18)
2.0346(19)
Ir–N
2.0797(17)
2.0931(16)
Ir–Cl
2.4056(5)
2.4026(5)
C–Ir–N
77.84(7)
78.13(7)
C–Ir–Cl
85.96(5)
85.68(5)
N–Ir–Cl
87.60(5)
87.30(5)
X-ray crystal structures of compounds 1 (A) and 2 (B). Hydrogen atoms have been omitted
for clarity, and thermal
ellipsoids are shown at 50% probability. The disorder observed for
complex 1 has been removed for clarity, but is described
in the Supporting Information.
Electrostatic
Potential Surface
The EPSs of complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–13 were calculated using DFT methods
at the PBE0/Lanl2DZ/6-31+G** level,[14] based
on the crystal structure of complex 2, with functional
group modifications being made with GaussView 3.0.[15] The resulting EPS of each complex is shown in Figure 2. The phenyl ring in the chelating ligand exhibits
a more negative electrostatic potential than the pyridyl ring due
to the deprotonated carbon bound to the Ir center. There are no major
differences in the charge distribution at the iridium center, Cp*
ring, or chlorido ligands among the complexes, indicating that the
substituent on the chelating ligand causes only a localized effect.
Complexes 7 and 8 contain the electron-withdrawing
nitro group on the phenyl and pyridyl ring, respectively, causing
a more positive surface. Complex 13 bears a methyl group
on the phenyl ring, which pushes electron density into the ring, causing
a more negative EPS. The substituents themselves cause the outer EPS
of each complex to alter significantly. The calculated bond lengths
at the metal center are shown in Table S2, which shows minimal differences among the complexes, with the exception
of 13, which exhibits a shorter Ir–N bond. The
HOMO and LUMO orbitals of complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–13 and corresponding orbital energies are shown in Table S3.
Figure 2
Electrostatic potential surfaces for complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–13 (calculated at the PBE0/Lanl2DZ/6-31+G**
level), where
the EPSs are shown both in space (with positive and negative regions
in blue and red, respectively) and mapped on electron density (isovalue
0.04) of the molecules. The electrostatic potential is represented
with a color scale ranging from red (−0.040 au) to blue (+0.250
au). Note the more negative charge distribution on the phenyl ring
of the 2-PhPy chelating ligand compared with the pyridyl ring. The
substituents affect markedly only the electronic charge density on
the chelating ligand, leaving the iridium center, Cp*, and chlorido
ligands relatively unaffected.
Electrostatic potential surfaces for complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–13 (calculated at the PBE0/Lanl2DZ/6-31+G**
level), where
the EPSs are shown both in space (with positive and negative regions
in blue and red, respectively) and mapped on electron density (isovalue
0.04) of the molecules. The electrostatic potential is represented
with a color scale ranging from red (−0.040 au) to blue (+0.250
au). Note the more negative charge distribution on the phenyl ring
of the 2-PhPy chelating ligand compared with the pyridyl ring. The
substituents affect markedly only the electronic charge density on
the chelating ligand, leaving the iridium center, Cp*, and chlorido
ligands relatively unaffected.
Hydrolysis Studies
The hydrolysis of complexes 1–15 (ca. 500 μM) was studied by 1H NMR spectroscopy in 26.7% MeOD-d4/73.3%
D2O at 310 K. Methanol was required to ensure the
solubility of the complexes in aqueous solution. Hydrolysis equilibrium
was reached before the time taken to acquire the first spectra (15
min), consistent with previous reports of IrIIIC,N-chelated half-sandwich complexes.[4b] Between 67% and 80% was found to be in the hydrolyzed form,
based on peak integrations. Hydrolysis was confirmed by the sequential
addition of NaCl, showing an increase in the peaks associated with
the Ir-Cl species and a decrease in the peaks associated with the
Ir-OD2/OD species. With 4 mM NaCl present, almost all of
the Ir-OD2/OD species had been converted to the Ir-Cl complexes
(Figure S2). Above this concentration of
NaCl, precipitation of the complexes was observed.
Binding to
Nucleobases
Complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–14 (ca. 500 μM) were evaluated for their ability to
bind to 9-ethylguanine (9-EtG) and 9-methyladenine (9-MeA) in ca.
1:1 mol ratios of complex to nucleobase by 1H NMR spectroscopy
in 26.7% MeOD-d4/73.3% D2O
at 310 K, pH* 7.4, after incubation for 15 min and 24 h. All complexes
showed 100% binding to 9-EtG and ca. 50–80% binding to 9-MeA
after 15 min, which remained unchanged over a period of 24 h. Competitive
binding studies between 9-EtG and 9-MeA were also performed under
the same conditions. This resulted in mostly 9-EtG binding for all
the complexes (Figure 3). Complexes 2, 4, and 14 show 5–10% binding to
9-MeA in the presence of 9-EtG. Binding of 9-EtG to 2 and 4 in the presence of 4 mM NaCl, where the complexes
exist primarily as the Ir–Cl species, reached 100% after 24
h (Figure S3).
Figure 3
(Top) Interaction of
complex 2 (ca. 500 μM)
with equimolar amounts of 9-EtG and 9-MeA and competition binding
by 1H NMR spectroscopy (600 MHz, 26.7% MeOD-d4/73.3% D2O at 310 K, pH* 7.4, 24 h). Complex 2 shows 100% binding to 9-EtG (blue triangles) and around
50% binding to 9-MeA (red stars). Complex 2 shows a preference
for binding to 9-EtG upon co-incubation with 9-EtG and 9-MeA. (Bottom)
Co-incubation of complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–14 with
equimolar amounts of 9-EtG and 9-MeA showing a preference for binding
to 9-EtG.
(Top) Interaction of
complex 2 (ca. 500 μM)
with equimolar amounts of 9-EtG and 9-MeA and competition binding
by 1H NMR spectroscopy (600 MHz, 26.7% MeOD-d4/73.3% D2O at 310 K, pH* 7.4, 24 h). Complex 2 shows 100% binding to 9-EtG (blue triangles) and around
50% binding to 9-MeA (red stars). Complex 2 shows a preference
for binding to 9-EtG upon co-incubation with 9-EtG and 9-MeA. (Bottom)
Co-incubation of complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–14 with
equimolar amounts of 9-EtG and 9-MeA showing a preference for binding
to 9-EtG.
Catalysis of NADH Oxidation
The reaction between NADH
and complexes 2, 4, 11, and 12 was monitored by UV–vis spectroscopy at varying
concentrations of NADH (69, 103, and 146 μM) with a fixed concentration
of complex (2.5 μM) over a period of 24 h at 310 K, pH 7.5 (Na2HPO4/NaH2PO4 buffer, 5 mM).
The decrease in the band at 339 nm was monitored, as it corresponds
to conversion of NADH to NAD+ (Figure 4a). The data were also the basis for the calculation of the
turnover number (TON) and turnover frequency (TOF, h–1) for each complex at different concentrations (Table 2). After 24 h, the maximum TON was found for each complex
at the highest concentration of NADH (146 μM) and ranged from
22 to 28. Maximum TOF was also reached at 146 μM NADH, ranging
from 1.1 to 3.2 h–1. The reaction proceeded via
first-order kinetics with respect to [NADH] (Figure 4b), with an average rate constant k of 3.79
× 10–4 min–1 for 2 and 4.03 × 10–4 min–1 for 4. However, complexes 11 and 12,
which bear the hydroxyl group, gave a non-first-order reaction with
respect to [NADH] during the first 3 h, followed by the expected first-order
kinetics (exemplified for complex 11 in Figure S4). These results indicate that each of these complexes
shows catalytic behavior toward the oxidation of NADH.
Figure 4
(a) UV–visible spectra for the catalytic
oxidation of NADH
(146 μM) to NAD+ in the presence of complex 2 (2.5 μM) over a 24 h period in 0.5% MeOH/99.5% H2O at 310 K in 5 mM Na2HPO4/NaH2PO4 buffer, pH 7.5. (b) First-order kinetic plot. [NADH]
= 69 μM (green), 103 μM (purple), and 146 μM (orange).
Table 2
Calculated TONs and TOFs for Complexes 2, 4, 11, and 12 for
the Catalytic Oxidation of NADH to NAD+ Monitored via UV–Visible
Spectroscopy at Various Concentrations of NADH (69, 103, and 146 μM)
with a Fixed Complex Concentration of 2.5 μM over a 24 h Period
in 0.5% MeOH/99.5% H2O at 310 K in 5 mM Na2HPO4/NaH2PO4 Buffer, pH 7.5a
complex
NADH conc (μM)
TON (24 h)
TOF (h–1)b
[(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(4′-fluorophenyl)pyridine)Cl], 2
69
11
0.6
103
19
1.1
146
22
1.2
[(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-phenyl-5-fluoropyridine)Cl], 4
69
13
0.7
103
20
1.2
146
22
1.1
[(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(4′-hydroxyphenyl)pyridine)Cl], 11
69
14
1.9
103
21
2.6
146
28
3.2
[(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-phenyl-5-hydroxypyridine)Cl], 12
69
13
1.4
103
15
1.8
146
22
2.6
The conversion of NADH to NAD+ was followed
from the absorption at 339 nm.
TOFs were calculated as the gradient
of time vs TON during the first 2 h of the reaction time.
In order
to probe whether the oxidation proceeds via the formation of an iridium-hydride
species, the reaction of complex 2 (250 μM) with
NADH (750 μM) in 50% MeOD-d4/50%
D2O at 310 K was monitored by 1H NMR spectroscopy
over a 15 h period. After 15 min, a peak corresponding to an Ir–H
species was observed at −14.84 ppm (Figure
S5), which was no longer visible after 15 h. The conversion
of NADH to NAD+ was also confirmed by the appearance of
a new set of peaks corresponding to the formation of NAD+.The conversion of NADH to NAD+ was followed
from the absorption at 339 nm.TOFs were calculated as the gradient
of time vs TON during the first 2 h of the reaction time.(a) UV–visible spectra for the catalytic
oxidation of NADH
(146 μM) to NAD+ in the presence of complex 2 (2.5 μM) over a 24 h period in 0.5% MeOH/99.5% H2O at 310 K in 5 mM Na2HPO4/NaH2PO4 buffer, pH 7.5. (b) First-order kinetic plot. [NADH]
= 69 μM (green), 103 μM (purple), and 146 μM (orange).
Antiproliferative Activity
The antiproliferative activity
of complexes 1–15 inA2780 (ovarian)
cancer cells and complexes 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14 in HCT-116 (colon), MCF-7 (breast), and A549
(lung) cancer cells is shown in Table 3. The
activity of previously reported[4b] iridiumcomplexes [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-phenylpyridine)Cl]
(16) and [(η5-CpxPh)Ir(2-phenylpyridine)Cl]
(17) with no substituents on the chelating ligand is
also shown for comparison. It is evident that the presence of substituents
on the chelating ligand greatly affects the antiproliferative activity
of the complexes, with IC50 values ranging from 1 to 60
μM in the A2780 cell line alone. [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(2′-methylphenyl)pyridine)Cl]
(13) is the most potent complex, with an IC50 value of 1.18 μM in A2780ovarian cancer cells, making it
more potent than the extended cyclopentadienyl complex [(η5-CpxPh)Ir(2-phenylpyridine)Cl]. Complexes 2, 8, 13, and 15 also
show similar potency to the clinical drug cisplatin (CDDP). Interestingly,
structural isomers exhibit contrasting activities, for example, complexes
[(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(4′-fluorophenyl)pyridine)Cl]
(2) (2.7 μM) and [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-phenyl-5-fluoropyridine)Cl]
(4) (>60 μM) and complexes [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(4′-hydroxyphenyl)pyridine)Cl] (11) (47.3 μM) and [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-phenyl-5-hydroxypyridine)Cl]
(12) (13.29 μM).
Table 3
IC50 Vaules
for Complexes 1–15 in A2780 Cells
and Complexes 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14 in HCT-116,
MCF-7, and A549 Cellsa
IC50 values (μM)
complex
A2780
HCT-116
MCF-7
A549
1
4.5 ± 0.2
3.7 ± 0.3
9.6 ± 0.4
10.36 ± 0.07
2
2.7 ± 0.3
6.8 ± 0.1
4.8 ± 0.3
2.1 ± 0.3
3
>50
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
4
>60
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
5
6.9 ± 0.3
21.3 ± 0.7
11.6 ± 0.5
15.8 ± 0.4
6
4.4 ± 0.4
18.8 ± 0.5
6.5 ± 0.3
5.9 ± 0.1
7
24.73 ± 2.30
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
8
2.7 ± 0.1
27.5 ± 0.9
11.4 ± 0.4
20.1 ± 0.3
9
>50
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
10
47 ± 1
57.3 ± 0.9
47 ± 2
89 ± 1
11
47.3 ± 0.1
29.3 ± 0.8
28.6 ± 0.9
56.67 ± 0.04
12
13.29 ± 0.88
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
13
1.18 ± 0.08
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
14
3.9 ± 0.2
9.6 ± 0.6
3.7 ± 0.1
8.7 ± 0.3
15
1.26 ± 0.01
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
16b
10.78 ± 1.72
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
17b
2.14 ± 0.50
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
cisplatin
1.2 ± 0.2
5.2 ± 0.3
7.0 ± 0.1
3.5 ± 0.2
Drug exposure time was 24 h followed
by a 72 h recovery time. All values were determined as independent
duplicates of triplicate experiments, and the standard deviations
were calculated.
From ref (4b).
Drug exposure time was 24 h followed
by a 72 h recovery time. All values were determined as independent
duplicates of triplicate experiments, and the standard deviations
were calculated.From ref (4b).
Relative Hydrophobicity
The relative hydrophobicities
of complexes 2/4, 7/8, 11/12, and 13/14 (four pairs of structural isomers) were
determined by RP-HPLC. The more hydrophobic complexes have longer
retention times (tR). To ensure solubility
of the complexes, methanol was used (MeOH/H2O, 1:9 v/v)
with NaCl (50 mM) to suppress the hydrolysis of the complexes in both
sample preparation and in the HPLC solvents. The resulting retention
times are shown in Table 4. Complex 11 shows the shortest retention time (least hydrophobic) at
15.11 min, while complex 14 shows the longest retention
time (most hydrophobic) at 20.9 min.
Table 4
Retention Times (tR) by
RP-HPLC and Cellular-Iridium Accumulation (at Equipotent
(IC50) Concentrations) in A2780 Cells for Complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–14
complex
2-PhPy ligand
tR (min)
cellular-Ir (ng Ir × 106 A2780
cells)
2
2-(4′-fluorophenyl)pyridine
18.74 ± 0.05
13.5 ± 0.3
4
2-phenyl-5-fluoropyridine
18.60 ± 0.02
11.1 ± 0.1
7
2-(4′-nitrophenyl)pyridine
18.8 ± 0.2
8 ± 1
8
2-phenyl-4-nitropyridine
18.0 ± 0.1
9.0 ± 0.2
11
2-(4′-hydroxyphenyl)pyridine
15.11 ± 0.03
1.6 ± 0.1
12
2-phenyl-5-hydroxypyridine
17.8 ± 0.2
10.2 ± 0.2
13
2-(2′-methylphenyl)pyridine
20.4 ± 0.2
18 ± 1
14
2-phenyl-5-methylpyridine
20.9 ± 0.9
16.0 ± 0.3
Cellular-Iridium Accumulation
Cellular-iridium accumulation
inA2780 cells after 24 h exposure to complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–14 at equipotent (IC50) concentrations was determined
by ICP-MS and is shown in Table 4. Complex 11 shows the lowest accumulation of 1.58 ng Ir × 106 cells, while complex 13 exhibits the highest
extent of accumulation of 18.46 ng Ir × 106 cells.
Cellular-Iridium Distribution
Structural
isomers 2 and 4 were examined for their
cellular-iridium
distribution inA2780humanovarian cancer cells at IC50 concentrations, Figure 5. The cytosol contains
the highest amount of iridium (51.4% for 2 and 69.2%
for 4), followed by the cell membrane and particulate
fractions (28.4% for 2 and 17.9% for 4).
Complex 4 localizes in the cytosol to a greater extent
than complex 2 (p < 0.01), which
in turn localizes in the cell membrane to a greater extent than 4 (p < 0.01). The nuclear fraction contains
different amounts of iridium, with 10.4% and 6.7% (p < 0.01) for complexes 2 and 4, respectively,
while the cytoskeletal fraction contains similar levels of iridium,
with 9.8% and 6.1% (p > 0.05) for 2 and 4, respectively.
Figure 5
Cellular-iridium distribution of structural
isomers 2 and 4 in A2780 human ovarian cancer
cells. Complex 4 localizes in the cytosol to a greater
extent than 2, while complex 2 localizes
in the membrane
and particulate fractions to a greater extent than 4.
Student’s t test at p <
0.01 level indicated by **.
Cellular-iridium distribution of structural
isomers 2 and 4 inA2780humanovarian cancer
cells. Complex 4 localizes in the cytosol to a greater
extent than 2, while complex 2 localizes
in the membrane
and particulate fractions to a greater extent than 4.
Student’s t test at p <
0.01 level indicated by **.
Discussion
Synthesis and Characterization
The
synthesis of complexes 1–15 was carried
out using an adapted
literature procedure.[4b] It was found that
the reported reaction time of 2 h was not sufficient to provide 1–15 in good yields; therefore it was
extended to 18 h to obtain yields ranging from 16% to 80%. Low yields
were obtained for complexes 9 and 12 (22%
and 16%, respectively) due to their poor solubility in chlorinated
solvents, preventing efficient separation of the complexes from sodium
acetate used to deprotonate the carbon on the phenyl ring. The characterization
of complexes 1–15 was done by 1H NMR, ESI-MS, CHN analysis, HPLC, and in most cases 13C NMR. The 1H NMR spectra are characterized by
one less proton in the low-field region compared to the starting 2-PhPy
ligand, due to the deprotonation of the bound carbon on the phenyl
ring. No appreciable difference in the 1H NMR chemical
shift of the Cp* ligand was observed among the functionally diverse
complexes. The 13C NMR spectra of fluorine-containing complexes 1, 3, and 4 show coupling to 19F with 1JCF = 249–258
Hz, values similar to those previously reported.[16] The ESI-MS of the complexes always showed an m/z peak corresponding to {(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(R′-phenyl)-R-pyridine)}+, where the chlorido ligand had been removed in the ionization
process to form a detectable positive-ion peak. RP-HPLC was also utilized
to determine the purity of the complexes, and examples of chromatograms
are shown in the Supporting Information (Figure S7).Complexes [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(2′-fluorophenyl)pyridine)Cl]
(1) and [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(4′-fluorophenyl)pyridine)Cl]
(2) exhibit the “piano-stool” structure
expected for half-sandwich metalcomplexes with bond lengths/angles
comparable to similar previously reported structures.[4b,17] However, the position of the fluorine on the phenyl ring influences
the Ir-chelating ligand bond lengths. Complex 2 exhibits
a shorter Ir–C bond and a longer Ir–N bond length than 1, suggesting that the binding affinity of N and C for the
Ir center is different. Therefore, changing the position at which
electron density is withdrawn affects the solid-state structure of
the complex. Both complexes exhibit weak offset π–π
stacking between the 2-PhPy ligand, with a centroid–centroid
distance of 4.140 Å for 1 and 4.059 Å for 2.DFT calculations on complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–13 indicate that the presence of substituents does not affect
the electronic
density on the iridium center, Cp* ring, or chlorido ligands, which
implies that the reactivity at the metal center may remain relatively
the same for all complexes. The EPS also shows that the phenyl ring
in the chelating ligand has a more negative electrostatic potential
than the pyridyl ring, due to the negative charge associated with
the deprotonation of the binding carbon. The electron-withdrawing/electron-donating
nature of the substituents affects the EPS of the chelating ligand
by either diminishing or enhancing the electronic charge density on
the ring system to which the substituent is bound. The electron-withdrawing
−NO2 and −F groups provide a more positive
EPS within the ring, while the electron-donating −OH and −CH3 groups generate a more negative EPS within the ring. The
presence of the substituents significantly changes the EPS of the
chelating ligand, with areas of higher electronic charge density for
complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12 due to the presence of heteroatoms
with differing electronegativities. As weak electrostatic forces are
often important for binding and recognition interactions with biomolecules
such as peptides, proteins, and enzymes,[18] the nature and position of the substituent may play a significant
role in the interaction of the complexes studied here with target
sites.
Aqueous Chemistry
Hydrolysis studies by 1H NMR showed that all complexes are converted to an equilibrium mixture
of Ir-Cl and Ir-OD2/OD at 310 K within the time taken to
complete the first spectrum (15 min) with 67–80% existing as
the aqua/hydroxido adduct. This is consistent with previous findings
that iridium(III) half-sandwich complexes can exhibit fast rates of
ligand exchange[4a,19] in comparison to their non-“piano
stool” octahedral counterparts.[20] Previous reports on the aqua adducts of C,N-chelated
half-sandwich iridium(III)complexes showed that the pKa values are in the range 8.3–8.9;[4b] therefore the complexes studied here are likely to exist
as the aqua rather than the hydroxido adduct at physiological pH.
The presence of substituents on the 2-PhPy chelating ligand does not
appear to affect the rate or extent of hydrolysis. The hydrolysis
can be readily reversed by addition of NaCl, and a concentration of
4 mM NaCl almost completely suppresses hydrolysis. This would imply
that at biologically relevant chlorideconcentrations (i.e., in the
nucleus) the complexes would exist as the Ir-Cl rather than aqua species.
Interactions with Nucleobases
DNA is a major target
for many transition metal anticancer compounds.[21] The interaction of complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–14 with DNA nucleobases9-EtG and 9-MeA indicated a strong
preference for 9-EtG, with 100% binding after 15 min. Complexes 2 and 4 also exhibited 100% binding to 9-EtG
after 15 min even in the presence of 4 mM NaCl, where the complex
exists as the Ir-Cl species. All complexes were able to bind to 9-MeA,
but only complexes 2, 4, and 14 formed any significant amount of 9-MeA adducts in competition binding
experiments with 9-EtG, highlighting that binding to 9-MeA was less
strong than to 9-EtG. The weaker binding of 9-MeA may be attributed
to the steric hindrance caused by the −NH2 group
at the 4 position. Guanine is also known to be a better electron donor
than adenine, which may also contribute to the selectivity in 9-EtG
binding.[22] Guanine is therefore a potential
binding site on DNA, as it is for cisplatin,[21a] and other transition metal anticancer complexes.[23]The
potential for complexes 2, 4, 11, and 12 to
catalytically modulate the NAD+/NADH ratio in cells was
examined. All exhibited catalytic activity toward the conversion of
NADH to NAD+ by first-order reaction kinetics with respect
to [NADH]. Complex 11 exhibits the best catalytic activity,
with a TON of 28 and TOF of 3.2 h–1 ([NADH] = 146
μM), while 2 and 4 have the lowest
TON of 22 and TOF of 1.2 and 1.1 h–1, respectively.
The presence of the hydroxyl group in 11 and 12 seems to enhance the catalytic activity. Complexes 11 and 12 also exhibited an unusual kinetic profile for
the first 3 h of reaction time, followed by the expected first-order
kinetics. The hydroxyl group on complex [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-phenyl-6-hydroxypyridine)Cl]
has been previously reported to be integral to the catalytic activity
toward the dehydrogenative oxidation of organic compounds,[24] which implies that the hydroxyl group may be
involved in the catalytic cycle. Although the position of the hydroxyl
group in 11 and 12 is situated further from
the metal center than in [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-phenyl-6-hydroxypyridine)Cl],
the unusual kinetics observed may indicate that it is initially playing
a role in the catalytic activity. It has been suggested that the rate-limiting
step in this catalytic reaction is the formation of the Ir-NADH adduct,
leading to first-order reaction kinetics with respect to [NADH];[8b] therefore the unusual kinetic profile of 11 and 12 may involve participation of the hydroxyl
group on the chelating ligand. The involvement of the ligand in the
oxidation of NADH in half-sandwich iridium(III)complexes has not
been previously observed. The oxidation of NADH proceeds via formation
of an Ir-H species as observed in the 1H NMR spectrum,
in agreement with previous work on related complexes.[8a,25] As these complexes can catalytically convert NADH to NAD+, it may be possible to disrupt this important redox couple in cells,
which may have implications for cell metabolism, including lactate
dehydrogenase-catalyzed lactate-pyruvateconversions,[26] enhancement of ROS levels,[10,27] and reducing
the concentration of one of the major electron donors in the electron
transport chain.The antiproliferative
activity
of the 15 complexes covered a wide range, from 1 to 60 μM in
A2780, 3.7 to 54.3 μM in HCT-116, 3.7 to 47 μM in MCF-7,
and 2.1 to 89 μM in A549 cells, showing that the substituent
on the chelating ligand has a significant effect on the antiproliferative
activity of the complex. Complexes 2, 8, 13, and 15 are all just as or more potent than
the previously reported phenyl-extended CpxPhcomplex 17 (IC50 = 2.14 μM) toward A2780 cells, showing
that the addition of functional groups to the 2-PhPy ligand can provide
a strategy for increasing potency rather than functionalizing the
Cpx ligand. In contrast, complexes 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are less active toward A2780 cells than parent complex 16. It is apparent that the presence of hydroxymethyl groups
in complexes 9 and 10 decreases the antiproliferative
activity. However, the presence of methyl groups enhances the activity,
making them potentially interesting for further study. Methyl groups
are inherently more likely to contribute to increased lipophilicity
over hydroxymethyl groups, perhaps indicating that hydrophobicity
is important for high potency.The fluoro complexes 1 and 2, in which the fluorine atom is situated on the
phenyl ring, have promising activity of 2.7 and 4.4 μM, respectively,
whereas complexes 3 and 4, in which the
fluorine substituent is on the pyridyl ring, have IC50 values
of >50 μM, demonstrating the contrasting biological activity
of the structural isomers. This difference in activity for isomers
is also observed for complexes 11 (IC50 =
47.3 μM) and 12 (IC50 = 13.29 μM),
which contain hydroxyl groups on the phenyl and pyridyl ring, respectively,
and for complexes 7 (IC50 = 24.73 μM)
and 8 (IC50 = 2.7 μM), which bear a
nitro group on the phenyl and pyridyl ring, respectively. Therefore,
not only is the type of substituent important, but also where it is
situated on the chelating ligand. Previously, it has been demonstrated
that inclusion of fluorine substituents on the chelating ligand of
half-sandwich ruthenium and osmiumcomplexes generally gave the most
potent systems,[28] in contrast to the results
obtained here. It has also been demonstrated that in half-sandwich
iridium(III)complexes bearing picolinamide chelating ligands, the
inclusion of a chlorine atom in the arene ring of the chelating ligand
increases activity over the unfunctionalized complex.[7] A further increase in activity was observed upon the introduction
of a second chlorine atom depending on its position. However, the
contrasting activities between structural isomers observed in this
work are much greater than for the picolinamidecomplexes.
Relationship
between Hydrophobicity, Iridium-Cellular Accumulation,
and Potency
The complexes studied here are all neutral species
in the presence of biologically relevant concentrations of sodium
chloride. Hydrophobicity can promote interaction with the lipophilic
cell membrane[29] and promote hydrophobic
interactions with protein targets.[30] In
general, the accumulation and potency of organometallic complexes
in cells increases with an increase in their hydrophobicity.[23c,31] The relative hydrophobicity of complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–14 (four pairs of structural isomers) was determined by RP-HPLC.
As RP-HPLC relies on the relative interaction between the hydrophilic
mobile phase and hydrophobic stationary phase, determination of the
relative hydrophobicity of a series of complexes can be based on retention
times (tR). It was found that the nature
of the substituent on the 2-PhPy ligand can dictate the hydrophobicity
of the complex, with hydroxylcomplexes 11 and 12 being the least lipophilic, while complexes 13 and 14, bearing methyl groups, are the most. Intriguingly,
complex 12 appeared to be much more hydrophobic than
the corresponding structural isomer 11, with retention
times of 17.8 and 15.1 min, respectively (Figure
S6). It is apparent that not only the type of substituent but
also its position govern the hydrophobicity of the complex.To examine if structural isomers accumulate in cells to a different
extent, the cellular-iridium accumulation inA2780 cells of 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–14 was determined at equipotent (IC50) concentrations. For isomers 2/4 and 13/14 the levels of cellular-iridium accumulation are similar,
with only small differences between them. Isomers 7/8 show no difference between their respective iridium accumulations.
However, isomers 11/12 show contrasting levels of cellular-iridium
accumulation, with 12 being accumulated 6 times more
than 11 (10.2 vs 1.6 ng Ir × 106 A2780
cells).The hydrophobicity measurements were correlated with
cellular-iridium
accumulation in A2780 cells in order to investigate if hydrophobicity
is important in their ability to enter cells (Figure 6a,b). There is a clear relationship between a higher hydrophobicity
and an increase in cellular accumulation (R2 = 0.969). Isomers 13 and 14 are the most
hydrophobic complexes and accumulate in A2780 cells to the highest
extent, while complex 11, with the lowest hydrophobicity,
showed the lowest accumulation. It was recently demonstrated that
the structurally similar iridium(III)complex [(η5-Cp*)Ir(7,8-benzoquinoline)Cl] is transported into cells by
both energy-independent passive diffusion and energy-dependent pathways.[12] Since an increase in hydrophobicity results
in an increase in cellular accumulation, it is likely that passive
diffusion plays at least a part in the mechanism of cellular accumulation
for these complexes, making hydrophobicity an important design feature.
Figure 6
(a) Structures of complexes studied. (b) Plot
of relative hydrophobicity,
as indicated by retention times on RP-HPLC, against cellular accumulation
of iridium at IC50 concentrations in A2780 cells, after
exposure to complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–14, showing
a correlation of hydrophobicity with cellular accumulation. (c) Comparison
of cellular accumulation of iridium and antiproliferative activity
of complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–14 in A2780 cells,
showing that in general higher cellular accumulation results in more
potent complexes.
The cellular-iridium accumulation was correlated with antiproliferative
activity in A2780 cells, which shows that a pattern exists between
enhanced accumulation and increase in potency (Figure 6c). Complex 11 exhibits the lowest cellular accumulation
and second lowest potency (1.58 ng Ir × 106 cells,
47.3 μM), and complex 13 exhibits the highest cellular
accumulation and potency (18.46 ng Ir × 106 cells,
1.18 μM). In the case of structural isomers 11 and 12, the difference in hydrophobicity of the complexes as a
consequence of changing the position of the hydroxyl group on the
2-PhPy ligand results in enhanced cellular accumulation for the more
hydrophobic complex 12, which leads to a more potent
complex. Interestingly, although 2 and 8 exhibit low IC50 values (IC50 = 2.7 μM),
they show similar levels of cellular accumulation to their less potent
structural isomers 4 (IC50 > 60 μM)
and 7 (IC50 = 24.73 μM). As the iridium
accumulation is performed at IC50 concentrations, this
may indicate that the mechanism involved in the antiproliferative
activity of complexes 2 and 8 is more efficient
over their counterparts 4 and 7.
Cellular-Iridium
Distribution of Isomers 2 and 4
The distribution of iridium inA2780human ovarian
cancer cells after exposure to structural isomers 2 and 4 follows the order of localization: cytosol > cell membrane
and particulate > nucleus > cytoskeleton. Although both isomers
followed
the same trend, they do so to different extents. Complex 4 localizes in the cytosol to a greater extent than 2 (69.2% vs 51.4%), whereas 2 localizes in the cell membrane
and particulate to a greater extent than 4 (28.4% vs
17.9%). The variations in localization preference arising from this
small structural change may reflect the differences observed in antiproliferative
activity.[32] For example, if the biological
target of these complexes is in the cell membrane and particulate
fraction, then that may explain why isomer 2 is more
active than 4. As the isomers exhibit dramatically different
IC50 values yet both bind to guanine and accumulate in
the nucleus to similar extents, DNA may not be the main biological
target. It has also been shown that halogen-bonding interactions could
be important in rational drug design;[33] therefore the position of fluorine within the ligand may influence
the way the complexes interact with biomolecules, leading ultimately
to variations in activity.(a) Structures of complexes studied. (b) Plot
of relative hydrophobicity,
as indicated by retention times on RP-HPLC, against cellular accumulation
of iridium at IC50 concentrations in A2780 cells, after
exposure to complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–14, showing
a correlation of hydrophobicity with cellular accumulation. (c) Comparison
of cellular accumulation of iridium and antiproliferative activity
of complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–14 in A2780 cells,
showing that in general higher cellular accumulation results in more
potent complexes.
Conclusions
Interest
in iridium(III) half-sandwich complexes as anticancer
agents is increasing, with new complexes being reported and novel
mechanisms of action being discovered.[3a,7,10,11,34] In this work we have investigated the effects of electron-donating
and electron-withdrawing substituents on C,N-chelating
2-PhPy ligands on the physiochemical and biological activity of their
complexes.DFT calculations show that the nature and position
of the substituent
have minimal effects on the electronic charge at the iridium center,
Cp*, or chlorido ligands, but exert localized changes in the electrostatic
potential surface and overall electron density of the chelating ligand.
This finding provides potential for modulating the way the complexes
interact with biological targets such as proteins and oligonucleotides.All complexes hydrolyze rapidly at 310 K, but total suppression
of aquation can be achieved with 4 mM NaCl, implying that under physiological
conditions the complexes would exist as the neutral chlorido species.
All complexes bind strongly to the nucleobase 9-EtG, even in the presence
of 4 mM NaCl, indicating that DNA could be a target for these complexes.
The observed catalytic oxidation of NADH might occur in cells and
disturb the redox balance and is an interesting property of some iridium(III)
half-sandwich anticancer complexes.[8,35] The catalytic
activity showed dependence on the substituent present on the 2-PhPy
ligand, whereby hydroxyl substituents slightly enhanced the catalytic
ability of the complex compared to fluorine. The oxidation of NADH
appears to be mediated through the formation of Ir-H species, as detected
by 1H NMR spectroscopy.The antiproliferative activity
of the complexes is strongly dependent
on the type of substituent and its position on the chelating ligand,
giving rise to contrasting activities between structural isomers despite
exhibiting similar chemical behavior. The presence of substituents
on the 2-PhPy ligand could in some cases generate complexes that are
more potent than those bearing the extended CpxPh ligand,
thus providing an alternative strategy for increasing potency in these
systems.Further physicochemical analysis of these complexes
showed that
both the nature and position of substituent can determine their hydrophobicity
and, consequently, affect the accumulation of Ir in A2780 cells. Correlation
analysis showed that an increase in hydrophobicity results in an increase
in cellular-Ir accumulation, which generally results in an increase
in potency. Cellular-Ir distribution in A2780 cells of a pair of structural
isomers that exhibit contrasting biological activity yet similar levels
of Ir accumulation showed that the position of the substituent affects
the extent of localization in cellular compartments, perhaps indicating
that the less active isomer does not reach the biological target as
efficiently as its active counterpart.This study shows that
small changes in the functionalization of
the chelating ligands in half-sandwich iridium(III)complexes can
have a profound effect on the biological activity of the complexes.
Importantly, it also highlights that the inclusion of substituents
in 2-PhPy ligands can provide complexes with enhanced potency without
the use of extended cyclopentadienyl ligands, a strategy that could
be beneficial for the development of this class of complexes.
Experimental Section
Materials
IrCl3·nH2O (99%) was purchased
from Precious Metals Online (Australia).
1,2,3,4,5-Pentamethylcyclopentadiene, NaCl (>99.999%), tetrakis(triphenylphosphine)palladium
(99%), phenylboronic acid, 6-bromo-3-pyridinecarboxaldehyde,
2-bromo-4-nitropyridine, 4-formylphenylboronic acid, 4-(hydroxymethyl)phenylboronic
acid, 4-hydroxyphenylboronic acid, 2-bromo-4-hydroxymethylpyridine,
2-bromo-4-methylpyridine, 2-bromo-5-fluoropyridine (97%), p-tolylboronic acid (97%), 4-nitrophenylboronic acid (95%),
9-ethylguanine (≥98%), 9-methyladenine (97%), and β-nicotinamide
adenine dinucleotide-reduced dipotassium salt (≥95%) were purchased
from Sigma-Aldrich (UK). 2-Bromopyridine, 2-fluorophenylboronic acid,
and 4-fluorophenylboronic acid were purchased from Fisher Scientific
(UK), 2-bromo-5-hydroxypyridine and 2-bromo-5-methylpyridine were
from VWR International Ltd. (UK), and 2-bromo-3-fluoropyridine was
from Tokyo Chemical Industry Ltd. (UK). Solvents used for synthesis
were of laboratory grade and used without further purification. Solvents
for RP-HPLC (water and acetonitrile) were of HPLC grade with added
trifluoroacetic acid (purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (UK)) for purity
measurements. [(η5-Cp*)IrCl2]2 was synthesized according to a literature procedure.[36]
Syntheses
Synthesis of 2-(R′-phenyl)-R-pyridine
Ligands
The synthesis of ligands L1–15 was
performed using the following adapted literature procedure.[13] Phenylboronic acid/derivatives (1.4 mol equiv)
and 2-bromopyridine/derivatives (1 mol equiv) were dissolved in 1:1:1
(v/v) tetrahydrofuran/water/1 M aqueous sodium carbonate solution
and stirred at ambient temperature under nitrogen for 1 h. Tetrakis(triphenylphosphine)palladium
(2% cat) was added in one portion, and the reaction mixture was heated
under reflux at 373 K for 24 h. The reaction mixture was cooled to
ambient temperature and extracted with dichloromethane. The organic
layer was washed with saturatedsodium hydrogen carbonate solution
and brine, then dried with magnesium sulfate, and concentrated to
dryness, yielding the crude material. Purification by silica flash
chromatography was performed using chloroform/ethyl acetate, yielding
purified products. Characterization data are shown in the Supporting Information.
Synthesis of [(η5-Cp*)Ir(2-(R′-phenyl)-R-pyridine)Cl]
Complexes
The synthesis of complexes 1–15 was performed using the following adapted literature procedure.[4b] 2-(R′-phenyl)-R-pyridine (2 molar equiv)
was dissolved in anhydrous dichloromethane, sodium acetate (4 molar
equiv) was added in one portion, and the mixture was stirred at ambient
temperature under nitrogen for 30 min. [(η5-Cp*)IrCl2]2 (1 molar equiv) was added in one portion, and
the reaction mixture stirred at ambient temperature for 18 h. The
mixture was filtered through Celite under suction, and the filtrate
was concentrated to dryness on a rotary evaporator. The crude product
was recrystallized from chloroform/hexane at 273 K to yield purified
complexes. Characterization data are shown in the Supporting Information.
Methods
and Instrumentation
X-ray Crystallography
Diffraction
data for complexes 1 and 2 were obtained
on an Oxford Diffraction
Gemini four-circle system with a Ruby CCD area detector using Mo Kα
radiation. Absorption corrections were applied using ABSPACK.[37] The crystals were mounted in oil and held at
100 K with the Oxford Cryosystem Cobra. The structures were solved
by direct methods using SHELXS (TREF)[38] with additional light atoms found by Fourier methods. Complexes
were refined against F2 using SHELXL.[39]X-ray crystallographic data for complexes 1 and 2 have been deposited in the Cambridge
Crystallographic Data Centre under the accessionnumbers CCDC 1043863 and 1043864, respectively.
NMR Spectroscopy
1H NMR spectra were obtained
in 5 mm NMR tubes at 298 K (unless stated otherwise) on either Bruker
DPX-300, Bruker DPX-400, or AV III 600 NMR spectrometers. 1H NMR chemical shifts were internally referenced to (CHD2)(CD3)SO (2.50 ppm) for DMSO-d6, CHCl3 (7.26 ppm) for chloroform-d1, (CHD2)(CD3)CO (2.05 ppm) for acetone-d6,
and 1,4-dioxane (3.75 ppm) for aqueous solutions. 13C NMR
data were obtained in 5 mm NMR tubes at 298 K on a Bruker AV III-500
HD NMR spectrometer. 13C NMR chemical shifts were internally
referenced to CDCl3 (77.16 ppm) for chloroform-d1, (CD3)2SO (39.52 ppm) for DMSO-d6, and (CD3)2CO (29.84 ppm) for acetone-d6.The data were processed using TOPSPIN (version
2.1 Bruker UK Ltd.).
Mass Spectrometry
ESI-MS were obtained
on a Bruker
Esquire 2000 ion trap spectrometer. Samples were prepared in either
MeOH or CH3CN. The mass spectra were recorded with a scan
range of either m/z 50–500
or m/z 400–100 for positive
ions. Data were processed using Data Analysis 3.3 (Bruker Daltonics).
Elemental Analysis
CHN elemental analyses were carried
out on a CE-440 elemental analayser by Exeter Analytical (UK) Ltd.
pH Measurements
pH and pH* (pH meter reading without
correction for the effect of deuterium on the glass electrode) were
measured at ambient temperature using a miniLab IQ125 pH meter, pH
sensor, and referenced to KCl gel.
HPLC
Purity measurements
by HPLC were performed using
the Agilent 1200 system with a VDW and 100 μL loop. The column
used was an Agilent Zorbax Eclipse Plus C18, 250 × 4.6 mm with
a 5 μm pore size. Mobile phase used was H2O 0.1%
TFA/MeCN 0.1% TFA at gradients of t = 0 min 10% B, t = 30 min 80% B, t = 40 min 80% B, t = 41 min 10% B, and t = 55 min 10% B
over a 55 min period. Flow rate was 1 mL min–1,
and the detection wavelength was set at 254 nm with the reference
wavelength at either 360 or 510 nm. Sample injections were half the
loop volume (50 μL) with needle washes of MeOH and H2O between injections. It was assumed that all species in a sample
have the same extinction coefficient at 254 nm. All peaks were manually
integrated to gain the percentage area. Samples were dissolved in
2.7% DMSO/97.3% H2O at ca. 100 μM.
Computation
Calculations were performed using the Guassian
03 package.[15] Geometry optimization calculations
were performed in the gas phase with the hybrid functional PBE1PBE.[14a] The LanL2DZ basis set and effective core potential[14b] were used for the Ir atom, and the 6-31+G**
basis set was used for all other atoms.[14c] The nature of all stationary points was confirmed by performing
a normal-mode analysis. Electrostatic potential surfaces for complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–13 are shown both in space (with positive
and negative regions in blue and red, respectively) and mapped on
electron density (isovalue 0.04) of the molecules. The electrostatic
potential is represented with a color scale ranging from red (−0.040
au) to blue (+0.250 au).
ICP-OES analyses were carried out on a PerkinElmer
Optima 5300 DV series ICP-OES instrument. The water used for ICP-OES
analysis was doubly deionized (DDW) using a Millipore Milli-Q water
purification system and a USF Elga UHQ water deionizer. The iridium
Specupure plasma standard (Alfa Asar, 1000 pm in 10% HCl) was diluted
with 2.5% HNO3 DDW to freshly prepare calibrants at concentrations
of 1000, 800, 600, 400, 200, and 100 ppb, which were spiked with NaCl
to match the saltcontent of the samples being analyzed.
ICP-MS analyses
were carried out on an Agilent Technologies 7500
series ICP-MS instrument. The water used for ICP-MS analysis was doubly
deionized using a Millipore Milli-Q water purification system and
a USF Elga UHQ water deionizer. The iridium Specupure plasma standard
(Alfa Asar, 1000 pm in 10% HCl) was diluted with 2.5% HNO3 DDW to prepare calibrants freshly at concentrations of 100, 80,
60, 40, 20, 5, 1, 0.8, and 0.5 ppb. The ICP-MS instrument was set
to detect 193Ir using no gas mode.
Hydrolysis Studies
The aquation of complexes (ca. 500 μM) was
monitored by 1H NMR spectroscopy
over 24 h in 26.7% MeOD/73.3% D2O at 310 K using a Bruker
AV III 600 NMR spectrometer. All spectra were internally referenced
to 1,4-dioxane (3.75 ppm), and water suppression was performed using
Shaka techniques.[40] NaCl was added to aid
assignment of species to either the Ir-OD2 or Ir-Cl adducts.
Percentages of each adduct were calculated based on 1H
NMR peak integrations.
Reactions with DNA Nucleobases
Interactions
of complexes
(ca. 500 μM) with 9-ethylguanine and 9-methyladenine
(ca. 500 μM) were studied by 1H
NMR spectroscopy for periods of 15 min and 24 h after addition of
the nucleobase(s) in 26.7% MeOD/73.3% D2O at 310 K using
a Bruker AV III 600 NMR spectrometer.
Hydrophobicity Determinations
Relative hydrophobicity
measurements by HPLC were performed using the Agilent 1200 system
with a VDW and 100 μL loop. The column used was an Agilent Zorbax
Eclipse Plus C18, 150 × 4.6 mm with a 5 μm pore size. Mobile
phase used was H2O 50 mM NaCl/H2O/MeCN 1:1 50
mM NaCl at gradients of t = 0–20% B, t = 15 min 100% B, t = 40 min 100% B, t = 42 min 20% B, and t = 57 min 20% B
over a 57 min period. Flow rate was 1 mL min–1,
and the detection wavelength was set at 254 nm with the reference
wavelength at 360 nm. Sample injections were half the loop volume
(50 μL) with needle washes of H2O between injections.
Samples were dissolved in 10% MeOH/90% H2O in 50 mM NaCl
at ca. 100 μM. Reported retention times (tR) and standard deviations (SD) are from duplicates
of triplicate measurements.
Catalytic Oxidation of NADH to NAD+
Complexes
were evaluated for the catalytic oxidation of NADH to NAD+ by UV–visible spectroscopy over a 24 h period in 0.5% MeOH/99.5%
H2O at 310 K in 5 mM Na2HPO4/NaH2PO4 buffer, pH 7.5. The complex concentration remained
fixed at 2.5 μM with NADHconcentrations of 69, 103, 127, and
146 μM. The conversion of NADH to NAD+ was followed
by absorption at 339 nm (εNADH = 6220 cm–1 M–1) to allow evaluation of kinetic data.The reaction between complex 2 (250 μM) and NADH
(750 μM) in 50% MeOD/50% H2O at 310 K, pH* 7.4, was
monitored by 1H NMR spectroscopy.
Cell Experiments
The cell lines used in this work,
A2780humanovarian carcinoma, A549human Caucasian lung carcinoma,
HCT116humancolon carcinoma, and MCF7human Caucasian breast carcinoma,
were obtained from the European Collection of Cell Cultures (ECACC).
A2780 ovarian cells were grown in Roswell Park Memorial Institute
medium (RPMI-1640), A549 and MCF7 in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle
medium (DMEM), and HCT116 in McCoy’s modified 5A medium. All
media were supplemented with 10% v/v fetal calf serum, 1% v/v 2 mM
glutamine, and 1% v/v penicillin/streptomycin.All cells were
grown in 75 cm2 culture flasks as adherent monolayers,
and they were split two to three times a week when around 80–90%
confluence was reached, using 0.25% v/v trypsin for A2780 and 0.25%
v/v trypsin/EDTA for all other cell lines.
In Vitro Growth Inhibition Assay
Briefly,
96-well plates were used to seed 5000 cells per well; they were left
to preincubate in drug-free media at 310 K for 48 h before adding
various concentrations of the compounds to be tested. Stock solutions
of the Ir complexes were first prepared in 5% v/v DMSO and a mixture
of 0.9% w/v saline and medium (1:1) following serial dilutions in
the corresponding cell culture medium. A drug exposure period of 24
h was allowed. After this, the supernatant were removed by suction,
and each well was washed with PBS. A further 72 h was allowed for
the cells to recover in drug-free medium at 310 K. The SRB assay was
used to determine cell viability. This assay, first developed by Skeham
et al. in 1990, is based on the ability of the sulforhodamine B to
bind electrostatically to basic amino acid residues of proteins from
fixed cells. Absorbance measurements of solubilized dye allow the
determination of the amount of viable treated cells against an untreated
control. These measurements were carried out using a BioRad iMark
microplate reader with a 470 nm filter. IC50 values, as
the concentration that causes 50% of inhibition of cell growth, were
determined as duplicates of triplicates in two independent sets of
experiments, and their standard deviations calculated.
Metal Accumulation
in Cancer Cells
Metal accumulation
studies for complexes 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11–14 were
conducted on the A2780ovarian carcinoma cell line. Briefly, 1.5 ×
106 cells were seeded on a six-well plate, after 24 h of
preincubation time in drug-free medium, at 310 K in a 5% CO2 humidified atmosphere; the test complexes were added to give final
concentrations equal to IC50 and then allowed a further
24 h of drug exposure under similar conditions. After this time, cells
were treated with trypsin and counted, and cell pellets were collected.
Each pellet was digested overnight in concentrated nitric acid (73%)
at 353 K; the resulting solutions were diluted to 5% v/v HNO3 using doubly deionized water, and the amount of iridium taken up
by the cells was determined by ICP-MS, using an Agilent Technologies
7500 series instrument. The solvent used for all ICP-MS experiments
was DDW with 5% v/v HNO3. Metal standards (Ir) were freshly
prepared before each experiment. The concentrations used for the calibration
curve were 0, 0.5, 0.8, 1, 5, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 ppb. The isotope
detected was 193Ir; readings were made in duplicate (no-gas
mode). These experiments did not include any cell recovery time in
drug-free media. They were all carried out in triplicate in two sets
of independent experiments, and the standard deviations were calculated.
Metal Distribution in A2780 Cells for Complexes 2 and 4
Cell pellets were obtained as described
above and were fractionated using the FractionPREP kit from BioVision
according to the supplier’s instructions. Each sample was digested
overnight inconcentrated nitric acid (73%), and the amount of Ir
taken up by the cells was determined by ICP-MS. These experiments
were all carried out in triplicate, and the standard deviations were
calculated. Statistical significance between results was established
from the Student’s t test, where ** = p < 0.01.
Authors: Stefan Wirth; Christoph J Rohbogner; Marcin Cieslak; Julia Kazmierczak-Baranska; Stefan Donevski; Barbara Nawrot; Ingo-Peter Lorenz Journal: J Biol Inorg Chem Date: 2009-12-19 Impact factor: 3.358
Authors: Joan J Soldevila-Barreda; Kehinde B Fawibe; Maria Azmanova; Laia Rafols; Anaïs Pitto-Barry; Uche B Eke; Nicolas P E Barry Journal: Molecules Date: 2020-10-03 Impact factor: 4.411
Authors: Wen-Ying Zhang; Samya Banerjee; George M Hughes; Hannah E Bridgewater; Ji-Inn Song; Ben G Breeze; Guy J Clarkson; James P C Coverdale; Carlos Sanchez-Cano; Fortuna Ponte; Emilia Sicilia; Peter J Sadler Journal: Chem Sci Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 9.825
Authors: Christina Chuong; Christine M DuChane; Emily M Webb; Pallavi Rai; Jeffrey M Marano; Chad M Bernier; Joseph S Merola; James Weger-Lucarelli Journal: Viruses Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 5.048