4.6 Article

Application of capillary electrophoresis-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry to comparative studying of the reactivity of antitumor ruthenium(III) complexes differing in the nature of counter-ion toward human serum proteins

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1192, 期 2, 页码 323-326

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2008.04.009

关键词

capillary electrophoresis; inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry; hybrid technique; ruthenium complexes; serum proteins : binding rate constants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Varying the counter-ion is a highly supportive practice in tackling the problem of poor water-solubility of metal complexes of pharmaceutical importance. As a matter of fact, the relevant structural modification may alter the metabolic pathways and possibly the mode of action of a drug. To prove that this does not take place for one of the lead anticancer metal-based developmental compounds, indazolium trans-[RuCl(4)(1H-indazole)(2)] (KP1019), its reactivity toward human serum proteins was assessed under simulated physiological conditions and compared to that of a much more soluble analogue, sodium trans-[RuCl(4)(1H-indazole)(2)] (KP1339). For such kinetic assaying, capillary electrophoresis (CE) interfaced online with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) to specifically monitor changes in the metal speciation following the formation of ruthenium-protein adducts was applied. The rate constants of interaction with albumin and transferrin were determined at pharmacologically fitting drug-to-protein ratios as on average 0.0319 +/- 0.0021 min(-1) and 0.0931 +/- 0.0019 min(-1) (KP1019) and 0.0316 +/- 0.0018 min(-1) and 0.0935 +/- 0.0053 min(-1) (KP1339), respectively. The results of this brief study showed that changing from organic to inorganic counter-ion at the stage of formulation could commonly be recommended for improving ruthenium-based drug solubility and bioavailability. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据