4.7 Article

Copper(II) mixed-ligand polypyridyl complexes with doxycycline - structures and biological evaluation

期刊

DALTON TRANSACTIONS
卷 45, 期 7, 页码 3003-3012

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c5dt04405g

关键词

-

资金

  1. DBT-TWAS Postgraduate Fellowship [3240240274]
  2. Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi [SR/WOS-A/CS-63/2010]
  3. Royal Society of Chemistry
  4. Science and Technology Education Post-Basic Project (STEP-B)
  5. South African Medical Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mixed-ligand Cu(II) complexes of the type [Cu(doxycycline)(L)(H2O)(2)](NO3)(2), where doxycycline = [4-(dimethylamino)-3,5,10,12,12a-pentahydroxy-6-methyl-1,11-dioxo-1,4,4a,5,5a, 6,11,12a-octahydrotetracene-2-carboxamide] and L = 2,2'-bipyridine (bpy, 1), 1,10-phenanthroline (phen, 2), dipyrido[3,2-d:2',3'-f]quinoxaline (dpq, 3) and dipyrido[3,2-a:2',3'-c]phenazine (dppz, 4) have been synthesised and characterised by structural, analytical, and spectral methods. The single-crystal X-ray structures of 1 and 2 exhibited two different geometries, distorted square-pyramidal and octahedral respectively as well as different coordination modes of doxycycline. Complexes 2-4 exhibit prominent plasmid DNA cleavage at significantly low concentrations probably by an oxidative mechanism. Matrix Metalloproteinase (MMP-2) inhibition studies revealed that all complexes inhibit MMP-2 similar to doxycycline which is a well-known MMP inhibitor with 3 being the most potent. IC50 values of doxycycline and 1-4 against MCF-7 (human breast cancer) and HeLa cell lines were almost equal in which 3 showed the highest efficiency (IC50 = 0.46 +/- 0.05 mu M), being consistent with its increased MMP inhibition potency. The antimalarial activities of these complexes against the chloroquine-sensitive Plasmodium falciparum NF54 and chloroquine-resistant Plasmodium falciparum Dd2 strains reveal that complex 3 exhibited a higher activity than artesunate drug against the chloroquine-resistant Dd2 strain.

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

4.7
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