| Literature DB >> 35566147 |
Amal S Basaleh1, Fatimah Y Alomari2, Abeer A Sharfalddin1, Najlaa S Al-Radadi3, Doaa Domyati4, Mostafa A Hussien1,5.
Abstract
Vanadium compounds have been set in various fields as anticancer, anti-diabetic, anti-parasitic, anti-viral, and anti-bacterial agents. This study reports the synthesis and structural characterization of oxidovanadium(IV)-based imidazole drug complexes by the elemental analyzer, molar conductance, magnetic moment, spectroscopic techniques, as well as thermal analysis. The obtained geometries were studied theoretically using density functional theory (DFT) under the B3LYP level. The DNA-binding nature of the ligands and their synthesized complexes has been studied by the electronic absorption titrations method. The biological studies were carried with in-vivo assays and the molecular docking method. The EPR spectra asserted the geometry around the vanadium center to be a square pyramid for metal complexes. The geometries have been confirmed using DFT under the B3LYP level. Moreover, the quantum parameters proposed promising bioactivity of the oxidovanadium(IV) complexes. The results of the DNA-binding revealed that the investigated complexes bind to DNA via non-covalent mode, and the intrinsic binding constant (Kb) value for the [VO(SO4)(MNZ)2] H2O complex was promising, which was 2.0 × 106 M-1. Additionally, the cytotoxic activity of the synthesized complexes exhibited good inhibition toward both hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG-2) and human breast cancer (HCF-7) cell lines. The results of molecular docking displayed good correlations with experimental cytotoxicity findings. Therefore, these findings suggest that our synthesized complexes can be introduced as effective anticancer agents.Entities:
Keywords: DFT study; DNA-binding; anticancer activity; imidazole drugs; molecular docking; oxidovanadium(IV) complexes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35566147 PMCID: PMC9105665 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27092796
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Analytical and physical data of ligands and their oxidovanadium(IV) complexes.
| Complex | M.wt. | Color | Yield % | M.P. | % Found (Calc.) | µeff. | Λm | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | H | N | |||||||
| CTNZ | 344.9 | White | – | 140 | 76.60 (76.56) | 4.90 (4.91) | 8.10 (8.07) | – | 0 |
| [VO(SO4)(CTNZ)(H2O)]H2O | 543.9 | Dark green | 74 | 108 | 48.59 (48.51) | 3.89 (3.80) | 5.15 (4.19) | 1.75 | 11.72 |
| MNZ | 416.1 | White | – | 80 | 51.96 (51.97) | 3.39 (3.34) | 6.73 (6.75) | – | 0 |
| [VO(SO4)(MNZ)2] H2O | 1013.3 | Olive green | 91 | 119 | 42.67 (42.60) | 2.98 (2.92) | 5.53 (5.57) | 1.75 | 3.00 |
| PNZ | 383.4 | Beige | – | 158 | 50.13 (50.11) | 3.94 (3.94) | 10.96 (10.95) | – | 0 |
| [VO(PNZ)2]SO4.2H2O | 965.8 | Orange | 77 | 167 | 39.80 (39.67) | 3.55 (3.49) | 8.70 (8.76) | 1.76 | 113.28 |
Figure 1Suggested structures of synthesized oxidovanadium(IV) complexes.
Selected geometric bond lengths, bond angles, and dihedral angles of the optimized ligand and oxidovanadium(IV) complexes.
| Bond Lengths | Bond Angles | Dihedral Angles | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PNZ | VO-PNZ | PNZ | VO-PNZ | PNZ | VO-PNZ | |||
| C18-N15 | 1.31 | 1.35 | N15-C18-S19 | 128.6 | 119.1 | N15-C18-S19-O31 | 178.71 | −175.71 |
| C18-S19 | 1.85 | 1.81 | C18-S19-O31 | 97.7 | 93.9 | C21-C20-S19-O31 | 77.61 | −130.31 |
| C20-S19 | 1.72 | 2.80 | C20-S19-O31 | 102.1 | 84.81 | N57-C60-S61-O73 | - | 19.9 |
| S19-O31 | 1.98 | 1.77 | N57-V-N15 | - | 155.33 | C21-C20-S19-O31 | - | −175.7 |
| V-N15 | - | 2.07 | O31-V-O73 | - | 138.24 | S61-O73-V-O84 | - | −70.21 |
| V-O31 | - | 1.93 | N15-V-O31 | - | 83.30 | S19-O31-V-O84 | - | −79.03 |
| V-N57 | - | 1.09 | N57-V-O73 | - | 82.35 | C18-N15-V-O84 | - | 95.4 |
| V-O73 | - | 2.00 | N15-V-O84 | - | 102.20 | C20-S19-V-O84 | - | −87.19 |
| V=O84 | - | 1.59 | O31-V-O84 | - | 110.10 | S61-O73-V-O84 | - | −70.21 |
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| C17-N22 | 1.40 | 1.41 | C17-N22-C16 | 105.61 | 107.50 | C13-N21-C16-N22 | 178.45 | 174.95 |
| C16-N22 | 1.33 | 1.33 | N22-V-N56 | - | 90.72 | C16-N22-V-O72 | - | 114.17 |
| V-N22 | - | 2.09 | O71-V-O79 | - | 77.18 | C17-N22-V-O72 | - | −61.90 |
| V-O71 | - | 1.96 | O72-V-N22 | - | 106.10 | C50-N56-V-O72 | - | 6.19 |
| V-N56 | - | 2.08 | O72-V-N56 | - | 97.74 | C51-N56-V-O72 | - | −164.66 |
| V-O79 | - | 1.94 | O72-V-O71 | - | 114.40 | S73-O71-V-O72 | - | 113.17 |
| V=O72 | - | 1.60 | O72-V-O79 | - | 118 | S73-O70-V-O72 | - | −109 |
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| C2-N8 | 1.39 | 1.40 | C2-N8-C3 | 105.40 | 107.06 | C2-N8-C3-N4 | 111.80 | 109.80 |
| C3-N8 | 1.33 | 1.35 | N8-V-O45 | - | 85 | C2-N8-V-O47 | - | −15.01 |
| V-N8 | - | 2.03 | N8-V-O47 | - | 99.27 | C2-N8-V-O46 | - | −112.39 |
| V=O47 | - | 1.60 | N8-V-O46 | - | 105.14 | S50-O45-V-O46 | - | 133.73 |
| V-O45 | - | 2.28 | N8-V-O44 | - | 116.81 | S50-O45-V-O47 | - | 136.51 |
| V-O44 | - | 1.84 | O45-V-O46 | - | 65.73 | S50-O44-V-O47 | - | −168.63 |
| V-O46 (H2O) | - | 2.04 | O45-V-O47 | - | 94.60 | S50-O44-V-O46 | - | −54.98 |
The main bands in IR spectra for ligands and their oxidovanadium(IV) complexes.
| Compound | ν(C=N) | ν(S=O) | νasym and | ν(V=O) | ν(V-O) | ν(V-N) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exp. | DFT | Exp. | DFT | Exp. | DFT | Exp. | DFT | Exp. | DFT | Exp. | DFT | |
| CTNZ | 1494 | 1487 | - | - | - | - | - | |||||
| [VO(SO4)(CTNZ)(H2O)] H2O | 1593 | 1492 | - | 1276–1054 | 1250–1026 | 973 | 946 | 588 | 515 | 451 | 423 | |
| MNZ | 1509 | 1471 | - | - | - | - | - | |||||
| [VO(SO4)(MNZ)2] H2O | 1522 | 1505 | - | 1289–1040 | 938–849 | 972 | 1039 | 584 | 549 | 438 | 441 | |
| PNZ | 1590 | 1588 | 1043 | 1033 | - | - | - | - | ||||
| [VO(PNZ)2]SO4.2H2O | 1622 | 1538 | 1027 | 1026 | - | - | 968 | 1058 | 525 | 515 | 448 | 377 |
Figure 2A comparison of the experimental (A) and theoretical (B) using DFT/ B3LYP IR spectra for the free ligands and the oxidovanadium(IV) complexes.
Figure 3HOMO and LUMO charge density maps of the studied complexes using the B3LYP/LAND.
The calculated quantum chemical parameters of the ligands and their oxidovanadium(IV) complexes.
| Compound | HUMO | LUMO | ∆E | χ | η | σ | μ | S | ω | ΔN max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTNZ | −6.84 | −1.82 | 5.02 | 4.33 | 2.51 | 0.40 | −4.33 | 1.25 | 3.74 | 1.73 |
| VO-CTNZ | −10.80 | −8.95 | 1.86 | 9.88 | 0.93 | 1.08 | −9.88 | 0.46 | 4.94 | 10.63 |
| MNZ | −6.25 | −3.62 | 2.63 | 4.93 | 1.31 | 0.76 | −4.93 | 0.66 | 2.47 | 3.75 |
| VO-MNZ | −6.72 | −4.21 | 2.51 | 5.47 | 1.25 | 0.80 | −5.47 | 0.63 | 2.73 | 4.36 |
| PNZ | −6.24 | −1.11 | 5.13 | 3.67 | 2.57 | 0.39 | −3.67 | 1.28 | 1.84 | 1.43 |
| VO-PNZ | −6.61 | −2.38 | 4.23 | 4.49 | 2.12 | 0.47 | −4.49 | 1.06 | 2.25 | 2.12 |
Figure 4The molecular electrostatic potential surface of the metal complexes calculated by the DFT/B3LYP level.
Electronic spectral data of the studied compounds.
| Compound | π–π* | n–π* | d–d |
|---|---|---|---|
| nm | |||
| CTNZ | 262 | 272 | - |
| [VO(SO4)(CTNZ)(H2O)] H2O | 259 | 293 | ~840 |
| MNZ | 273 | 280 | - |
| [VO(SO4)(MNZ)2] H2O | 269 | 304 | ~830 |
| PNZ | 257 | 299 | - |
| [VO(PNZ)2] SO4·2H2O | 264 | 294 | 472 |
Figure 5The UV-Vis spectra of synthesized oxidovanadium(IV) complexes in DMSO.
EPR parameters of oxidovanadium(IV) complexes.
| Complex | g | A |
|---|---|---|
| [VO(SO4)(CTNZ)(H2O)] H2O | 1.995 | 110 |
| [VO(SO4)(MNZ)2] H2O | 1.996 | 100 |
| [VO(PNZ)2]SO4·2H2O | 1.983 | 107 |
Figure 6EPR spectra of oxidovanadium(IV) complexes.
Figure 7The curves of TG for three oxidovanadium(IV) complexes.
Figure 8Absorption spectra of PNZ and its complex in the presence of increasing DNA concentration.
2D and 3D docking interactions of the studied complexes with colon cancer protein “Human Thymidylate Synthase” for hepatocellular carcinoma protein (PDB code = 1JU6) and breast cancer (PDB code = 1HK7) protein.
| Types of Protein | Compound | 2D Snapshot | 3D Snapshot |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hepatocellular carcinoma | PNZ |
|
|
| VO-PNZ |
|
| |
| Breast cancer | PNZ |
|
|
| VO-PNZ |
|
| |
|
| |||
IC50 for tested compounds against different cell lines compared to cisplatin in different units, IC50 ± SD (μg/mL) and μM.
| Complex | HepG-2 | MCF-7 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| μg/mL | μM | μg/mL | μM | |
| [VO(SO4)(CTNZ)(H2O)]H2O | 4.5 ± 0.11 | 8.27 | 3.79 ± 0.13 | 6.97 |
| [VO(SO4)(MNZ)2]H2O | 5.34 ± 0.45 | 5.27 | 3.02 ± 0.02 | 2.98 |
| [VO(PNZ)2]SO4·2H2O | 4.02 ± 0.13 | 4.16 | 2.93 ± 0.06 | 3.03 |
| Cisplatin | 25.5 [ | 2.43 [ | ||
IC50: 1–10 (very strong), 11–20 (strong), 21–50 (moderate), 51–100 (weak), and above 100 (non-cytotoxic).
Figure 9Inhibition and IC50 of selected compounds in DMSO solutions toward HepG-2 and MCF-7 cell lines.
Figure 10Morphology images of hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG-2) and breast cancer (MCF-7) treatment by [VO(PNZ)2]SO4·2H2O.