| Literature DB >> 35630815 |
Adriana Corina Hangan1, Alexandru Turza2, Roxana Liana Lucaciu3, Bogdan Sevastre4, Emőke Páll4, Luminița Simona Oprean1, Gheorghe Borodi2.
Abstract
Nowadays, the discovery of a new non-toxic metal complex with biological activity represents a very active area of research. Two Cu+2 complexes, [Cu(L1)2(H2O)3] (C1) (HL1= N-(5-(4-methylphenyl)-[1,3,4]-thiadiazole-2-yl)-naphtalenesulfonamide) and [Cu(L2)2(py)2(H2O)] (C2) (HL2= N-(5-ethyl-[1,3,4]-thiadiazole-2-yl)-naphtalenesulfonamide), with two new ligands were synthesized. The X-ray crystal structures of the complexes were determined. In both complexes, Cu+2 is five-coordinated, forming a CuN2O3 and CuN4O chromophore, respectively. The ligands act as monodentate, coordinating the metal ion through a single Nthiadiazole atom; for the C2 complex, the molecules from the reaction medium (pyridine and water) are also involved in the coordination of Cu+2. The complexes have a distorted square pyramidal square-planar geometry. The compounds were characterized by FT-IR, electronic EPR spectroscopy, and magnetic methods. The nuclease activity studies confirm the complexes' capacity to cleave the DNA molecule. Using a xanthine-xanthine oxydase system, the SOD mimetic activity of the complexes was demonstrated. Cytotoxicity studies were carried out on two tumor cell lines (HeLa, WM35) and on a normal cell line (HFL1) using the MTT method, with cisplatin used as a positive control. The antibacterial activity of the complexes was investigated against two Gram-positive and two Gram-negative bacteria, and compared with Amoxicillin and Norfloxacin using the disk diffusion method. Both complexes showed in vitro biological activity but the C2 complex was more active. A lack of in vivo toxicity was demonstrated for the C2 complex by performing hepatic, renal, and hematological studies on Swiss mice.Entities:
Keywords: Cu+2 complexes; SOD-mimetic and antibacterial activities; crystal structure; cytotoxicity; non-toxic Cu+2 complex; oxidative DNA cleavage; sulfonamides
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35630815 PMCID: PMC9144936 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27103338
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Crystallographic details of the investigated crystals.
| Identification Code | Complex C1 | Complex C2 |
|---|---|---|
| Empirical formula | C38H34CuN6O7S4 | C38H36CuN8O5S4 |
| Formula weight | 878.49 | 876.53 |
| Temperature/K | 293(2) | 293(2) |
| Crystal system | monoclinic | monoclinic |
| Space group | P21/c | C2/c |
| a/Å | 5.6797(2) | 24.6386(5) |
| b/Å | 42.8168(16) | 9.3411(2) |
| c/Å | 17.2267(5) | 18.5012(4) |
| α/° | 90 | 90 |
| β/° | 92.742(3) | 108.467(2) |
| γ/° | 90 | 90 |
| Volume/Å3 | 4184.5(2) | 4038.82(15) |
| Z | 4 | 4 |
| ρcalcg/cm3 | 1.394 | 1.442 |
| μ/mm−1 | 3.055 | 3.139 |
| F (000) | 1812.0 | 1812.0 |
| Crystal size/mm3 | 0.11× 0.10 × 0.07 | 0.11 × 0.10 × 0.09 |
| Radiation | CuKα (λ = 1.54184) | CuKα (λ = 1.54184) |
| 2Θ range for data collection/° | 8.048 to 141.334 | 7.566 to 140.94 |
| Index ranges | −6 ≤ h ≤ 4, −51 ≤ k ≤ 49, −20 ≤ l ≤ 21 | −29 ≤ h ≤ 26, −11 ≤ k ≤ 5, −22 ≤ l ≤ 21 |
| Reflections collected | 15281 | 7314 |
| Independent reflections | 7828 [Rint = 0.0350, Rsigma = 0.0458] | 3784 [Rint = 0.0351, Rsigma = 0.0344] |
| Data/restraints/parameters | 7828/0/510 | 3784/2/264 |
| Goodness-of-fit on F2 | 1.061 | 1.106 |
| Final R indexes [I ≥ 2σ (I)] | R1 = 0.0784, wR2 = 0.2281 | R1 = 0.0592, wR2 = 0.1521 |
| Final R indexes [all data] | R1 = 0.0894, wR2 = 0.2403 | R1 = 0.0614, wR2 = 0.1547 |
| Largest diff. peak/hole/e Å−3 | 1.19/−1.27 | 0.65/−1.40 |
Figure 1Asymmetric unit of the complex C1 displaying the atoms as thermal ellipsoids at the 50% probability level.
Figure 2Coordination polyhedron of complex C1.
Figure 3Bifurcated O-H···N hydrogen bonds in complex C1.
Figure 4π···π, C-H···π, and other weak van der Waals interactions in complex C1.
Figure 5Structural voids in complex C1.
Figure 6Molecular perspective of complex C2 displaying the atoms as thermal ellipsoids at the 50% probability level.
Figure 7Coordination polyhedron of complex C2.
Figure 8Intermolecular interactions in complex C2.
Figure 9X-ray diffraction patterns’ comparison of the experimental (exp) with the simulated (sim) investigated copper complexes: C1 (a) and C2 (b).
Figure 10Front and back perspectives of the Hirshfeld surfaces mapped with dnorm displaying the intermolecular contacts referred to in Table S3 in the Supplementary Material: C1 (a) and C2 (b). Surfaces are represented with the color scale as follows: −0.44 (red) to 2.9 (blue) for C1 and −1.27 (red) to 1.78 (blue) for C2; fingerprint plots of C1 (c) and C2 (d).
Figure 11Possible ROS reactions in C1 and C2 complexes.
IC50 values of the complexes C1 and C2 and cisplatin on the human cervical carcinoma line (HeLa), human radical growth phase melanoma cell line (WM35), and normal fibroblastic epithelial cell line (HFL1) (versus untreated cells) (mean ± SD) (n = 3).
| Cells | Complex | IC50 (µM) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 h | 48 h | 72 h | ||
| HeLa cells |
| 33.18 ± 0.19 | 16.36 ± 0.12 | 6.47 ± 0.06 |
|
| 8.79 ± 0.21 | 4.06 ± 0.05 | 1.45 ± 0.09 | |
| Cisplatin | 21.03 ± 0.14 | 6.02 ± 0.19 | 2.39 ± 0.04 | |
| WM35 cells |
| 41.35 ± 0.19 | 23.87 ± 0.17 | 15.42 ± 0.08 |
|
| 13.01 ± 0.15 | 8.11 ± 0.13 | 4.66 ± 0.07 | |
| Cisplatin | 26.07 ± 0.43 | 11.15 ± 0.09 | 5.98 ± 0.03 | |
| HFL1 cells |
| 44.67 ± 0.51 | 7.38 ± 0.12 | 3.75 ± 0.15 |
|
| 17.99 ± 1.08 | 5.55 ± 0.22 | 2.03 ± 0.04 | |
| Cisplatin | 13.22 ± 0.89 | 3.99 ± 0.22 | 1.18 ± 0.13 | |
Evaluation of the antibacterial activity using the disk diffusion method. Effect of copper complexes on bacterial strains (Halo Zone Test/mm) (mean ± SD) (n = 3).
| Bacterial Strains | Antibiotics | C1 Complex | C2 Complex | Negative | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amoxicillin | Norfloxacin | ||||
| 19 ± 0.14 | 16 ± 0.21 | 13 ± 0.17 | 15 ± 0.44 | R | |
| 13 ± 0.22 | 18 ± 0.19 | 11 ± 0.25 | 12 ± 0.34 | R | |
| 18 ± 0.09 | 20 ± 0.11 | 14 ± 0.11 | 16 ± 0.21 | R | |
| R | 25 ± 0.24 | 15 ± 0.32 | 19 ± 0.19 | R | |
R = resistant.