Journal
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 48, Issue 8, Pages 2831-2837Publisher
AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jm0490742
Keywords
-
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Antineoplastic ruthenium(III) complexes are generally regarded as prodrugs, being activated by reduction. Within a homologous series of ruthenium(III) complexes, cytotoxic potency is therefore expected to increase with increasing ease of reduction. Complexes of the general formula [(RuCl(6-n))-Cl-III(ind)(n)]((3-n)-) (n = 0-4; ind = indazole; counterions = Hind(+) or Cl-) and the compound trans- [(RuCl2)-Cl-II(ind)(4)] have been prepared and characterized electrochemically. Lever's parametrization method predicts that a higher indazole-to-chloride ratio results in a higher reduction potential, which is confirmed by cyclic voltammetry. In vitro antitumor potencies of these complexes in colon cancer cells (SW480) and ovarian cancer cells (CH1) vary by more than 2 orders of magnitude and increase in the following rank order: [(RuCl6)-Cl-III](3-) < [(RuCl4)-Cl-III(ind)(2)](-) < [(RuCl5)-Cl-III(ind)](2-) << [(RuCl3)-Cl-III(ind)(3)] < [(RuCl2)-Cl-III(ind)(4)](+) approximate to [(RuCl2)-Cl-II(ind)(4)]. Thus, the observed differences in potency correlate with reduction potentials largely, though not perfectly, pointing to the influence of additional factors. Differences in the cellular uptake (probably resulting from different lipophilicity) contribute to this correlation but cannot solely account for it.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available