| Literature DB >> 33799355 |
Walaa Alharbi1, Iftekhar Hassan2, Rais Ahmad Khan3, Shazia Parveen4, Khadijah H Alharbi5, Ibtisam I Bin Sharfan3, Ibrahim M Alhazza2, Hossam Ebaid2, Ali Alsalme3.
Abstract
BiocompatibleEntities:
Keywords: MCF7 cells; MTT assay; ROS; comet assay; copper complex; in vivo toxicity
Year: 2021 PMID: 33799355 PMCID: PMC8001361 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26061606
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Synthetic route to Schiff base ligand, L and its complexes 1 and 2.
Figure 2DFT optimized structures of complex (A) 1 and (B) 2. Only coordinated donor atoms are labeled. Hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity.
Selected bond distances (Å) for complexes 1 and 2.
| Bonds | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu(1)-N(2)/Zn(1)-N(2) | 1.99 | 2.136 | ~1.981–2.015 | ~2.000–2.280 | [ |
| Cu(1)-N(3)/Zn(1)-N(3) | 2.346 | 2.134 | |||
| Cu(1)-N(5)/Zn(1)-N(5) | 2.116 | 2.161 | |||
| Cu(1)-O(2)/Zn(1)-O(2) | 1.984 | 2.061 | ~1.952–2.325 | ~1.990–2.089 | [ |
| Cu(1)-O(3)/Zn(1)-O(3) | 1.958 | 2.069 |
Some selected experimental and calculated frequencies (cm−1) of complexes 1 and 2.
| Vibrational Band | Complex 1 | Complex 1 | Complex 2 | Complex 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ν(N-H) stretching | 3418 | 3509 | 3412 | 3502 |
| ν(N=CH) stretching | 1601 | 1610 | 1597 | 1609 |
| ν(-O˗C=O) stretching | 1627 | 1656 | 1629 | 1653 |
Figure 3Frontier molecular orbitals of complexes 1 and 2 and their HOMO-LUMO energy gaps.
Cell viability assay (MTT assay) gives the IC50 values (µM) to treat two human cancer cell lines (HepG2 and MCF7) and a non-tumorigenic cell (HEK293).
| Complex | HepG2 | MCF7 | HEK293 | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Cu(L)(Hnor)2] ( | 21.7 ± 0.9 | 7.8 ± 0.4 | >100 | This work |
| [Zn(L)(Hnor)2] ( | 50 ± 1.5 | 55 ± 1.9 | >200 | This work |
| [Cu(tryp) (Hnor)2] | 27.0 ± 1.1 | 10 ± 1.3 | >100 | [ |
| [Zn(tryp)(Hnor)2] | 88 ± 1.9 | 24 ± 1.7 | >150 | [ |
| [Cu(Sal-Trp)(dppz)] | ND | 32.56 ± 3.05 | ND | [ |
| [Cu(Sal-Trp)(nip)] | ND | 20.33 ± 5.50 | ND | [ |
| Cisplatin | 7.63 ± 1.6 | 38 ± 1.23 | >50 | [ |
| Cu(NO3)2 | >200 | >200 | >200 | [ |
| Zn(NO3)2 | >200 | >200 | >200 | [ |
| Hnor | >200 | >200 | >200 | This work |
| L | >200 | >200 | >200 | This work |
Figure 4Morphology of the human breast cancer (MCF7) cells, untreated (control) and treated with Cu(II) (1) and Zn(II) (2) complexes.
Figure 5(a) Glutathione level in MCF7 cell line after the exposure of complex 1 for 24 h at 5, 7.5, and 10 µM concentrations. (b) Induction in LPO level in MCF7 cell line after the exposure of complex 1 for 24 h at 5, 7.5, and 10 μM concentrations. (c) ROS generation in MCF7 cells exposed to complex 1 for 24 h at 7.5 μM concentration. * indicates statistically different from the control.
Figure 6Showing bars of liver function markers (ALT (A) and AST (B)) and of the indicated groups. All the data has been expressed in mean ± SEM for each group. * indicates statistically different from the control (group I) at p ≤ 0.05. Also ** indicate p ≤ 0.005 while *** and ### indicate p ≤ 0.001.
Figure 7Showing bars of renal function markers (Urea (A) and Creatinine (B)) of the indicated groups. All the data has been expressed in mean ± SEM for each group. * indicates statistically different from the control (group I) at p ≤ 0.05. Also *** and ### indicate p ≤ 0.001.
Figure 8Showing bars of oxidative stress markers (GSH Urea (A) and MDA Urea (B) levels) of the indicated groups. All the data has been expressed in mean ± SEM for each group. ** indicate p ≤ 0.005 while *** and ### indicate p ≤ 0.001.
Figure 9Average histological photomicrographs and Comet assay performed on the indicated groups. Group I shows the control without any treatment, while group II is control positive treated with CCl4. Group III and IV are complex 1 and 2 respectively.