| Literature DB >> 34298905 |
Joanna Masternak1, Małgorzata Zienkiewicz-Machnik2, Iwona Łakomska3, Maciej Hodorowicz4, Katarzyna Kazimierczuk5, Milena Nosek6, Amelia Majkowska-Młynarczyk7, Joanna Wietrzyk8, Barbara Barszcz1.
Abstract
To evaluate the antioxidant activity of potential synthetic enzyme mimetics, we prepared new five copper(II) complexes via a self-assembly method and named themEntities:
Keywords: N,O- and N,N-donors; X-ray crystal structure; antioxidant activity; copper(II) complexes; enzyme mimetic
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34298905 PMCID: PMC8307904 DOI: 10.3390/ijms22147286
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Scheme 1Schematic representation of the preparation of copper(II) perchlorate(VII) complexes.
Scheme 2Schematic representation of copper(II) complexes synthesis from copper(II) tetrafluoroborate hydrate.
Crystal data and structure refinement for compounds 1–5.
|
|
|
| |
| CCDC | 2079678 | 2079599 | 2079677 |
| Empirical formula | C18H21Cl2CuN3O11 | C12H18F6CuN2O4Si | C28H34Cl2Cu2N4O12 |
| Formula weight, g mol−1 | 589.82 | 459.91 | 816.57 |
| Temperature (K) | 120(2) | 293(2) | 120(2) |
| Wavelength (Å) | 0.71073 | 0.71073 | 0.71073 |
| Crystal system, space group | Monoclinic, | Monoclinic, | Orthorhombic, |
| Unit cell dimensions | a = 19.2825(15) Å | a = 10.274(2) Å | a = 14.4167(3) Å |
| Volume (Å3) | 4319.7(6) | 1688.20(6) | 3235.97(13) |
| Z, Calculated density (Mg/m3) | 4, 1.659 | 4, 1.810 | 4, 1.676 |
| F(000) | 2208 | 932 | 1672 |
| Crystal size (mm) | 0.32 × 0.28 × 0.23 | 0.20 × 0.10 × 0.10 | 0.23 × 0.20 × 0.18 |
| Theta range for data collection (°) | 2.561–25.499 | 2.825–27.472 | 2.697–25.499 |
| Index ranges | −21≤ h ≤ 23, −14 ≤ k ≤ 14, −24 ≤ l ≤ 24 | −12 ≤ h ≤ 13, −13 ≤ k ≤ 12, −21 ≤ l ≤ 21 | −16≤ h≤ 17, −9≤ k≤ 10, −30≤ l≤ 30 |
| Reflections collected/unique/observed [Rint] | 16,300/3808 [Rint = 0.0848] | 3861/3494 [Rint = 0.0394] | 21,812/3024 [Rint = 0.0715] |
| Max. and min. transmission | 0.7012 and 0.8339 | 0.760 and 0.869 | 0.7339 and 0.7937 |
| Data/restraints/parameters | 4019/0/316 | 3861/0/260 | 3024/0/248 |
| Goodness-of-fit on F2 | 1.233 | 1.020 | 1.222 |
| Final R indices [I > 2sigma(I)] | R1 = 0.056, wR2 = 0.1532 | R1 = 0.02412, wR2 = 0.0582 | R1 = 0.0824, wR2 = 0.1886 |
| R indices (all data) | R1 = 0.0485, wR2 = 0.1362 | R1 = 0.0281, wR2 = 0.0600 | R1 = 0.0871, wR2 = 0.1905 |
| Largest differences in peak and hole (e/Å−3) | 0.771 and −1.200 | 0.402 and −0.387 | 1.681 and −0.761 |
|
|
| ||
| CCDC | 2079602 | 2079600 | |
| Empirical formula | C36H31B2F8Cu2N9O3 | CuC22H20N4Cl2O12 | |
| Formula weight, g mol−1 | 874.89 | 666.86 | |
| Temperature (K) | 293(2) | 130(2) | |
| Wavelength (Å) | 0.71073 | 0.71073 | |
| Crystal system, space group | Orthorombic, | Monoclinic, | |
| Unit cell dimensions | a = 11.901(5) Å | a = 7.7600(3) Å | |
| Volume (Å3) | 3953(2) | 1259.01(7) | |
| Z, Calculated density (Mg/m3) | 4, 1.470 | 2, 1.759 | |
| F(000) | 1780 | 678 | |
| Crystal size (mm) | 0.45 × 0.21 × 0.14 | 0.30 × 0.20 × 0.15 | |
| Theta range for data collection (°) | 3.338–28.589 | 3.026–27.476 | |
| Index ranges | −15 ≤ h ≤ 15, −18 ≤ k ≤ 19, −30 ≤ l ≤ 30 | −10 ≤ h ≤ 8, −17 ≤ k ≤ 17, −16 ≤ l ≤ 16 | |
| Reflections collected/unique/observed [Rint] | 4874/3674 [Rint = 0.0978] | 2874/2348 [Rint = 0.0655] | |
| Max. and min. transmission | 0.682 and 0.857 | 0.723 and 0.846 | |
| Data/restraints/parameters | 4874/206/359 | 2873/0/196 | |
| Goodness-of-fit on F2 | 1.079 | 1.044 | |
| Final R indices [I > 2σ(I)] | R1 = 0.0894, wR2 = 0.1934 | R1 = 0.0493, wR2 = 0.0880 | |
| R indices (all data) | R1 = 0.0703, wR2 = 0.1786 | R1 = 0.0358, wR2 = 0.0815 | |
| Largest differences in peak and hole (e/Å−3) | 0.683 and −1.026 | 0.556 and −0.467 |
Absorption correction—Semi-empirical from equivalents; Refinement method—Full-matrix least-squares on F2.
Figure 1Perspective view of (a) the molecular structure and (b) the crystal packing with marked O-H···O/Cl bonds of [Cu(2-(HOCH2)py)3](ClO4)2 (1).
Figure 2(a) Molecular structure of [Cu(2-(HOCH2)py)2(H2O)2]SiF6 (2) and (b) the hydrogen bonding formed by the water molecules and heksafluorosilicate ions in complex 2.
Figure 3(a) Perspective view of the molecular structure of [Cu2(2-(HOCH2CH2)py)2(2-(OCH2CH2)py)2](ClO4)2 (3) ((i) −x + 1, y, −z + ½) and (b) the C-H···O interactions in the asymmetric unit of complex 3.
Figure 4(a) Molecular structure of [Cu(pyBIm)3](BF4)2 · 1.5H2O (4) and (b) selected intra- and intermolecular H-bonding interactions.
Figure 5(a) Molecular structure of [Cu(py2C(OH)2)2](ClO4)2 (5) and (b) the C-H···O and O-H···O interactions in crystal structure of the complex.
Structural features for the Cu(II) complexes with di-(2-pyridyl)methanediol as ligand and different anions.
| Complex | Anions | Crystal System, | Bond Lenghts (Å) | Chromophore, Polyhedron | Ligand Coordination Mode | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu-O | Cu-N | Cu-X | |||||
| [Cu2Br3(C11H9N2O2)] [ | Br− | Triclinic, | 1.9513 (17) | 1.981(2) | 2.4592(4) | {CuNOBr2} | |
| [Cu2Br4(C11H10N2O2)2]·2H2O [ | Br− | Monoclinic, C2/c | - | 2.034 (5) | 2.4222(10) | {CuN2Br2} | κ2N,N′ |
| [Cu(dpydiol)2](Br)2·4H2O [ | Br− | Monoclinic, C2/c | 2.464(3) | 2.011(4) | - | {CuN4O2} | κ3N,O,N′ |
| [Cu(C11H10N2O2)2](BF4)2·2H2O [ | BF4− | Monoclinic, P21/c | 2.4312(17) | 2.0099(19) | - | {CuN4O2] | κ3N,O,N′ |
| [Cu(pk·HO)2](NCS)2·H2O [ | NCS− | Triclinic, | 2.389(1) | 2.008(1) 2.012(1) | - | {CuN4O2} | κ3N,O,N′ |
| [Cu(C11H10N2O2)2](C1O4)2 [ | ClO4− | Monoclinic P21/n | 2.454(2) | 2.009(2) | - | {CuN4O2} | κ3N,O,N′ |
| [Cu(py2C(OH)2)2](C1O4)2
| ClO4− | Monoclinic P21/c | 2.0089(19) | 2.0097(19) | - | {CuN4O2} | κ3N,O,N′ |
| [Cu(C11H10N2O2)2](C2H3O2)2·4H2O [ | CH3COO− | Monoclinic P21/n | 2.3990(14) | 1.9918(17) 2.0257(18) | - | {CuN4O2} | κ3N,O,N′ |
| [Cu(C11H10N2O2)2](C2H3O2)2·4H2O [ | CH3COO− | Monoclinic, C2/c | 2.394(1) | 2.021(2) 2.002(2) | - | {CuN4O2} | κ3N,O,N′ |
| [Cu[(2-Py)2CO(OH)]2(HO2CCH3)2 [ | CH3COO− | Monoclinic, C2/c | 2.367(8) | 2.00(1) 2.03(1) | - | {CuN4O2} | κ3N,O,N′ |
| [Cu4[(2-Py)2CO(OH)]2(O2CCH3)6(H2O)2]·CH2Cl2 [ | CH3COO− | Triclinic, | 1.964(4) 1.938(4) 2.258(4) | 1.991(6) | 2.277(5) 1.940(4) 1.974(4) 1.952(5) 1.946(4) | {CuN4O2} | |
| [Cu(C11H10N2O2)2]C4H4O6 [ | C4H4O62− | Triclinic, | 2.3920 (19) 2.3920 (19) | 2.003(2) | - | {CuN4O2} | κ3N,O,N′ |
| [Cu(dpk·H2O)2]C6H5PO2OH2[C6H5PO(OH)2] [ | C6H5PO2OH− | Monoclinic, C2/c | 2.418–2.425 | 2.007 | - | {CuN4O2} | κ3N,O,N′ |
Figure 6The percentage of non-covalent interactions for the analysed complexes extracted from 2D fingerprint plots.
The comparison of FTIR bands for free ligands and their copper(II) complexes.
| Compound | Assignments | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ν(OH)H2O | ν(OH)ligand | ν(NH) | ν(C-O) | ν(C=O) | ν(C=C) | ν(C=N) | νClO4− | νSiF62− | νBF4− | |
| 2-(HOCH2)py | - | 3245 | - | 1054 | - | 1594, 1574 | 1479, 1435 | - | - | - |
|
| - | 3425 | - | 1068 | - | 1610, 1576 | 1487, 1444 | 1091 | - | - |
|
| - | 1068 | - | 1613, 1573 | 1495, 1448 | - | 764, 725 | - | ||
| 2-(HOCH2CH2)py | - | 3245 | - | 1057 | - | 1593, 1568 | 1476, 1435 | - | - | - |
|
| - | 3450 | - | 1066 | - | 1610, 1570 | 1487, 1437 | 1086 | - | - |
| pyBIm | - | - | 3057 | - | - | 1593, 1568 | 1441, 1400 | - | - | - |
|
| 3590 | - | 3590 | - | - | 1598, 1567 | 1450, 1422 | - | - | 1052 |
| py2CO | - | - | - | - | 1683 | 1581 | 1429 | - | - | - |
|
| - | 3485 | - | 1067 | - | 1606 | 1447 | 1090 | - | - |
Figure 7UV-Vis spectra with inserted of d-d transition of (a) 2-(HOCH2)py (red line) and complex 1 (pink line) in ethanol, (b) 2-(HOCH2CH2)py (red line) and complex 3 (blue line), (c) pyBIm (red line) and complex 4 (celadon line), (d) py2CO (red line) and complex 5 (violet line) in methanol.
Electronic absorption spectral data of complexes.
| Compound | Chromophore | Equatorial Donor Atoms | Colour | d-d | LMCT | n→π* | π→π* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2-(HOCH2)py | - | 261 | 203 | ||||
| {CuN3O3} | N3O | light blue | 654 (51) | 261 | 209 | ||
| 2-(HOCH2CH2)py | - | 266, 257 | 211 | ||||
| {CuN2O3} | N2O2 | blue | 662 (105) | 346, 303 | 261 | 209 | |
| pyBIm | - | 320, 308 | 238, 204 | ||||
| {CuN6} | N4 | green | 702 (29) | 320, 313 | 236, 215 | ||
| py2CO | - | 268, 240 | 204 | ||||
| {CuN4O2} | N4 | violet | 560 (52) | 264, 255 | 209 |
Complex 2—spectrum not determined due to low solubility; π*—antibonding orbital.
Figure 8The EPR spectra of complex 1 recorded for polycrystalline powder at (a) room temperature (RT), (b) temperature of 77 K (LNT) (black line), and (c) frozen water solution, paired with the simulated EPR spectra (blue line).
Figure 9The EPR spectrum of frozen MeOH solution of 3 (black) together with the theoretical spectrum (blue).
Figure 10(a) ABTS radical scavenging potential of the selected complexes and free ligands, (b) example absorption spectra of ABTS•+ with various concentrations of complex 1 and plot of antioxidant properties (% inhibition) of ABTS+.
Activity levels of blood antioxidants of oncology patients and the control group.
| Parameter | Control Group | Oncology Patients after Treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chemotherapy | Radiochemotherapy | ||
| TAS (mmol/L) | 1.44 ± 0.33 | 1.05 ± 0.16 | 1.32 ± 0.26 |
| SOD (U/mL) | 172.70 ± 66.12 | 221.13 ± 54.51 | 263.70 ± 126.87 |
| CAT (U/mL) | 2.85 ± 0.41 | 2.53 ± 0.77 | 2.60 ± 1.12 |
| GPx (U/mL) | 0.19 ± 0.11 | 0.15 ± 0.07 | 0.11 ± 0.05 |
Values are presented as mean ± SD (25–75%); p < 0.05.
Figure 11The activity of (a) TAS, (b) SOD and (c) CAT in the control group and the post-chemotherapy group (*).
Figure 12The activity of (a) TAS, (b) SOD and (c) CAT in the control group and the post-chemoradiotherapy group (**).
Figure 13The activity of (a) TAS, (b) SOD and (c) CAT in the control group, the post-chemotherapy group (*) and the post-chemotherapy group with the copper(II) complex 1 (***).
Figure 14The activity of (a) TAS, (b) SOD and (c) CAT in the control group, the post-chemoradiotherapy group (**) and the post-chemoradiotherapy group with the copper(II) complex 1 (***).