Comparison Between Polypyridyl and Cyclometalated Ruthenium(II) Complexes: Anticancer Activities Against 2D and 3D Cancer Models

被引:113
|
作者
Huang, Huaiyi [1 ]
Zhang, Pingyu [1 ]
Chen, Hongmin [1 ]
Ji, Liangnian [1 ]
Chao, Hui [1 ]
机构
[1] Sun Yat Sen Univ, Sch Chem & Chem Engn, State Key Lab Optoelect Mat & Technol, MOE Key Lab Bioinorgan & Synthet Chem, Guangzhou 510275, Guangdong, Peoples R China
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
cyclometalation; cytotoxicity; DNA; multicellular cancer spheroids; ruthenium; transcription inhibition; IN-VITRO; 3-DIMENSIONAL CULTURE; IRIDIUM(III) COMPLEX; CELLULAR UPTAKE; CELLS; INDUCTION; DNA; COBALT(III); INHIBITION; APOPTOSIS;
D O I
10.1002/chem.201404922
中图分类号
O6 [化学];
学科分类号
0703 ;
摘要
The aim of this study was to illustrate the dramatically different anticancer activities between coordinatively saturated polypyridyl (1a-4a) and cyclometalated (1b-4b) ruthenium(II) complexes. The cyclometalated complexes 1b-4b function as DNA transcription inhibitors, exhibiting switch-on cytotoxicity against a 2D cancer cell monolayer, whereas the polypyridyl complexes 1a-4a are relatively inactive. Moreover, complexes 1b-4b exhibit excellent cytotoxicity against 3D multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTSs), which serve as an intermediate model between in vitro 2D cell monolayers and in vivo 3D solid tumors. The hydrophobicity, efficient cell uptake, and nucleus targeting ability, as well as the high DNA binding affinity of complexes 1b-4b, likely contribute to their enhanced anticancer activity. We surmise that cyclometalation could be a universal approach to significantly enhance the anticancer activity of substituted polypyridyl Ru-II complexes. We also suggest that 3D MCTSs may be a more practical platform for anticancer drug screening than 2D cancer monolayer approaches.
引用
收藏
页码:715 / 725
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] DYNAMICS OF THE FORCED KARMAN WAKE: COMPARISON OF 2D AND 3D MODELS
    Mureithi, Njuki W.
    Xu, Xiaofei
    Baranyi, Laszlo
    Nakamura, Tomomichi
    Kaneko, Shigehiko
    ASME PRESSURE VESSELS AND PIPING CONFERENCE - 2014, VOL 4, 2014,
  • [22] Quantitative Proteomic and Phosphoproteomic Comparison of 2D and 3D Colon Cancer Cell Culture Models
    Yue, Xiaoshan
    Lukowski, Jessica K.
    Weaver, Eric M.
    Skube, Susan B.
    Hummon, Amanda B.
    JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH, 2016, 15 (12) : 4265 - 4276
  • [23] Comparison of the noise emission using 2D and 3D locomotive models
    Kucinovas, M
    Bazaras, Z
    Povyshev, I
    TRANSPORT MEANS 2004: PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, 2004, : 65 - 71
  • [24] Sustainable Nanoparticles from Stephania glabra and Analysis of Their Anticancer Potential on 2D and 3D Models of Prostate Cancer
    Vaid, Prachi
    Saini, Adesh K.
    Gupta, Raju Kumar
    Sinha, Eshu Singhal
    Sharma, Deepak
    Alsanie, Walaa F.
    Thakur, Vijay Kumar
    Saini, Reena V.
    APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2024, 196 (06) : 3511 - 3533
  • [25] Cyclometalated DNA-Intercalating ruthenium(II) complexes that target cancer cell nuclei and exhibit high anticancer activities
    Chao, Hui
    JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL INORGANIC CHEMISTRY, 2014, 19 : S735 - S736
  • [26] Predictive treatment response models for epithelial ovarian cancer: Comparison of 2D, 3D, and in vivo models.
    Nourmoussavi, Melica
    Carmona, Euridice
    Mes-Masson, Anne-Marie
    CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2020, 26 (13) : 121 - 121
  • [27] 2D Captchas from 3D Models
    Hoque, Mohammed E.
    Russomanno, David J.
    Yeasin, Mohammed
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE SOUTHEASTCON 2006, 2006, : 165 - 170
  • [28] Intrusion and cooling of magma - Comparison between 2D and 3D analyses
    Rikitake, T
    JOURNAL OF PHYSICS OF THE EARTH, 1995, 43 (06): : 715 - 728
  • [29] A comparison between 2D and 3D methods of quantifying facial morphology
    Anas, I. Y.
    Bamgbose, B. O.
    Nuhu, Saleh
    HELIYON, 2019, 5 (06)
  • [30] PREDICTION OF ICE ACCRETION - COMPARISON BETWEEN THE 2D AND 3D CODES
    GUFFOND, D
    HEDDE, T
    RECHERCHE AEROSPATIALE, 1994, (02): : 103 - 115