| Literature DB >> 32961653 |
Kateryna Ohui1, Iryna Stepanenko1, Iuliana Besleaga1, Maria V Babak2,3, Radu Stafi1, Denisa Darvasiova4, Gerald Giester5, Vivien Pósa6,7, Eva A Enyedy6,7, Daniel Vegh8, Peter Rapta4, Wee Han Ang2, Ana Popović-Bijelić9, Vladimir B Arion1.
Abstract
Thiosemicarbazones continue to attract the interest of researchers as potential antiEntities:
Keywords: amidrazones; cancer signalling; copper(II); iron(III); isothiosemicarbazones; triapine
Year: 2020 PMID: 32961653 PMCID: PMC7564244 DOI: 10.3390/biom10091336
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomolecules ISSN: 2218-273X
Scheme 1Line drawings of 3-AP (triapine), carboxamidrazone HL and isothiosemicarbazone HL free ligands and complexes 1−3 reported in this work. Underlined labels/numbers indicate compounds studied by X-ray crystallography.
Crystal data and details of data collection for HL, [H, HL, [Cu(HL (1) and [Cu(HL (2).
| Compound | HL1 | [H3L1a]Cl2·2H2O | HL2 | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| empirical formula | C12H12N6 | C12H18Cl2N6O2 | C8H11N5S | C12H12Cl2CuN6 | C8H11Cl2CuN5S |
| fw | 240.28 | 349.22 | 209.28 | 374.72 | 343.72 |
| space group |
| ||||
| 16.9760 (18) | 8.8057 (3) | 10.9320 (4) | 8.3933 (3) | 8.0926 (13) | |
| 6.1689 (7) | 28.3257 (9) | 7.0723 (3) | 11.5392 (2) | 8.9713 (15) | |
| 10.9516 (12) | 6.8074 (3) | 12.6838 (5) | 15.1025 (5) | 9.1504 (15) | |
| 78.368 (7) | |||||
| 109.7135 (14) | 93.627 (2) | 104.188 (2) | 78.276 (6) | ||
| 74.508 (6) | |||||
| 1146.9(2) | 1598.4 (1) | 978.29 (7) | 1418.09 (7) | 619.15 (18) | |
|
| 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| 0.71073 | 0.71073 | 0.71073 | 1.54186 | 0.71073 | |
| 1.392 | 1.451 | 1.421 | 1.755 | 1.844 | |
| cryst size, [mm3] | 0.12 × 0.10 × 0.06 | 0.35 × 0.10 × 0.10 | 0.20 × 0.18 × 0.12 | 0.22 × 0.04 × 0.04 | 0.20 × 0.18 × 0.07 |
| 120 (2) | 120(2) | 130 (2) | 100 (2) | 200 (2) | |
| μ, [mm−1] | 0.092 | 0.422 | 0.298 | 5.662 | 2.347 |
|
| 0.0329 | 0.0607 | 0.0309 | 0.0358 | 0.0555 |
|
| 0.0807 | 0.2349 | 0.0873 | 0.0950 | 0.2121 |
| GOF | 1.099 | 1.180 | 1.048 | 0.958 | 1.071 |
1 = Σ||Fo| − |Fc||/Σ|Fo|. 2 = {Σ[w(Fo2 − Fc2)2]/Σ[w(Fo2)2]}1/2. GOF = {Σ[w(Fo2 − Fc2)2]/(n − p)}1/2, where n is the number of reflections, and p is the total number of parameters refined.
Figure 1ORTEP views of (a) HL, (b) HL, (c) [Cu(HL (1) and (d) [Cu(HL (2). Selected bond distances (Å) and bond/torsion angles (deg) in HL: C4–N2 1.350(3), C4–C5 1.422(3), C5–C6 1.455(2), C6–N3 1.290(2), N3–N4 1.4062(19), N4–C7 1.302(2), C7–N5 1.345(2), C7–C8 1.487(2), C8–N6 1.345(2); N3–N4–C7–N5 –1.8(2); H-bond parameters: N2–H···N3 [N2···N3 2.765(2) Å, N2–H···N3 131.0°]; in HL: C4–N2 1.3514(15), C6–N3 1.2828(14), N3–N4 1.3970(12), N4–C7 1.3044(14), C7–N5 1.3471(14), C7–S 1.7643(11), S1–C8 1.8043(12); C1–N1–C5–C6 –179.31(10), N3–N4–C7–N5 –174.898(10); in 1: Cu–N1 1.997(2), Cu–N4 1.973(2), Cu–N6 2.006(2), Cu–Cl1 2.3255(7), Cu–Cl2 2.5190(6), C6–N3 1.278(4), N3–N4 1.372(3), N4–C7 1.330(3), C7–N5 1.321(3); N1–Cu–N4 91.52(8), N4–Cu–N6 80.12(8), N4–Cu–Cl1 136.54(7), N4–Cu–Cl2 111.58(6); in 2: Cu–N1 2.063(5), Cu–N3 1.960(5), Cu–N5 1.990(4), Cu–Cl1 2.2370(17), Cu–Cl2 2.5517(17), C6–N3 1.281(7), N3–N4 1.369(6), N4–C7 1.370(7), C7–N5 1.300(7); C7–S1 1.747(5), S1–C8 1.804(6), N1–Cu–N3 78.50(19), N3–Cu–N5 78.13(19), N3–Cu–Cl1 162.08(17), N3–Cu–Cl2 100.07(16), C1–N1–C5–C6 175.7(5), N3–N4–C7–N5 0.8(8).
Figure 2Time-dependent UV–Vis spectra of (a) HL and (b) HL at physiological pH {cL = 100 µM; pH = 7.40 (20 mM HEPES); T = 298 K; I = 0.10 M (KCl); ℓ = 1.0 cm; 1% (v/v) DMSO}.
Figure 3UV–Vis spectra of 2 in the presence of EDTA at various concentrations, and the numbers show the complex-to-EDTA ratios {c = 50 µM; cEDTA = 0–422 µM; pH = 5.90 (50 mM MES); T = 298 K; I = 0.10 M (KCl); ℓ = 1.0 cm; 1% DMSO}.
Cytotoxicity of HL and HL, Cu(II) complexes 1 and 2, and Fe(III) complex 3.
| Compound | IC50 [μM] | Cellular Accumulation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A2780 | A2780cis | RF | HEK293 | SF | A2780 | |
|
| 242 ± 84 | 221 ± 79 | 0.9 | 253 ± 39 | 1.0 | - |
|
| 202 ± 49 | 211 ± 8 | 1.0 | 187 ± 24 | 0.9 | - |
|
| 17 ± 2 | 15 ± 3 | 0.9 | 28 ± 2 | 1.6 | 0.76 ± 0.10 |
|
| 1.4 ± 0.2 | 0.92 ± 0.11 | 0.7 | 1.5 ± 0.2 | 1.1 | 0.64 ± 0.18 |
|
| 41 ± 12 | 36 ± 8 | 0.9 | 48 ± 9 | 1.2 | - |
|
| 0.67 ± 0.22 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 1.6 | 0.39 ± 0.05 | 0.6 | - |
|
| 0.44 ± 0.13 | 4.6 ± 0.3 | 10.5 | n.d. | - | - |
|
| 83 ± 12 | 82 ± 3 | 1.0 | 187 ± 37 | 2.3 | 0.64 ± 0.19 |
50% inhibitory concentrations (IC50) in human ovarian carcinoma cell lines A2780 and A2780cisR and human embryonic kidney cell line HEK293, determined using the MTT assay after 72 h exposure (Figure S11). Values are means ± standard error of mean (SEM) obtained from at least three independent experiments, Resistance Factor (RF) is determined as IC50 (A2780cisR)/IC50 (A2780), Selectivity Factor (SF) is determined as IC50 (HEK293)/IC50 (A2780), Cellular accumulation in A2780 cells, determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP−MS) after 24 h exposure at concentrations, corresponding to their 0.3 IC50 values. Values are means ± SEMs obtained from at least three independent experiments. The IC50 values (exposure for 72 h) were taken from the ref. [21,33], n.d.—not determined, The IC50 values were taken from ref. [33].
Figure 4Intracellular Cu accumulation in A2780 cells. A2780 cells were treated with Cu(II) complexes 1 and 2 at 37 °C for 24 h at indicated concentrations (µM), and Cu content was measured by ICP-MS. Statistical analysis was performed by two-tailed T-test using GraphPad Prism software (GraphPad Software Inc., CA) with p < 0.05 considered as significant (* p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001).
Figure 5Cyclic voltammograms of 0.5 mM (a) of 1, (b) 2 and (c) 3 in DMSO/n-Bu4NPF6 at a scan rate of 100 mV s–1 (black traces represent the first scan, while red traces the second scan).
Figure 6In situ UV–Vis spectroelectrochemistry for 2 in DMSO/n-Bu4NPF6 (scan rate of 10 mV s−1, Pt-microstructured honeycomb working electrode): (a) Evolution of UV−Vis spectra in 2D projection in the forward scan; (b) UV–Vis spectra detected simultaneously upon the cyclic voltammetric scan (Inset—respective cyclic voltammogram).
Figure 7Spectroelectrochemistry of 3 in n-Bu4NPF6/DMSO in the region of the first cathodic peak. (a) UV–Vis spectra detected simultaneously during the in situ reduction (Pt-microstructured honeycomb working electrode, scan rate v = 10 mV s−1); (b) potential dependence of UV−Vis spectra (Inset—respective cyclic voltammogram with the colour-highlighted potential region, where spectra were recorded).
Figure 8Tyrosyl radical reduction in human R2 RNR protein by 3-AP and HL in the presence of an external reductant. The samples contained 20 μM hR2 in 50 mM Hepes buffer, pH 7.60/100 mM KCl/5% glycerol, and 20 μM 3-AP or HL in 1% (v/v) DMSO/H2O, and 2 mM dithiothreiotol (DTT). Error bars are the standard deviation from two independent experiments.
Figure 9Western blot analysis of various proteins involved in apoptosis (PARP and cleaved PARP), cell cycle (cyclins B1 and D1), antioxidant defence (Nrf2) and ER stress (UPR) presented as a fold change in comparison with untreated cells and normalised to actin as a loading control (one representative strip is shown). A2780 cells were treated with indicated concentrations of 2 for 24 h. Total lysates were isolated and examined by Western Blotting. The quantification of the bands was performed in Image J software.