| Literature DB >> 30011935 |
George K Latsis1, Christina N Banti2, Nikolaos Kourkoumelis3, Constantina Papatriantafyllopoulou4, Nikos Panagiotou5, Anastasios Tasiopoulos6, Alexios Douvalis7, Angelos G Kalampounias8, Thomas Bakas9, Sotiris K Hadjikakou10.
Abstract
Two known tin-based polymers of formula {[R₃Sn(CH₃COO)]n} where R = n-Bu⁻ (1) and R = Ph⁻ (2),were evaluated for their in vitro biological properties. The compounds were characterized via their physical properties and FT-IR, 119Sn Mössbauer, and ¹H NMR spectroscopic data. The molecular structures were confirmed by single-crystal X-Ray diffraction crystallography. The geometry around the tin(IV) ion is trigonal bi-pyramidal. Variations in O⁻Sn⁻O···Sn' torsion angles lead to zig-zag and helical supramolecular assemblies for 1 and 2, respectively. The in vitro cell viability against human breast adenocarcinoma cancer cell lines: MCF-7 positive to estrogens receptors (ERs) and MDA-MB-231 negative to ERs upon their incubation with 1 and 2 was investigated. Their toxicity has been studied against normal human fetal lung fibroblast cells (MRC-5). Compounds 1 and 2 exhibit 134 and 223-fold respectively stronger antiproliferative activity against MDA-MB-231 than cisplatin. The type of the cell death caused by 1 or 2 was also determined using flow cytometry assay. The binding affinity of 1 and 2 towards the CT-DNA was suspected from the differentiation of the viscosity which occurred in the solution containing increasing amounts of 1 and 2. Changes in fluorescent emission light of Ethidium bromide (EB) in the presence of DNA confirmed the intercalation mode of interactions into DNA of both complexes 1 and 2 which have been ascertained from viscosity measurements. The corresponding apparent binding constants (Kapp) of 1 and 2 towards CT-DNA calculated through fluorescence spectra are 4.9 × 10⁴ (1) and 7.3 × 10⁴ (2) M-1 respectively. Finally, the type of DNA binding interactions with 1 and 2 was confirmed by docking studies.Entities:
Keywords: acetic acid; anti-cancer activity; bio-polymer; biological inorganic chemistry; cell cycle; organotins
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30011935 PMCID: PMC6073380 DOI: 10.3390/ijms19072055
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Scheme 1Preparation route of 1 and 2.
Figure 1119Sn Mössbauer spectra of 1 (A) and 2 (B) at 80 K.
Figure 2Molecular diagrams of 1 (A) and 2 (B).
Scheme 2Charge distribution.
Bioactivity data recorded for 1 and 2 in comparison with those of other reported organotin compounds.
| Compound | IC50 (μΜ) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCF-7 | MDA-MB-231 | MRC-5 | TPI * | Ref. | |
|
| 0.25 ± 0.02 | 0.20 ± 0.01 | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.88 | [present] |
|
| 0.21 ± 0.01 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.52 | [present] |
| {[Ph3Sn]2(mna)·[(CH3)2CO]} | 0.030 | >0.200 | [ | ||
| [Me2Sn(Sal)2] | 0.142 ± 0.043 | 0.0975 ± 0.00015 | 0.69 | [ | |
| [( | 0.108 ± 0.0026 | 0.1041 ± 0.0002 | 0.96 | [ | |
| [( | 0.724 ± 0.0054 | 0.0981 ± 0.0001 | 0.14 | [ | |
| [Ph3Sn(Sal)] | 0.121 ± 0.0037 | 0.0945 ± 0.000.2 | 0.78 | [ | |
| [( | 0.325 ± 0.0023 | 0.0784 ± 0.0002 | 0.24 | [ | |
| {[Ph3Sn( | 0.103 | 0.203 | 0.130 | 1.26 | [ |
| ( | 0.068 | 0.106 | 0.108 | 1.59 | [ |
| [(tert-Bu–)2(HO–Ph)]2SnCl2 | 3.12 ± 0.38 | [ | |||
| [(tert-Bu–)2(HO–Ph)]2Sn(PMT)2 | 7.86 ± 0.87 | [ | |||
| [(tert-Bu–)2(HO–Ph)]2Sn(MPMT)2 | 0.58 ± 0.1 | [ | |||
| {[(tert-Bu–)2(HO–Ph)]2SnCl(PYT)} | >30 | [ | |||
| [(tert-Bu–)2(HO–Ph)]2SnCl(MBZT)} | >30 | [ | |||
| Ph3SnCl | 0.130 | 0.166 | 0.141 | 1.08 | [ |
| [Ph3SnOH] | 0.070 | 0.165 | 0.090 | 1.29 | [ |
| [(Ph2Sn)4Cl2O2(OH)2] | >10 | >10 | >10 | [ | |
| Me2Sn((tert-Bu–)2(HO–Ph–S))2 | 19.20 ± 1.70 | 19.50 ± 1.40 | 1.02 | [ | |
| Et2Sn(((tert-Bu–)2(HO–Ph–S))2 | 6.20 ± 0.80 | 7.30 ± 0.60 | 1.18 | [ | |
| ( | 0.40 ± 0.06 | 0.61 ± 0.07 | 1.53 | [ | |
| Ph2Sn(((tert-Bu–)2(HO–Ph–S))2 | 6.20 ± 0.80 | 12.40 ± 1.40 | 2.00 | [ | |
| [(tert-Bu–)2(HO–Ph)]2Sn(((tert-Bu–)2(HO–Ph–S))2 | >30 | >30 | >30 | [ | |
| Me3Sn((tert-Bu–)2(HO–Ph–S)) | 4.90 ± 0.50 | 3.36 ± 0.13 | 0.69 | [ | |
| Ph3Sn(((tert-Bu–)2(HO–Ph–S)) | 0.25 ± 0.03 | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.88 | [ | |
| Cisplatin | 5.5 ± 0.4 | 26.7 ± 1.1 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 0.20 | [ |
* TPI = IC50(MRC-5)/IC50(MCF-7), mna = 2-mercapto-nicotinic acid, salH = salicylic acid, pHbzaH = p-Hydroxyl-benzoic acid, H2TBA = 2-thiobarbituric acid, PMTH = 2-mercapto-pyrimidine, MPMTH = 2-mercapto-4-methyl-pyrimidine, PYTH = 2-mercapto-pyridine, MBZTH = 2-mercapto-benzothiazole.
Figure 3Number of MCF-7 cells in sub-G1, G0/G1, S, and G2/M phases, upon their treatment with 1 and 2. The meaning of color labeling is white= Sub-G1, blue= G0/G1, green= S, pink= G2/M.
Cell cycle studies data of 1 and 2.
| Description | Phases of cell cycle | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sub-G1 | G0/G1 | S | G2/M | |
| Untreated cells | 6.1% | 46.5% | 18.3% | 28.9% |
| Treated cells with DMSO | 6.5 | 42.7 | 20.6 | 29.5 |
|
| 14.4 | 37.9% | 25.1 | 22.1 |
|
| 24.1 | 35.8%. | 22.9 | 17.1 |
Figure 4Effect of increasing concentrations of 1 and 2 on the relative viscosity of CT-DNA at 25 °C. ([DNA] = 10 mM, r = [compound]/[DNA], n is the viscosity of DNA in the presence of 1 or 2 and n is the viscosity of DNA alone).
Figure 5Emission spectrum of EB bound to DNA (peak around 610 nm) decreases in order of the concentration of the complex (1 (A) and 2 (B)). The arrows show the intensity changing upon increasing complex concentration. Inset shows the plots of emission intensity Io/I vs. [complex].
Figure 6DNA docking and H-bonding interactions between B-DNA and compounds 1 and (2a, 2b).