← Back
A Maltol-Containing Ruthenium Polypyridyl Complex as a Potential Anticancer Agent.
A Journal of
Accepted Article
Title: A maltol-containing Ruthenium Polypyridyl Complex as a
Potential Anticancer Agent
Authors: Anna Notaro, Marta Jakubaszek, Severin Koch, Riccardo
Rubbiani, Orsolya Dömötör, Éva A. Enyedy, Mazzarine
Dotou, Fethi Bedioui, Mickaël Tharaud, Bruno Goud, Stefano
Ferrari, Enzo Alessio, and Gilles Gasser
This manuscript has been accepted after peer review and appears as an
Accepted Article online prior to editing, proofing, and formal publication
of the final Version of Record (VoR). This work is currently citable by
using the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) given below. The VoR will be
published online in Early View as soon as possible and may be different
to this Accepted Article as a result of editing. Readers should obtain
the VoR from the journal website shown below when it is published
to ensure accuracy of information. The authors are responsible for the
content of this Accepted Article.
To be cited as: Chem. Eur. J. 10.1002/chem.201904877
Link to VoR: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/chem.201904877
Supported by
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
A maltol-containing Ruthenium
Polypyridyl Complex as a Potential
Anna Notaro,[a] Marta Jakubaszek, [a, b] Severin Koch,[c] Riccardo Rubbiani,[c] Orsolya
Dömötör, [d] Éva A. Enyedy, [d, e] Mazzarine Dotou, [a] Fethi Bedioui, [f] Mickaël
Tharaud, [g] Bruno Goud, [b] Stefano Ferrari, [h,i] Enzo Alessio, [j] and Gilles Gasser*[a]
[a] Chimie ParisTech, PSL University, CNRS, Institute of Chemistry for Life and Health
Sciences, Laboratory for Inorganic Chemical Biology, F-75005 Paris, France.
[b] Institut Curie, PSL University, CNRS UMR 144, Paris, France.
[c] Department of Chemistry, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich,
Switzerland.
[d] Department of Inorganic and Analytical Chemistry, Interdisciplinary Excellence Centre,
University of Szeged, Dóm tér 7. H-6720 Szeged, Hungary.
[e] MTA-SZTE Momentum Functional Metal Complexes Research Group, University of
Szeged, Dóm tér 7, H-6720 Szeged, Hungary.
[f] Chimie ParisTech, PSL University, CNRS, Institute of Chemistry for Life and Health
Sciences, Team Synthèse, Electrochimie, Imagerie et Systèmes Analytiques pour le
Diagnostic, F-75005 Paris, France.
[g] Université de Paris, Institut de physique du globe de Paris, CNRS, F-75005 Paris, France.
[h] Institute of Molecular Cancer Research, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
[i] Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Videnska 1083, 143
00 Prague, Czech Republic.
[j] Department of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Trieste, Via L.
Giorgieri 1, 34127 Trieste, Italy.
* Corresponding author: E-mail: gilles.gasser@chimeparistech.psl.eu; WWW:
www.gassergroup.com; Phone: +33 1 44 27 56 02
1
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
Anticancer Agent
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
ORCID Number
Anna Notaro: 0000-0003-0148-1160
Marta Jakubaszek: 0000-0001-7590-2330
Orsolya Dömötör: 0000-0001-8736-3215
Éva A. Enyedy: 0000-0002-8058-8128
Fethi Bedioui: 0000-0002-0063-4412
Bruno Goud: 0000-0003-1227-4159
Stefano Ferrari: 0000-0002-6607-215X
Enzo Alessio: 0000-0002-4908-9400
Gilles Gasser: 0000-0002-4244-5097
Keywords: Bioinorganic Chemistry, Cancer, DNA, Medicinal Inorganic Chemistry,
Ruthenium.
2
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
Mazzarine Dotou: 0000-0001-8781-6763
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
Abstract
Cancer is one of the main causes of death worldwide. Chemotherapy, despite its severe
side effects, is to date one of the leading strategies against cancer. Metal-based drugs
present several potential advantages when compared to organic ones and gained trust
from the scientific community after the approval on the market of the drug cisplatin.
diphenyl-1,10-phenantroline and sq is the semiquinonate), with a remarkable potential
as chemotherapeutic agent against cancer, both in vitro and in vivo. In this work, we
analyse a structurally similar compound, namely [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), carrying the
flavour-enhancing agent approved by the FDA, maltol (mal). To possess an FDA
approved ligand is crucial for a complex, whose mechanism of action might include
ligand exchange. Herein, we describe the synthesis and characterisation of
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), its stability in solutions and in conditions which resemble the
physiological ones, and its in-depth biological investigation. Cytotoxicity tests on
different cell lines in 2D model and on HeLa MultiCellular Tumour Spheroids (MCTS)
demonstrated that our compound has higher activity compared to the approved drug
cisplatin, inspiring further tests. [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) was efficiently internalised by
HeLa cells through a passive transport mechanism and severely affected the
mitochondrial metabolism.
3
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
Recently, we reported a ruthenium complex ([Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6), where DIP is 4,7-
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
Introduction
Metal-based drugs are currently playing an essential role in the treatment of cancer.[1]
Cisplatin, carboplatin and oxaliplatin are widely used in the clinics.[2],[3] Ruthenium
complexes are, to date, the most promising candidates for the next generation of metalbased drugs against cancer.[4]–[6] The Ru(III) complexes KP1019, KP1339 (referred as
while TLD-1433 – a substitutionally inert Ru(II) polypyridyl complex – recently
entered phase II clinical trial as a photosensitizer for photodynamic therapy
(PDT).[12],[13] Inert Ru polypyridyl complexes hold a tremendous potential as
chemotherapeutic agents against cancer.[14]–[16] Recently, we reported the in-depth
biological investigation of a very promising Ru(II) polypyridyl complex carrying a
semiquinonate ligand ([Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6)) (Figure 1, DIP = 4,7-diphenyl-1,10phenantroline, sq = semiquinonate).[17] We could notably show that this complex had a
much higher cytotoxicity than cisplatin in several cancer cell lines (i.e. in the nanomolar
concentration range), and a very promising in vivo activity. Moreover, contrary to
cisplatin, [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6) results in mitochondrial dysfunction as one of its modes
of action.[17]
Maltol, (3-hydroxy-2-methyl-4-pyrone), belonging to the family of 2-alkyl-3-hydroxy4-pyrones, is structurally very similar to sq and – upon deprotonation – forms stable 5membered chelate rings with metal ions. Maltol is a product of carbohydrate
degradation, which can be found in coffee, baked cereals, chicory, soybeans and other
products.[18],[19] It possesses candy-floss, sweet flavour, and is approved by the FDA as
a flavour-enhancing agent.[18],[20],[21] Maltol is known for its antioxidative properties[22]
and its ability to chelate metal ions. It is an effective ligand for increasing absorption
and bioavailability of metal ions.[23]–[33] Maltol has been tested on different human cell
4
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
IT-139 recently) and NAMI-A have entered clinical trials as anticancer drugs,[7]–[11]
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
lines, confirming lack of toxicity with IC50 (the half maximal inhibitory concentration)
values always above 100 μM.[34],[35] In 2006, Thompson and co-workers reported a
critical review about the applications of maltol-containing metal complexes in
medicinal chemistry.[28] One of them concerns the restoration of iron balance in
anaemia. The uptake of iron has indeed been proven to be significantly enhanced in the
of
maltol,
in
both
in
vitro
and
in
vivo
models.[36],[37]
The
bis(maltolato)oxovanadium(IV) complex developed by Orvig and co-workers (better
known as BMOV, Figure 1) was found to have a high anti-diabetic activity as insulin
mimetic
agent,
and
its
derivative
–
the
orally
administered
bis(ethylmaltolato)oxovanadium(IV) (BEOV in Figure 1) – was tested in phase
IIa.[24],[29],[38]–[41]
Gallium
maltolate,
(tris(3-hydroxy-2-methyl-4H-pyran-4-
onato)gallium (GaM), Figure 1), recently has completed phase II clinical trials for the
treatment of malignant lymphomas, multiple myeloma, bladder neoplasm and prostatic
neoplasms.[42]–[45] It was found to be better orally absorbed than simple gallium salts
(such as the chloride or nitrate).[42] This higher oral bioavailability offers the possibility
of a more convenient and tolerable achievement of therapeutically useful blood gallium
levels.[42],[43] The great potential demonstrated by GaM led to the investigation of other
possible applications of this compound in medicine (e.g., treatment of Pseudomonas
aeruginosa infection, the neglected tropical disease yaws, and other types of
cancer).[46]–[49]
Mononuclear
and
dinuclear
maltol-containing
half-sandwich
ruthenium(II) complexes have been extensively investigated in the past decades as
chemotherapeutic agents against cancer.[31],[33],[50],[51] However, only dinuclear species
were found to have significant cytotoxicity toward human cancer cell lines (IC50 <10
μM).[33],[51]
5
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
presence
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
With this mind, in this work we present a novel Ru(II)-maltol polypyridyl complex,
namely [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) (mal = maltolate) shown in Figure 1. To the best of our
knowledge, [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) is the first maltol-containing ruthenium polypyridyl
complex
investigated
as
a
chemotherapeutic
agent
against
cancer.
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) is chiral and is isolated as a racemic mixture of ∆ and Λ
In this study, besides the synthesis and characterisation of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), we
report its binding to human serum albumin (HSA) and its biological activity against
different human cancer cell lines. Due to the high cytotoxicity expressed by
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), additional biological studies were undertaken to obtain more
insights about the possible targets and mechanism(s) of action of the compound. As
described below, [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) was found to be highly cytotoxic against HeLa
MCTS (Multicellular tumour spheroids) and to be efficiently internalised by HeLa
cells. Its accumulation mostly in nucleus and mitochondria suggests a mechanism of
action involving multicellular targets, which does not exclude ligand exchange at the
metal centre.
Figure 1. Structures of [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6), [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), BMOV, BEOV
and GaM.
6
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
enantiomers. No attempt to work with enantiopure complexes was made in this work.
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
Results and Discussion
Synthesis and characterization of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6)
The synthesis of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) was achieved in two steps (Scheme 1). In the
first step the known Ru(II) precursor RuCl2(dmso)4[52] was treated with DIP and LiCl
acetone.[53] The ruthenium intermediate was then refluxed in ethanol with maltol in the
presence of NaOH for 3 h. [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) was obtained after precipitation with
a large excess of NH4PF6 in 90% yield. The identity of the product was confirmed by
1
H and 13C NMR spectroscopy (Figure S1) as well as HR-MS, and its purity by
microanalysis. The number of resonances showed in the 1H is consistent with the
inequivalence of the two DIP ligands, due to the asymmetry of maltolate.
Scheme 1. Synthesis of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6). a) LiCl, DMF, reflux, 24 h, 78%; b) (i)
NaOH, maltol, ethanol, reflux, 3 h; (ii) NH4PF6, ethanol/H2O (1:10), yield: 90%.
Electrochemistry
The electrochemical properties of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) were investigated using
cyclic voltammetry (CV) and rotating disc electrode (RDE) voltammetry. The RDE
voltammogram (Figure S2) displays three well-defined wave features, in addition to
that of decamethylferrocene used as internal reference and located at +0.090 V vs SCE.
These electrochemical features are characterized by the same current intensity, which
attests that the related redox processes involve the same number of electron transitions
7
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
in refluxing DMF to afford RuCl2(DIP)2 in 72% yield after precipitation with
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
(in this case one-electron transition). CV experiment (Figure S2) showed the complete
reversibility of the redox processes. The redox potentials were assigned by comparison
with the data reported in our recent paper on [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6) (Table S1).[17] The
process taking place at more positive potentials (+0.566 V vs SCE) can be attributed to
the Ru(II)→Ru(III) oxidation, while the two processes at negative potentials can be
to the metal oxidation of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) is almost 100 mV lower than what was
observed for [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6) in accordance with the higher electron donating
property of the maltolate when compared to the semiquinonate ligand. No redox
process involving the maltol appears in the potential range investigated, which is
completely in agreement with the literature data.[56]
Solubility and Stability Studies in Different Solvents and Interaction with Human
Serum Albumin
The biological ability of a compound is strongly influenced by its solution stability. The
stability of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) was first assessed in DMSO-d6 using 1H NMR
spectroscopy since this solvent was found to be possibly problematic during biological
experiments.[57]–[59] The 1H NMR spectrum of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) remained
unchanged over 42 h at room temperature, revealing the stability of the complex in
DMSO (Figure S3).
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) shows limited solubility in water and in buffered aqueous media
like 20 mM phosphate or HEPES buffer at pH 7.40. Dilution of ethanolic stock
solutions of the complex in phosphate or HEPES buffer (≤ 2% (v/v) ethanol, 20 M
complex) afforded a precipitate after 1 h and 2 h, respectively, while dilution in water
(pH ~ 8) afforded solutions that were stable at least for 6 h (Figure S4). It is important
8
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
assigned to the reduction of the ancillary ligands (DIP0/-).[54],[55] The potential associated
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
to note that in no case decomposition of the complex (i.e. release of maltol) could be
detected based on the UV-vis and ultrafiltration studies. Only the different rates of
precipitation were observed by varying the type of the media (see more details in the
SI, sections S5 and S7). Gradual aggregation followed by precipitation of the complex
in buffered samples was seen. In vitro biological studies are usually performed in cell
abundant protein), hence, information about the solubility of the compound in these
conditions is required. It was found that RPMI 1640 cell culture medium (noncomplemented) could not hinder the precipitation of the complex (Figure S6/A).
Therefore, interaction with the most abundant serum protein, albumin, was further
investigated. In order to assay the albumin binding, samples were prepared both in
phosphate and HEPES buffers (20 mM, ccomplex = 13.8 M; 2% ethanol (v/v); pH =
7.40; T = 25 °C) with a protein-to-metal complex ratio of 6:1. The presence of the
protein prevents precipitation of the metal complex in both media (Figure S6/B)
confirming the binding interaction between human serum albumin (HSA) and
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6). The binding to the protein seems to take place via
intermolecular bonding, since no release of maltol or 4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenantroline
could be detected by UV-vis spectroscopy in ultrafiltration experiments (Figure S7).
HSA possesses hydrophobic binding pockets to accommodate small molecules, and
binding at sites I and II of HSA was investigated spectrofluorimetrically due to the
available site marker probe molecules (see details in Section S7). Interaction at site I
was studied via the standard approach, namely following the quenching of the single
Trp amino acid of HSA.[60] Determination of binding data was hindered by the complete
overlapping of the weak intrinsic fluorescence of the metal complex with the protein
Trp emission band (see Figure S8). The measured intensity upon the addition of the
9
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
culture medium complemented with foetal calf serum (containing albumin as most
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
complex to the protein is not the sum of the intensities of the complex and HSA (thus
not additive), which indicates the binding interaction at site I and an upper limit of
binding constant logK’ < 4.0 could be estimated at this site.
Binding at site II was followed via site marker displacement experiment using
dansylglycine (DG) as marker. DG was gradually displaced by [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6)
moderate-to-weak binding affinity of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) at site II. For comparison,
the fast intermolecular binding of KP1339 was characterized by binding constants of
logK’ = 5.71 and 5.32 at site I and site II on HSA respectively.[61] Binding constants
reported here for [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) are at least one order of magnitude lower when
compared to those of KP1339. It is worth to highlight that, in the case of KP1339, it is
quite possible that a metabolite (or several metabolites) binds to the protein, rather than
the parent complex. In fact, in 2016, Keppler and co-workers reported the X-ray
structure of "KP1019 bound to HSA".[62] Under the soaking conditions used to grow
the crystals (24 h, phosphate buffer solution pH 7.4, 20 °C), two naked Ru ions were
found coordinated at two histidine residues located within the hydrophobic binding
pockets of the protein.[62] Conversely, our Ru(II) complex is coordinatively saturated
and much less likely to lose the chelating ligands, i.e. it is more suited to give noncovalent interactions, as already observed for similar compounds.[63] Moreover,
oxaliplatin, another well-known metal complex has a similar binding constant (logK’
= 4.17), although in this case the binding evidently takes place via coordination bond.[64]
Taking into account the high serum concentration of HSA (ca. 630 μM), and based on
the determined binding constants, a considerable albumin binding (92-95%) of the
10
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
at site II (Figure 2). Calculated binding constant logK’ (site II) = 4.3 ± 0.1 reveals
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
complex can be assumed at physiologically relevant conditions (1-50 μM complex
Figure 2. Fluorescence emission spectra obtained by the titration of HSA–DG (1:1)
with [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) (A); and measured (dots) and calculated (dashed line)
intensity values at 490 nm (B). Blue dotted line denotes the emission of free DG. {cHSA
= cDG 2 M; ccomp = 0–24 μM; λEX = 335 nm; pH = 7.40 (20 mM phosphate buffer); <
2% ethanol; T = 25 C}.
All in all, according to our results [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) binds to HSA via
intermolecular interactions at least at the two hydrophobic sites: I and II. Albumin
binding prevents precipitation of the metal complex in aqueous solution.
Stability Studies in Human Plasma
Next, to assess the behaviour of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) under physiological conditions,
its stability in human plasma was investigated by Ultra Performance Liquid
Chromatography (UPLC) following a procedure already established by our group.[65]
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) (0.12 mM) was incubated in human plasma up to 96 h at 37°C
using caffeine (1.92 mM) as an internal standard.[66] The UV traces of the UPLC
analysis at different incubation times are shown in Figure S9a. When the concentration
of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) was normalized with respect to the internal standard and
plotted against time (Figure S9b), no clear decomposition was observed in the first 24
11
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
concentration).
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
h, whereas a linear decrease in concentration started thereafter. Based on these changes
the half-life of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) could be estimated to be of approximately 48 h
under these conditions.
Cytotoxicity Studies and Cell Death Mechanism
investigated. The first step was to evaluate the cytotoxicity in 2D cell culture models,
comprising HeLa (human cervical adenocarcinoma), A2780 (human ovarian
carcinoma), A2780 cis (human cisplatin resistant ovarian carcinoma), A2780 ADR
(human
doxorubicin
resistant
ovarian
carcinoma),
CT-26
(mouse
colon
adenocarcinoma), CT-26 LUC (mouse colon adenocarcinoma stably expressing
luciferase) and RPE-1 (human normal retina pigmented epithelial) cell lines and using
a fluorometric cell viability assay (single graphs available in Figures S10).[67] In this
study, doxorubicin and cisplatin were tested in the same cell lines and used as positive
controls.[68],[69] Cytotoxicity of the RuCl2(DIP)2 precursor and maltol ligand were also
determined as additional controls. IC50 values of the tested compounds are reported in
Table 1. The cytotoxicity of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) was found very high and
comparable to what previously observed for [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6)[17] in all cell lines
tested in this study. The IC50 values obtained are in the high nanomolar concentration
range with the exception of the one determined on the doxorubicin-resistant cell line
(IC50 = 2.86 μM). The RuCl2(DIP)2 precursor displays much lower cytotoxicity, while
maltol, as expected, is non-toxic.[34],[35] [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) exerts an overall activity
comparable to doxorubicin in all cell lines tested. Interestingly, its cytotoxicity against
the cisplatin-resistant cell line is more than 40 times higher than that of cisplatin (IC50
= 0.42 μM vs. 18.33 μM for [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) and cisplatin, respectively).
12
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
After assessment of stability in solution, [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) biological activity was
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
Table
1.
IC50
values
for
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6),
cisplatin,
doxorubicin,
*
IC50 (μM)
HeLa
A2780
A2780
ADR
A2780
cis
CT-26
CT-26
LUC
RPE-1
Cisplatin*
9.28 ±
0.20
4.00 ±
0.76
8.32 ±
0.71
18.33 ±
2.92
2.60 ±
0.18
2.42 ±
0.23
30.24 ±
5.11
Doxorubicin*
0.34 ±
0.02
0.19 ±
0.03
5.94 ±
0.58
0.54 ±
0.04
0.082 ±
0.003
0.18 ±
0.006
0.89 ±
0.17
[Ru(DIP)2(sq)](P
F6)*
0.50 ±
0.01
0.67 ±
0.04
4.13 ±
0.2
0.45 ±
0.03
1.00 ±
0.03
1.51 ±
0.14
0.90 ±
0.04
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)]
(PF6)
0.45 ±
0.04
0.74 ±
0.05
2.86 ±
0.3
0.42 ±
0.01
0.61 ±
0.02
0.72 ±
0.07
0.86 ±
0.04
RuCl2(DIP)2*
15.03 ±
0.4
4.69 ±
0.14
78.27 ±
4.9
6.36 ±
0.57
9.20 ±
1.22
6.65 ±
0.5
3.13 ±
0.07
Maltol
74.01 ±
14.6
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
Values taken from [[17]] We, however, note that these experiments were performed on the same days.
Despite its promising activity, [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) did not display any selectivity
towards cancer cells. This shortcoming is often faced in medicinal chemistry and it
could be improved by the introduction of a targeting moiety. Therefore we decided to
further investigate its biological activity by using a MCTS model.[70] 3D cultured cells
are recognised as important research tools for their ability to resemble the
pathophysiologic environment of the tumor tissue and,[71]–[73] along with the 2D model
system, they allow for a better estimation of in vivo antitumour efficacy of
compounds.[70],[72] The cytotoxicity of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), its RuCl2(DIP)2
precursor, [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6), and the maltol ligand were tested via a luminescent
cell viability assay in HeLa MCTS (single graphs are availabe in Figure S11). Cisplatin
and doxorubicin were also tested in the same conditions as positive controls (Figure
S11).[71],[73] The IC50 values of the tested compounds are reported in Table 2.
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) preserves the high cytotoxicity observed in the monolayer
model with an IC50 value more than 2 times lower than cisplatin or doxorubicin (IC50 ~
13
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
[Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6), RuCl2(DIP)2 and maltol in different cell lines (48 h).
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
17 µM, 47 µM and 39 µM respectively), and comparable to that of
[Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6). The RuCl2(DIP)2 precursor showed a cytotoxicity comparable
to cisplatin while the maltol ligand was proven to be non-toxic also in this model.
Table 2. IC50 values for [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), cisplatin, doxorubicin, RuCl2(DIP)2
IC50
Doxorubici [Ru(DIP)2(s [Ru(DIP)2(
RuCl2(DIP)
Cisplatin*
*
q)](PF6)*
n*
(μM)
mal)](PF6)
2
14.11 ± 0.09
HeLa
46.49 ± 4.18 38.59 ± 0.43
17.00 ± 0.73 59.84 ± 3.05
MCTS
*
[17]
Values taken from [ ]. Notably, these experiments were performed on the same days.
Maltol
>100
Next, the size of treated MCTS was studied to evaluate the time dependent effect of the
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6). Growth kinetics of treated spheroids was monitored by changes
in spheroids diameter in agreement with previously published protocols.[71],[73]–[75]
Briefly 400 µm HeLa MCTS were treated with different concentrations of
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), and their diameter was checked every three days (Figure 3). Of
note, when the washing step was performed, half of the medium was removed and
replaced with fresh one, diluting twice the quantity of the compound in each well. At
all concentrations tested, [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) caused a significant decrease in the
size of the spheroids. Strikingly, this effect was still dominant even after 13 days of
treatment.
14
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
and maltol in multicellular HeLa cancer cell spheroids.
Figure 3. Changes in growth kinetics of MCTS treated with [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) at
different concentrations (1, 5, 10, 20, 25 and 30 µM). (a) Images collected at day 0
(before treatment) and at day 3, 6, 9 and 13. b) MCTSs diameter measured at different
time points. Blue-dotted line indicates the day of seeding, red-dotted line indicates the
day of treatment while green-dotted lines indicate the days of washing.
In summary, [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) showed high cytotoxicity in 2D and 3D models, as
well as prolonged effect on the spheroids growth. These promising results encouraged
further evaluation of the mechanism of cell death caused by the complex. To determine
whether cell death occurs by apoptosis or by necrosis process, HeLa cells were analysed
by flow cytometry using the Annexin V and PI (propidium iodide) staining method. In
this experiment, staurosporin, a known apoptosis inducer, was used as positive
control.[76] 4 h incubation of HeLa cells with [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) (10 μM) induced
considerable cell death, mostly through apoptosis. Longer incubation of the cells with
the complex (24 h) significantly increased the number of cells undergoing apoptotic
cell death. In comparison with staurosporin, only a small population of the cells was PI
positive after 24 h treatment with [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6). Since PI is a vital stain (viable
cells with intact membranes will exclude PI), this small population might refer either
to dead cells or cells undergoing necrosis. Annexin V and PI staining confirmed that
15
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) induces mostly apoptotic cell death in treated HeLa cells.
Figure 4. Annexin V and PI staining in HeLa cells treated with [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6)
(10 μM) and staurosporine (1 μM) at different time points. The fourth quadrant
represents living cells (Annexin V, PI negative), first one early apoptotic cells (Annexin
V positive, PI negative), second late apoptotic (Annexin and PI positive) and third
necrotic or dead cells (Annexin V negative and PI positive).
Cellular Uptake, Biodistribution, and DNA Metalation.
To obtain more insights about the mode of action of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), it is
essential to understand its cellular and subcellular accumulation as much as its
mechanism of uptake. For this purpose, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
(ICP-MS) was utilised. Working concentrations and incubation times were chosen to
avoid extended cell mass loss due to the high cytotoxicity of the complex but
considering a ruthenium final amount that could allow determination of the metal
16
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
Specific cell populations are shown in Figures 4 and S12.
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
content. However, the working conditions (5 µM treatment for 2 h), in agreement with
literature data, allowed for a minor accumulation of the drug cisplatin used as
control.[77],[78] [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) accumulation in HeLa cells was found to be
higher than cisplatin used as control and almost three times higher than the
[Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6) analogue previously reported by our group (Figure 5a).[17] This
complexes. To fully understand the uptake mechanism, HeLa cells were pre-treated or
kept at different temperatures to determine if the uptake mechanism is passive or active.
For this purpose, low temperature (4ºC should slow down passive diffusion as well as
ATP required transport) or treatments with active transport inhibitors was utilised. 2Deoxy-D-glucose and oligomycin block cellular metabolism (ATP production),
chloroquine or NH4Cl imped endocytic pathways and tetraethylammonium chloride
stops cation transporters. After pre-treatment, cells were incubated with the compound
(2 h, 5 µM) and subsequently analysed via ICP-MS (Figure S13). Inhibition of active
uptake mechanisms did not perturb accumulation of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) in HeLa
cells. These findings clearly suggest that passive transport is the only mechanism
responsible for accumulation of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) in HeLa cells, unlike
[Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6), whose mechanism of uptake involves both active and passive
transports.[17] Cellular fractionation experiments revealed the relative distribution of
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) among the different subcellular compartments (Figure 5b).
Most of the complex was found in the nucleus, while a rather small fraction was
detected in the cytoplasm, mitochondria and lysosomes. Similar cellular distribution
was found for the [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6).[17] The accumulation of a compound in the
nucleus suggests DNA as one of the potential targets. Therefore, the reactivity of our
compound towards DNA was further studied via DNA metalation experiment. HeLa
17
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
could be explained by the different mechanism of cellular uptake associated to the two
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
cells were treated for 2 h with 5 µM solutions of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) or cisplatin
(positive control). The genetic material was then extracted, and the amount of metal
was determined by ICP-MS. Data are shown in Figure 5c in comparison to those
obtained for the analogue [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6) and cisplatin.[17] These data point to a
significant interaction between DNA and [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), which is much higher
worth noting that a preliminary study towards the understanding of the nature of the
interaction between the complexes and a DNA model using UV-vis spectroscopy
showed
no
coordinative
interaction
between
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6)
or
[Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6) and guanosine over 5 days (See section 12 of the Supporting
Information).
Figure 5. ICP-MS uptake studies of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) in HeLa cells
after
treatment with tested compounds (5 µM, 2 h). Data are presented as the mean ± SD of
at least 3 biological repeats. (a) Total cellular uptake in comparison with
[Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6) and cisplatin. Unpaired t-test between [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6) and
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), p= 0.0005. (b) Intracellular distribution in comparison with
[Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6) and cisplatin. Unpaired t-test between [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6) and
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), pnucleus= 0.508, pcytoplasm= 0.290, pmitochondria= 0.600, plysosomes=
0.460. (c) DNA metalation in comparison with [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6) and cisplatin. All
data related to [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6) were previously reported by our group.[17] We,
however, note that these experiments were performed on the same days.
18
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
than the one with cisplatin and comparable to the one with [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6). It is
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
JC-1 Mitochondrial Membrane Potential Test and Metabolic Studies.
The accumulation of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) in mitochondria suggested studies on
possible effects of the compound on mitochondrial function. To this end, we used JC1, a green fluorescent monomer at low mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) that
the mitochondrial function due to its direct correlation to oxidative phosphorylation.[80]
Figure 6a shows the red fluorescence signal observed in HeLa cells upon 24 h treatment
with
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6),
FCCP
(carbonyl
cyanide
4-
(trifluoromethoxy)phenylhydrazone, an uncoupling agent used as positive control),[81]
and DMSO (vehicle control). An uncoupling agent is a molecule that inhibits the
coupling between reactions of ATP synthesis and the electron transport chain leading
to a disruption of oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondria.[82] Untreated cells are
shown as a negative control. A significant concentration-dependent decrease in the
fluorescence signal was observed upon treatment with [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) (from 0.1
µM to 0.6 µM). At the IC50 value (0.5 µM, marked in red in Figure 6a), the MMP
decrease was comparable to that obtained for the positive control. However, it is
important to take into consideration that a dramatic drop in MMP could be triggered by
ongoing apoptosis.[81] These findings strongly suggest a contribution of impaired MMP
to the cell death mechanism and inspired further studies on mitochondrial metabolism
(i.e. oxidative phosphorylation) in HeLa cells. For this purpose, the Mito stress test was
performed using Seahorse XF Analyzer. The low basal respiration observed in cells
treated with [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) in comparison to untreated cells, clearly
demonstrates a severe impairment of mitochondrial respiration. In contrast, the
RuCl2(DIP)2 precursor and the maltol ligand did not remarkably affect this process.
19
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
aggregates and emits red fluorescence at higher potential.[79] MMP is a key factor of
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
Additionally, [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) caused a loss in the capacity of the mitochondrial
membrane to restore the proton balance when treated with an uncoupling agent (FCCP)
and inhibited ATP production (Figure 6b and Figure S14). Taken together, these data
demonstrate that [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) treatment causes complete disruption of
mitochondrial respiration in HeLa cells. Furthermore, we investigated effects on other
three primary fuel pathways (involving glucose, glutamine or fatty acids as substrates)
using a Seahorse XF Analyzer. The cytosolic process of glycolysis was not affected by
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) or its precursor (Figure S15). Effects on three primary fuel
pathways could not be determined due to very low oxygen consumption rate in cells
treated with [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) (Figure S16). Metabolic studies pointed to a
substantial difference in the mode of action of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) and the
chemotherapeutic drug cisplatin. The latter is known to interfere with DNA replication
and does not affect mitochondrial metabolism. [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), on the other
hand, clearly demonstrated that the mitochondrial disfunction is significantly involved
in its mode of action.
20
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
metabolic pathways, such as glycolysis, and the possible metabolic modulation of the
Figure 6. a) Fluorescence signal of JC-1 dye detected in HeLa cells treated for 24 h with
different concentrations of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) (from 0.1 µM to 0.6 µM). The bar
marked in red indicates the IC50 concentration (0.5 µM). FCCP was used as positive
control, cisplatin and DMSO (1%) were used as negative controls. b) Mito Stress Test
profile after 24 h treatment; the graph displays oxygen consumption rate changes after
treatment with specific electron transport chain inhibitors. Oligomycin (inhibitor of
ATP synthase (complex V)), FCCP (uncoupling agent), Antimycin-A (complex III
inhibitor) and Rotenone (complex I inhibitor).
Conclusions
Following the development of the potential anticancer agent [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6) by
our group, here we report synthesis and biological evaluation of an analogue complex,
namely [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), containing the FDA-approved, flavour-enhancing
agent, maltol. It was found that the compound is stable at room temperature in DMSO
over 42 h and has an half-life of 48 h in human plasma. Although the complex exhibits
poor water solubility, the measurements in human plasma as well as in supplemented
media were made possible by the presence of human serum albumin. In the course of
this study, we demonstrated that [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) binds to HSA via
intermolecular interactions at least at the two hydrophobic sites (I and II), preventing
21
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
precipitation of the metal complex in aqueous solution. Studies performed on several
cancerous cell lines in cellular monolayer culture and on HeLa MCTS indicated
remarkable activity by [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), comparable to doxorubicin and much
higher than the approved drug cisplatin. It is worth nothing that [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6)
cytotoxicity against the cisplatin-resistant cell line is more than 40 times higher than
respectively) in 2D model cultures. Moreover, HeLa MCTS treated with different
concentrations of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) demonstrated a significant decrease in size,
even after 13 days of a single treatment. Unfortunately [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) did not
exhibit any selectivity against cancerous or normal cell lines. This particular drawback
could be overcome in future studies by conjugation of the complex to a targeting
moiety. Cellular uptake studies showed efficient cellular accumulation of the
compound, when compared to cisplatin or the analogue [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6), through
a passive transport mechanism. Deeper investigations on [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) mode
of action by means of cellular fractionation, showed the nucleus as main accumulation
site. DNA metalation studies confirmed the interaction between [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6)
and DNA, suggesting the latter as another potential target. Mitochondrial disfunction
was assessed through a mito-stress test (Seahorse technology) and changes in MMP
(JC-1 staining): both approaches led to establish a conclusive contribution of impaired
mitochondria metabolism in the mode of action of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6). These
findings together with what previously reported on the activity of [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6),
emphasise the outstanding potential of this class of compounds, which should be taken
into account from scientists involved in the search of new chemotherapeutic agents.
22
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
that of cisplatin (IC50 = 0.42 μM vs. 18.33 μM for [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) and cisplatin,
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
Experimental Section
Materials.
All chemicals were either of reagent or analytical grade and used as purchased from
commercial sources without additional purification. RuCl3 hydrate was provided by
I2CNS, 4,7-Diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, LiCl (anhydrous, 99%), and maltol by Alfa
purchased of analytical, or HPLC grade. When necessary, solvents were degassed by
purging with dry, oxygen-free nitrogen for at least 30 min before use.
Instrumentation and methods.
Amber glass or clear glassware wrapped in tin foil was used when protection from light
was necessary. Schlenk glassware and a vacuum line were employed when reactions
sensitive to moisture/oxygen had to be performed under nitrogen atmosphere. Thin
layer chromatography (TLC) was performed using silica gel 60 F-254 (Merck) plates
with detection of spots being achieved by exposure to UV light. Column
chromatography was done using Silica gel 60-200 µm (VWR). Eluent mixtures are
expressed as volume to volume (v/v) ratios. 1H and 13C NMR spectra were measured
on Bruker Avance III HD 400 MHz or Bruker Avance Neo 500 MHz spectrometers
using the signal of the deuterated solvent as an internal standard.[83] The chemical shifts
(δ) are reported in ppm (parts per million) relative to tetramethylsilane (TMS) or signals
from the residual protons of deuterated solvents. Coupling constants J are given in
Hertz (Hz). The abbreviation for the peaks multiplicity is s (singlet), d (doublet), dd
(doublet of doublet), m (multiplet). ESI-HRMS experiments were carried out using a
LTQ-Orbitrap XL from Thermo Scientific (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Courtaboeuf,
France) and operated in positive ionization mode, with a spray voltage at 3.6 kV. Sheath
and auxiliary gas were set at a flow rate of 5 and 0 arbitrary units (a.u.), respectively.
23
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
Aesar, tetrabutylammonium hexafluorophosphate by Sigma-Aldrich. All solvents were
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
The voltages applied were 40 and 100 V for the ion transfer capillary and the tube lens,
respectively. The ion transfer capillary was held at 275°C. Detection was achieved in
the Orbitrap with a resolution set to 100,000 (at m/z 400) and a m/z range between 2002000 in profile mode. Spectrum was analysed using the acquisition software XCalibur
2.1 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Courtaboeuf, France). The automatic gain control
time was set to 300 ms and 1 µscan was acquired. 5 µL was injected using a Thermo
Finnigan Surveyor HPLC system (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Courtaboeuf, France) with
a continuous infusion of methanol at 100 µLmin-1. Elemental analysis was performed
at Science Centre, London Metropolitan University using Thermo Fisher (Carlo Erba)
Flash 2000 Elemental Analyser, configured for %CHN. IR spectra were recorded with
SpectrumTwo FTIR Spectrometer (Perkin–Elmer) equipped with a Specac Golden
GateTM ATR (attenuated total reflection) accessory; applied as neat samples; 1/λ in
cm–1. Stability in human plasma was performed on HPLC (VWR Hitachi Chromaster
system) and a Macherey Nager EC 250/3 Nucleosil 100-5 C18 column. UV absorption
was measured at 275 nm and the runs (flow rate 0.6 mLmin-1) were performed with a
linear gradient of A (distilled water containing 0.1% (v/v) TFA) and B (acetonitrile,
Sigma-Aldrich HPLC grade): t = 0 min, 5% B; t = 0.5 min, 5% B; t = 1.5 min, 100%
B; t = 2 min, 100% B. Ruthenation of the DNA was performed using a High-Resolution
ICP-MS Element II from ThermoScientific located within the Environmental
Biogeochemistry team of the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris. This ICP-MS
enables working in different resolution modes (LR=400, MR=4000 and HR=10000)
for a better discrimination between elements of interest and interferences.[84] For the
metabolic studies Seahorse XFe96 Analyser by Agilent Technologies was used.
24
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
(AGC) allowed accumulation of up to 2.105 ions for FTMS scans, Maximum injection
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
RuCl2(DMSO)4 was synthesised following an adapted literature procedure.[52]
Spectroscopic data (1H NMR) was in agreement with literature.[52]
Synthesis and characterization.
Ru(DIP)2Cl2. The complex was synthesised following an adapted literature
phenanthroline (DIP, 4.11 g, 12.38 mmol) and LiCl (2.0 g, 47.18 mmol) dissolved in
DMF (100 mL) was refluxed for 24 h. After cooling to r.t. the solvent was reduced in
vacuo to 8 mL and 350 mL of acetone were added. After overnight storage at -20 °C
the deep purple solid was removed by filtration with a Buchner funnel and washed with
cold acetone and Et2O. Ru(DIP)2Cl2 was then collected, dried and purified by silica gel
chromatography (DCM/MeOH 97:3 rf 0.4) to afford the complex in 52% yield (2.71 g,
3.23 mmol,) which purity was confirmed by microanalysis. Spectroscopic data (1H
NMR) were in agreement with literature.[53]
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6)
Ru(DIP)2Cl2 (0.150 g, 0.18 mmol) and aq. NaOH (0.28 mL, 1 M) were dissolved in
ethanol (18 mL). The solution was degassed for 30 min and maltol (3-Hydroxy-2methyl-4H-pyran-4-one) (0.036 g, 0.29 mmol) was added. The mixture was heated to
reflux for 3 h under N2 atmosphere and protected from light. After cooling to r.t., H2O
(200 mL) and NH4PF6 (1 g, 6 mmol) were added. The mixture was stored overnight in
the refrigerator (4 °C). The precipitate was collected on a Buchner funnel, washed with
H2O (3 × 50 mL) and Et2O (3 × 50 mL). The solid was sonicated with Et2O or Heptane
(10 mL) for 10 min and then centrifuged. This procedure was repeated three times for
each solvent. The solid was eventually dried under vacuum to deliver a clean product
as the PF6 salt (0.17 g, 0.16 mmol, 90%). IR (Golden Gate, cm-1): 1590w, 1545w,
25
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
procedure.[53] A mixture of RuCl2(DMSO)4 (3.0 g, 6.19 mmol), 4,7-diphenyl-1,10-
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
1490w, 1465w, 1445w, 1415w, 1400w, 1275w, 1205w, 1085w, 1025w, 915w, 830s,
765s, 735m, 700s. 1H NMR (400 MHz, CD2Cl2): δ/ppm = 9.49 (d, J = 5.4 Hz, 1H), 9.33
(d, J = 5.5 Hz, 1H), 8.23 (dd, J = 9.4, 4.6 Hz, 2H), 8.13 (dd, J = 9.4, 1.1 Hz, 2H), 8.04
(d, J = 5.6 Hz, 2H), 7.98 (dd, J = 13.5, 5.4 Hz, 2H), 7.78 – 7.60 (m, 11H), 7.59 – 7.47
(m, 10H), 7.33 (dd, J = 5.6, 3.0 Hz, 2H), 6.54 (d, J = 5.1 Hz, 1H), 2.37 (s, 3H). 13C
151.47, 151.06, 150.64, 150.17, 149.98, 149.92, 147.66, 147.13, 146.01, 145.71,
136.50, 136.47, 136.23, 136.20, 130.15, 129.86, 129.81, 129.47, 129.44, 129.28,
129.21, 129.10, 128.78, 128.61, 128.55, 128.46, 125.96, 125.82, 125.77, 125.77,
125.69, 125.51, 125.25, 125.05, 112.40, 29.84. HRMS (ESI+): m/z 891.19042 [M PF6]+. Elemental Analysis: calcd. for C54H39F6N4O4PRu = C, 61.54; H, 3.73; N, 5.32.
Found = C, 61.53; H, 3.38; N, 5.17.
Electrochemical Measurements.
Electrochemical experiments were carried out with a conventional three-electrodes cell
(solution volume of 15 mL) and a PC-controlled potentiostat/galvanostat (Princeton
Applied Research Inc. model 263A). The working electrode was a vitreous carbon
electrode from Origalys (France) exposing a geometrical area of 0.071 cm2 and
mounted in Teflon®. The electrode was polished before each experiment with 3 and 0.3
m alumina pastes followed by extensive rinsing with ultra-pure Milli-Q water. A
platinum wire was used as counter electrode and saturated calomel electrode, SCE, as
reference electrode. Electrolytic solutions, DMF containing tetrabutylammonium
hexafluoroborate 0.1M (TBAPF6, Aldrich, +99 %) as supporting electrolyte, were
routinely deoxygenated by argon bubbling. All the potential values are given versus the
calomel saturated electrode SCE and recalculated versus Me10Fc0/+ potential value.
26
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
NMR (125 MHz, CD2Cl3): δ/ppm = 185.00, 159.02, 155.49, 154.10, 154.01, 151.75,
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
DMSO and Human Plasma stability studies.
The stability in DMSO-d6 at room temperature was assessed by 1H NMR over 42 hours.
The stability of the complex in human plasma at 37 °C was evaluated following an
the Blutspendezentrum, Zurich, Switzerland. Caffeine was obtained from SigmaAldrich and used as an internal standard.[66] Stock solutions of the complex (9.6 mM)
in DMSO and caffeine (0.15 M) in H2O were prepared. For a typical experiment, an
aliquot of 12.5 µL of each stock solution was added to the plasma solution (975 µL) to
a total volume of 1000 µL and final concentration of 1.92 mM for caffeine and 0.12
mM for the complex. The resulting plasma solution was incubated for 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 24,
48, 72 and 96 h at 37 °C with continuous and gentle shaking (ca. 600 rpm). The reaction
was stopped by addition of 2 mL of MeOH, and the mixture was centrifuged for 45 min
at 3500 rpm. The methanolic solution was filtered and analysed using HPLC and an
injection volume of 6 µL.
Stability of the complex in different solvents and at different conditions.
Preparation of stock solutions: Human serum albumin (HSA as lyophilized powder
with fatty acids), Na2HPO4, NaH2PO4, 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic
acid (HEPES) and danysylglycine (DG) were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich in puriss
quality. Powdered RPMI 1640 cell culture medium without indicator for 1 L solution
was a Sigma-Aldrich product as well. Milli-Q ultrapure water was used for sample
preparations. HSA solution was freshly prepared before the experiments in 20 mM
phosphate or in 20 mM HEPES buffer (pH = 7.40). Its concentration was estimated
27
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
adapted procedure recently reported by our group.[85] Human plasma was provided by
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
from its UV absorption: 280 nm(HSA) = 36850 M−1cm−1.[86] Stock solutions of the
complex were freshly prepared every day in ethanol in 1-2 mM concentration.
1
H NMR measurements: 1H NMR spectroscopic studies were carried out on a Bruker
Avance III HD Ascend 500 Plus instrument. The metal complex was dissolved in
medium or in 20 mM phosphate buffer (pH = 7.40) contained 1 mM metal complex and
30% (v/v) methanol-d4. Spectra for water containing samples were recorded with the
WATERGATE water suppression pulse scheme using DSS internal standard.
UV-Vis spectrophotometry and ultrafiltration: An Agilent Carry 8454 diode array
spectrophotometer was utilized to record the UV–visible (UV–vis) spectra in the
interval 190–1100 nm. The path length (l) was 1 cm. Aqueous stability of the complex
was followed in 20 mM phosphate buffer (pH = 7.40), in 20 mM HEPES buffer (pH =
7.40), in RPMI 1640 medium, in the presence of HSA, in ethanol, methanol and in pure
water (pH ~ 8). Measurements on the protein binding of the complex were performed
at fixed metal complex concentration (20 μM) and various protein-to-complex ratios
(from 0.02:1 to 10:1) were applied.
Spectrofluorometric studies: Samples were prepared in 20 mM phosphate or in 20 mM
HEPES buffer (pH 7.40); spectra were recorded after 5 min incubation. Samples for
quenching experiments contained 1 µM HSA and various HSA-to-metal complex ratios
(from 1:0 to 1:15) were used. The excitation wavelength was 295 nm; the emission
intensities were read in the range of 305 – 500 nm with 5 nm/5 nm slit widths. In the
site marker displacement experiments, the HSA-to-DG ratio was 1:1 (2-2 μM) and the
concentration of the metal complex was varied from 0 to 37 μM. The excitation
wavelength was 335 nm and the emission intensity was collected in the range of 420 –
600 nm with 5 nm/10 nm slit widths. The conditional binding constant for the site II
28
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
methanol-d4 in 3.3 mM concentration. Samples prepared in methanol-d4, RPMI 1640
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
binding of the complex was calculated with the computer program HypSpec[87] as
described in our previous works.[30],[61] Corrections for self-absorbance and inner filter
effect were done.[60]
HeLa and CT-26 cell lines were grown in DMEM media (Gibco). CT-26 LUC cell line
was cultured in DMEM media (Gibco) supplemented with 1.6 mg/mL of Genticin.
RPE-1 cell line was grown and maintained in DMEM/F-12 media (Gibco). A2780,
A2780 cis, A2780 ADR cell lines were cultured in RPMI 1640 media (Gibco). The
resistance of A2780 cis was maintained by cisplatin treatment (1µM) for one week
every month. Cells were used in the assays one week after the end of the treatment, in
order to avoid interferring results. The resistance of A2780 ADR was maintained by
doxorubicin treatment (0.1 µM) once a week. Cells were used in the assays after three
days post doxorubicin treatment in order to avoid interferring results. All cell lines were
complemented with 10% of fetal calf serum (Gibco) and 100 U/mL penicillinstreptomycin mixture (Gibco) and maintained in humidified atmosphere at 37°C and
5% of CO2.
Cytotoxicity Assay using a 2D cellular model.
Cytotoxicity of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) and RuCl2(DIP)2 complexes was assessed by a
fluorometric cell viability assay using Resazurin (ACROS Organics). Briefly, cells
were seeded in triplicates in 96-well plates at a density of 4×103 cells/well in 100 μL.
After 24 h, cells were treated with increasing concentrations of the ruthenium
complexes. Dilutions for [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) and RuCl2(DIP)2 were prepared as
follows: 2.5 mM stock in DMSO ([Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6)) or DMF (RuCl2(DIP)2) was
29
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
Cell culture.
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
prepared, which was further diluted to 100 µM and filtered (0.22 µm filter VWR). After
48 h incubation, the medium was removed and 100 μL of complete medium containing
resazurin (0.2 mg/mL final concentration) was added. After 4 h of incubation at 37 °C,
the fluorescence signal of resorufin product was read (ex: 540 nm em: 590 nm) in a
SpectraMax M5 microplate Reader. IC50 values were then calculated using GraphPad
Generation of 3D HeLa MCTS.
MCTS were cultured using ultra-low attachment 96 wells plates from Corning® (Fisher
Scientific 15329740). HeLa cells were seeded at a density of 5000 cells per well in 200
µL medium. The single cells would generate MCTS approximately 400 µm in diameter
at day 4 with 37 °C and 5 % CO2.
Treatment of 3D HeLa MCTS.
After 4 days of growing at 37 °C and 5% CO2, HeLa MCTS were treated for 48 h by
replacing half of the medium in the well with medium containing increasing
concentration of compounds. For untreated reference MCTS, half of the medium was
replaced by fresh medium only. Cytotoxicity was measured by quantification of ATP
concentration with CellTiter-Glo® Cell viability kit (Promega, USA).
HeLa MCTSs growth inhibition.
MCTSs were grown and treated as described above. MCTSs sizes were observed under
a light microscope and pictures were taken with an iPhone 6s thanks to a phone
microscope adaptor. Before imaging, the plate was shaken, and half of the media was
exchanged to remove dead cells. Images were recorded before treatment (day 0) and at
30
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
Prism software.
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
day 3, 6, 9 and 13 after treatment. Pictures were first processed using GIMP a crossplatform image editor with a batch automation plug-in. The MCTSs sizes were then
calculated with SpheroidSizer, a MATLAB-based and open-source software
application to measure the size of tumour spheroids automatically and accurately. Data
Annexin V / PI assay.
Apoptosis and necrosis induction in HeLa cells treated with [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) was
evaluated via an AnnexinV/PI staining assay using flow cytometry. Briefly, cells were
seeded at density of 2×106 cells in 10 cm cell culture dish 24 h prior cell treatments.
The medium was removed and replaced with 10 μM solution of complex
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) or 1 µm Staurosporin (positive control -Abcam Cat no.120056)
and further incubated for 30 min, 4 h or 24 h. Cells were collected, washed twice with
ice cold PBS and resuspended in 1x Annexin V binding buffer (10 x buffer
composition: 0,1 M HEPES (pH 7.4), 1.4 M NaCl. 25 mM CaCl2). Samples were
processed according to the manufacturer instructions (BD Scientific, cat no 556463 and
556419) and analysed using ZE5 Biorad instrument at Cytometry Platform at Institute
Curie. Data were analysed using the FlowJo software.
Sample Preparation for cellular uptake.
Cells were seeded at density of 2×106. Next day, cells were treated with 5 µM
concentration of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) or RuCl2(DIP)2. After 2 h, cells were
collected, counted and snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -20 ºC. ICP-MS
samples were prepared as follows: samples were digested using 70% nitric acid (1 mL,
60 ºC, overnight). Samples were then further diluted 1:100 (1% HCl solution in MQ
31
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
analysis was done using GraphPad Prism software.
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
water) and analysed using ICP-MS.
Sample Preparation for cellular fractionation.
HeLa cells (passage 8) were seeded in three 15 cm2 cell culture dishes so that on the
day of treatment cells were 90% confluent. On the day of treatment cells were incubated
was removed; cells were washed, collected and counted. After resuspension in cold
PBS, the organelles were isolated via different protocols (one cell culture dish per
isolation was used).
Mitochondria isolation: To isolate mitochondria, a Mitochondria Isolation Kit (Cat. Nr:
MITOISO2, Sigma Aldrich) was used according to the manufacturer procedure for
isolation of mitochondria via homogenization method.
Lysosome isolation: To isolate lysosomes, a Lysosome Isolation Kit (Cat. Nr:
LYSISO1, Sigma Aldrich) was used, according to the manufacturer procedure for
isolation of lysosomes via Option C.
Nuclear and cytoplasm isolation: To isolate nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions, the
ROCKLAND nuclear extract protocol was used.[88] Briefly cells were collected by
centrifugation, resuspended in cytoplasmic extraction buffer and incubated on ice. The
tubes were centrifuged and supernatant (CE) was removed. Pellets were washed with
cytoplasmic extraction buffer without detergent and centrifuged. The pellet (NE) was
resuspended in nuclear extraction buffer and incubated on ice. Both CE and NE were
centrifuged. Supernatant from CE samples was indicated as cytoplasmic extract,
whereas the pellet obtained from NE samples was indicated as nuclear extract.
ICP-MS samples were prepared as follows: isolated cellular fractions were lyophilised
and digested using 5 mL of 70% nitric acid (60 ºC, overnight). Samples were then
32
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
with the target complex at a concentration of 5 μM for 2 h. After that time, the medium
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
further diluted 1:200 –for nuclear pellet samples and 1:20 for all the other samples (1%
HCl solution in MQ water) and analysed using ICP-MS.
Sample preparation for studies on the mechanism of cellular uptake
Samples were prepared as previously reported.[17] Briefly, HeLa cells were seeded at
specific temperature for 1 h. Next, cells were washed with PBS and were incubated
with 5 µM [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) for 2 h (low temperature sample was still kept at 4
ºC). Afterwards cells were washed with PBS, collected, counted and snap frozen in
liquid nitrogen. Pellets were stored at -20 ºC. ICP-MS samples were prepared as
follows: samples were digested using 70% nitric acid (1 mL, 60 ºC, overnight), further
diluted 1:100 (1% HCl solution in MQ water) and analysed using ICP-MS.
DNA metalation of HeLa cells.
Cells were seeded at density of 2 x 106. The following day, cells were treated with 5
µM concentration of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) or cisplatin. After 2 h, cells were collected,
snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -20 ºC. The following day, DNA was
extracted using a PureLink™ Genomic DNA Mini Kit (Invitrogen). DNA purity was
checked by absorbance measurements at 260 and 280 nm. Concentrations of genomic
DNA were calculated assuming that one absorbance unit equals 50 µg/mL. ICP-MS
samples were prepared as follows: samples were digested using 70% nitric acid (60 ºC,
overnight) in 1:1.6 DNA to acid volume ratio. Samples were then further diluted 1:10
33
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
density of 2×106 and next day were pre-treated with corresponding inhibitors or kept at
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
or 1:100 (1% HCl solution in MQ water) and analysed using ICP-MS.
ICP-MS studies.
Daily, prior to the analytical sequence, the instrument was first tuned to produce
maximum sensitivity and stability while also maintaining low uranium oxide formation
concentrations using uFREASI (user-FRiendly Elemental dAta proceSsIng ).[89] This
software, made for HR-ICP-MS users community, is free and available on
http://www.ipgp.fr/~tharaud/uFREASI.
ICP-MS data analysis.
Cellular uptake studies: The amount of metal detected in the cell samples was
transformed from ppb into µg of metal. Data were subsequently normalised to the
number of cells and expressed as µmol of metal/ amount of cells.
Cellular fractionation: The amount of detected ruthenium in the cell samples was
transformed from ppb into µg of ruthenium. Values were then normalised to the number
of cells used for specific extraction. Due to low yield of lysosome extraction (only
25%), the values obtained were multiplied by the factor of 4. Because of a low yield of
mitochondria extraction (50% of the cells were homogenized), the values obtained for
that organelle were multiplied by the factor of 2. Extraction protocols allow for the
isolation of pure subcellular fractions. Therefore, the total amount of metal found in the
cells was calculated summing the values obtained for the pure organelles.
Mechanism of uptake: The amount of ruthenium detected in cell samples was
transformed from ppb into µg of ruthenium and values obtained were normalised to the
34
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
(UO/U ≤ 5%). The data were treated as follow: intensities were converted into
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
number of cells used for specific treatment. The value for the ruthenium found in the
37 ºC sample was used as a 100%.
Cellular metalation: The amount of ruthenium detected in cell samples was
transformed from ppb into µg of ruthenium and value obtained was normalised to the
JC-1 Mitochondrial Membrane Potential Test.
HeLa cells were seeded at a density of 6000 cells / well in black 96 well-plates (Costar
3916). The following day, cells were treated with different concentrations of
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) and RuCl2(DIP)2. After further 24 h, cells were treated
according to the instructions of the JC-1 Mitochondrial Membrane Potential Assay Kit
(Abcam, ab113850). The data were analysed using GraphPad Prism software.
Metabolic Studies
HeLa cells were seeded in Seahorse XFe96 well plates at a density of 30,000 cells /
well in 80 μL medium. After 24 h, the medium was replaced with fresh medium and
cisplatin (1 μM), doxorubicin (1 µM), maltol (1 μM), complex RuCl2(DIP)2 (1 μM) or
complex [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) (1 μM) were added. After 24 h of incubation, the
regular medium was removed, cells were washed thrice using Seahorse Base Media
and incubated in a non-CO2 incubator at 37 °C for 1 h.
Mito Stress Test: Mitostress assay was run using Oligomycin, 1 μM, FCCP 1 μM and
mixture of Antimycin-A/ Rotenone 1 μM each in ports A, B and C respectively using
Seahorse XFe96 Extracellular Flux Analyzer.
35
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
amount of DNA.
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
Glycolysis Stress Test: Glycolytic stress test was run using glucose (10 mM),
Oligomycin (1 μM) and 2-Deoxyglucose (50 mM) in ports A, B and C respectively
using Seahorse XFe96 Extracellular Flux Analyzer.
Mito Fuel Flex Test: Fuel flex assay for the different fuel pathways viz. glucose,
and that after addition of the inhibitor of the target pathway in port A and a mixture of
the inhibitors of the other two pathways in port B. This gave a measure of the
dependency of the cells on a fuel pathway. To study the capacity of a certain fuel
pathway, the sequence of addition of the inhibitors was reversed. In port A was added
the mixture of inhibitors for the other pathways and in port B was added the inhibitor
for the target pathway. UK-5099 (pyruvate dehydrogenase inhibitor, 20 μM) was used
as an inhibitor for the glucose pathway. BPTES (selective inhibitor of Glutaminase
GLS1, 30 μM) was used as an inhibitor for the glutamine pathway. Etomoxir (Ocarnitine palmitoyltransferase-1 (CPT-1) inhibitor, 40 μM) was used as an inhibitor for
the fatty acid pathway.
Associated Content
Supporting Information
The Supporting Information is at DOI: XXXXX.
NMR spectra of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) (Figure S1), voltammograms recorded by CV
and with the use of RDE for [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) (Figure S2), electrochemical data
for [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) (Table S1), overlap of 1H spectra of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6)
in DMSO-d6 over 42h days (Figure S3), detailed investigation on the stability of the
complex in different solvents and conditions (section 5, Figure S4, S5), RP-UPLC
36
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
glutamine and fatty acid was studied by measuring the basal oxygen consumption rates
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
traces
of
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6)
(a)
and
percentage
concentration
of
[Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6), normalized with respect to the internal standard and plotted
against time (b) (Figure S6), more details on interaction with human serum albumin
(section S7, Figures S7-S9), fluorometric cell viability assay (Figure S10), CellTiter
Glo® viability Test (Figure S11), Cell Death Mechanism (Figure S12) cellular uptake
between RuCl2(DIP)2, [Ru(DIP)2(sq)](PF6) or [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) and guanosine
(section S12, Figure S14), oxygen consumption rates and different respiration
parameters in HeLa cells alone or after treatment with various test compounds (Figure
S15), extracellular acidification rate and different parameters during glycolysis in HeLa
cells alone or after treatment with various test compounds (Figure S16), Fuel flex assay
in HeLa cells (Figure S17).
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by an ERC Consolidator Grant
PhotoMedMet to G.G. (GA 681679) and has received support under the program
Investissements d’Avenir launched by the French Government and implemented
by the ANR with the reference ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL (G.G.). This work
was financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Professorships N°
PP00P2_133568 and PP00P2_157545 to G.G.), the University of Zurich (G.G),
the Novartis Jubilee Foundation (G.G. and R.R.), the Forschungskredit of the
University of Zurich (R.R.), the University of Trieste (E.A., FRA 2018), and the
UBS Promedica Stiftung (G.G. and R.R.). Ile de France Region is gratefully
acknowledged for financial support of 500 MHz NMR spectrometer of ChimieParisTech in the framework of the SESAME equipment project. We
37
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
mechanism of [Ru(DIP)2(mal)](PF6) (Figure S13), UV study of the interaction
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
acknowledge the loan of Agilent's equipment to Chimie ParisTech. This work
was supported by National Research, Development and Innovation OfficeNKFIA through projects GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00038, FK 124240, PD 131472.
SF is supported by the Czech Science Foundation grant 17-02080S.
Accepted Manuscript
Table of contents (TOC)
38
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
[1]
Gasser, G.; Ott, I.; Metzler-Nolte, N. J. Med. Chem. 2011, 54, 3–25.
[2]
Rosenberg, B. B. Platin. Met. Rev. 1971, 15, 42–51.
[3]
Wong, E.; Giandomenico, C. M. Chem. Rev. 1999, 99, 2451–2466.
[4]
Antonarakis, E. S.; Emadi, A. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2010, 66, 1–9.
[5]
Alessio, E. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2017, 55, 1549–1560.
[6]
Zeng, L.; Gupta, P.; Chen, Y.; Wang, E.; Ji, L.; Chao, H.; Chen, Z.-S.; Mai, J.;
Zhang, H.; Li, Z.; et al. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46, 5771–5804.
[7]
Alessio, E.; Messori, L. Molecules 2019, 24, 1995.
[8]
Sava, G.; Capozzi, I.; Clerici, K.; Gagliardi, G.; Alessio, E.; Mestroni, G. Clin.
Exp. Metastasis 1998, 16, 371–379.
[9]
Lentz, F.; Drescher, A.; Lindauer, A.; Henke, M.; Hilger, R. a; Hartinger, C. G.;
Scheulen, M. E.; Dittrich, C.; Keppler, B. K.; Jaehde, U. Anticancer. Drugs
2009, 20, 97–103.
[10]
Trondl, R.; Heffeter, P.; Kowol, C. R.; Jakupec, M. a.; Berger, W.; Keppler, B.
K. Chem. Sci. 2014, 5, 2925–2932.
[11]
Hartinger, C. G.; Zorbas-Seifried, S.; Jakupec, M. A.; Kynast, B.; Zorbas, H.;
Keppler, B. K. J. Inorg. Biochem. 2006, 100, 891–904.
[12]
Yin, H.; Roque, J.; Konda, P.; Monro, S.; Colo, K. L.; Gujar, S.; Thummel, R.
P.; Lilge, L.; Cameron, C. G.; Mcfarland, S. A. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 797–828.
[13]
Https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03945162?term=TLD-1433&rank=1.
(accessed the 27/ 09/ 2019).
[14]
Griffith, C. A.; Dayoub, A.; Janaratne, T.; Alatrash, N.; Abayan, K.; Mohamedi,
A.; Breitbach, Z.; Armstrong, D. W.; MacDonnell, F. M. Chem. Sci. 2017, 8,
3726–3740.
[15] Poynton, F. E.; Bright, S. A.; Blasco, S.; Williams, D. C.; Kelly, J. M.;
39
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
References.
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
Gunnlaugsson, T. Chem Soc Rev 2017, 46, 7706–7756.
[16]
Notaro, A.; Gasser, G. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46, 7317–7337.
[17]
Notaro, A.; Frei, A.; Rubbiani, R.; Jakubaszek, M.; Basu, U.; Koch, S.; Mari, C.;
Dotou, M.; Blacque, O.; Gouyon, J.; et al. ChemRxiv. Prepr. 2019.
[19] Ito, H. Agric. Biol. Chem. 1977, 41, 1307–1308.
[20]
I--food, C.; Services, H. CFR Code Fed. Regul. 2018, 3, 1–18.
[21]
Bingham, A. F.; Birch, G. G.; Graaf, C. De; Behan, J. M.; Perring, K. D. Chem.
Senses 1990, 15, 447–456.
[22]
Kahn, V.; Schved, F.; Lindner, P. J. Food Biochem. 1993, 17, 217–233.
[23]
Nelson, W. O.; Karpishin, T. B.; Rettig, S. J.; Orvig, C. Inorg. Chem. 1988, 27,
1045–1051.
[24]
Lucio, P. C.; Nicholas, G.; Geoffrey, G. F.; Huali, H.; Mcneill, J. H.; Rettig, S.
J.; Setyawati, I. A.; Shuter, E.; Sun, Y.; Tracey, A. S.; et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1995, 117, 12759–12770.
[25]
Murakami, K.; Ishida, K.; Watakabe, K.; Tsubouchi, R.; Naruse, M.; Yoshino,
M. Toxicol. Lett. 2006, 161, 102–107.
[26]
Ellis, B. L.; Duhme, A. K.; Hider, R. C.; Hossain, M. B.; Rizvi, S. J. Med. Chem.
1996, 2623, 3659–3670.
[27]
Lord, S. J.; Epstein, N. A.; Paddock, R. L.; Vogels, C. M.; Hennigar, T. L.;
Zaworotko, M. J.; Taylor, N. J.; Driedzic, W. R.; Broderick, T. L.; Westcott, S.
A. Can. J. Chem. 1999, 1261, 1249–1261.
[28]
Thompson, K. H.; Barta, C. A.; Orvig, C.; Thompson, K. Chem. Soc. Rev 2006,
35, 545–556.
[29]
Thompson, K. H.; Chiles, J.; Yuen, V. G.; Tse, J.; Mcneill, J. H.; Orvig, C. J.
Inorg. Biochem. 2004, 98, 683–690.
40
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
[18] CHEW, L. F. B. and H. Mutat. Res. 1979, 67, 367–371.
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
[30]
Dömötör, O.; Aicher, S.; Schmidlehner, M.; Novak, M. S.; Roller, A.; Jakupec,
M. A.; Kandioller, W.; Hartinger, C. G.; Keppler, B. K.; Enyedy, É. A. J. Inorg.
Biochem. 2014, 134, 57–65.
[31]
Kandioller, W.; Hartinger, C. G.; Nazarov, A. A.; Bartel, C.; Skocic, M.;
Jakupec, M. A.; Arion, V. B.; Keppler, B. K. Chem. Eur. J 2009, 12283–12291.
Fang, L.; Ming, S.; Ling, H.; Soo, K.; Vikneswaran, R.; Guan, S.; Ahmad, M.;
Alan, S.; Jamil, M.; Hee, C. J. Inorg. Biochem. 2011, 105, 339–347.
[33]
Reddy, V. D.; Dayal, D.; Szalda, D. J.; Cosenza, S. C.; Reddy, M. V. R. J.
Organomet. Chem. 2012, 700, 180–187.
[34]
Hironishi, M.; Kordek, R.; Yanagihara, R.; Garruto, R. M. Neurodegeneration
1996, 5, 325–329.
[35]
Yasumoto, E.; Nakano, K.; Nakayachi, T.; Morshed, S. R.; Hashimoto, K. E. N.;
Kikuchi, H.; Nishikawa, H.; Kawase, M.; Sakagami, H. Anticancer Res. 2004,
762, 755–762.
[36]
Barrand, M. A.; Callingham, B. A. Br. J. Pharmacol. 1991, 102, 408–414.
[37]
Barrand, M. A.; Hider, R. C.; Callingham, B. A. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 1990, 42,
105–107.
[38]
Thompson, K. H.; Lichter, J.; Lebel, C.; Scaife, M. C.; Mcneill, J. H.; Orvig, C.
J. Inorg. Biochem. 2009, 103, 554–558.
[39]
Thompson, K. H.; Liboiron, Æ. B. D.; Sun, Æ. Y.; Patrick, B. O.; Karunaratne,
Æ. V.; Rawji, Æ. G.; Cassidy, C.; Mcneill, Æ. J. H.; Yuen, Æ. V. G. J. Biol.
Inorg. Chem. 2003, 8, 66–74.
[40]
Thompson, K. H.; Orvig, C. J. Chem. Soc., Dalt. Trans. 2000, 2885–2892.
[41]
Crans, D. C.; Schoeberl, S.; Roess, D. A. J. Biol. Inorg. Chem. 2011, 16, 961–
972.
[42]
Bernstein, L. R.; Tanner, T.; Godfrey, C.; Noll, B.; Road, W.; Park, M. Met.
Based. Drugs 2000, 7, 33–47.
41
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
[32]
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
[43] Jakupec, M. A.; Keppler, B. K. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2004, 4, 1575–1583.
[44]
Chitambar, C. R.; Purpi, D. P.; Woodliff, J.; Yang, M.; Wereley, J. P. J.
Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2007, 322, 1228–1236.
[45]
Enyedy, É. A.; Dömötör, O.; Bali, K.; Keppler, B. K. J. Biol. Inorg. Chem. 2015,
20, 77–88.
Deleon, K.; Balldin, F.; Watters, C.; Hamood, A.; Griswold, J.; Sreedharan, S.;
Rumbaugh, K. P. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009, 53, 1331–1337.
[47]
Id, L. G.; Id, L. R. B.; Haynes, A. M.; Godornes, C.; Ciccarese, G.; Drago, F.;
Parodi, A.; Valdevit, S.; Anselmi, L.; Tomasini, C. F.; et al. PLoS Negl. Trop.
Dis. 2019, 1–14.
[48]
Chitambar, C. R.; Al-gizawiy, M. M.; Alhajala, H. S.; Pechman, K. R.; Wereley,
J. P.; Wujek, R.; Clark, P. A.; Kuo, J. S.; Antholine, W. E.; Schmainda, K. M.
Mol. Cancer Ther. 2018, No. 12, 1–12.
[49] Chua, M.; Bernstein, L. R.; Li, R. U. I.; So, S. K. S. Anticancer Res. 2006, 1744,
1739–1743.
[50]
Kandioller, W.; Hartinger, C. G.; Nazarov, A. A.; Kasser, J.; John, R.; Jakupec,
M. A.; Arion, V. B.; Dyson, P. J.; Keppler, B. K. J. Organomet. Chem. 2009,
694, 922–929.
[51]
Hartinger, C. G.; Eichinger, R. E.; Stolyarova, N.; Severin, K.; Jakupec, M. A.;
Nazarov, A. A.; Keppler, B. K. Organometallics 2008, 27, 2405–2407.
[52]
Brastos, I.; Alessio, E.; Ringenberg, M. E.; Rauchfuss, T. B. Inorg. Synth. 2010,
35, 148–163.
[53]
Caspar, R.; Cordier, C.; Waern, J. B.; Guyard-Duhayon, C.; Gruselle, M.; Le
Floch, P.; Amouri, H. Inorg. Chem. 2006, 45, 4071–4078.
[54]
Haga, M.; Dodsworth, E. S.; Lever, A. B. P. Inorg. Chem. 1986, 25, 447–453.
[55]
Higgins, S. L. H.; White, T. A.; Winkel, B. S. J.; Brewer, K. J. Inorg. Chem.
2011, 50, 463–470.
42
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
[46]
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
[56]
Sobota, P.; Przybylak, K.; Utko, J.; Jerzykiewicz, L. B.; Pombeiro, A. J. L.;
Guedes Da Silva, M. F. C.; Szczegot, K. Chem. Eur. J. 2001, 7, 951–958.
[57] Patra, M.; Joshi, T.; Pierroz, V.; Ingram, K.; Kaiser, M. Chem. Eur. J. 2013, 19,
14768–14772.
[58]
Hall, M. D.; Telma, K. A.; Chang, K.-E.; Lee, T. D.; Madigan, J. P.; Lloyd, J.
74, 3913–3922.
[59]
Huang, H.; Humbert, N.; Bizet, V.; Patra, M.; Chao, H. J. Organomet. Chem.
2017, 839, 15–18.
[60] Lakowicz, J. R. Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy; 2006.
[61]
Domotor, O.; Hartinger, C. G.; Bytzek, A. K.; Kiss, T.; Keppler, B. K.; Enyedy,
E. A. J. Biol. Inorg. Chem. 2013, 18, 9–17.
[62]
Bijelic, A.; Theiner, S.; Keppler, B. K.; Rompel, A. J. Med. Chem. 2016, 59,
5894–5903.
[63]
Sun, J.; Huang, Y.; Zheng, C.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liu, J. Biol. Trace Elem. Res.
2015, 163, 266–274.
[64]
Rudnev, A. V.; Aleksenko, S. S.; Semenova, O.; Hartinger, C. G.; Timerbaev,
A. R.; Keppler, B. K. J. Sep. Sci. 2005, 28, 121–127.
[65]
Pierroz, V.; Joshi, T.; Leonidova, A.; Mari, C.; Schur, J.; Ott, I.; Spiccia, L.;
Ferrari, S.; Gasser, G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 20376–20387.
[66]
Bruce, S. J.; Tavazzi, I.; Rezzi, S.; Kochhar, S.; Guy, P. A. 2009, 81, 3285–3296.
[67] Frei, A.; Rubbiani, R.; Tubafard, S.; Blacque, O.; Anstaett, P.; Felgenträger, A.;
Maisch, T.; Spiccia, L.; Gasser, G. J. Med. Chem. 2014, 57, 7280–7292.
[68]
Cepeda, V.; Fuertes, M.; Castilla, J.; Alonso, C.; Quevedo, C.; Perez, J.
Anticancer. Agents Med. Chem. 2007, 7, 3–18.
[69]
Keizer, H. G.; Pinedo, H. M.; Schuurhuis, G. J.; Joenje, H. Pharmac. Ther 1990,
47, 219–231.
43
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
R.; Goldlust, I. S.; Hoeschele, James D. Gottesman, M. M. Cancer Res. 2014,
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
[70]
Kelm, J. M.; Timmins, N. E.; Brown, C. J.; Fussenegger, M.; Nielsen, L. K.
Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2003, 83, 173–180.
[71]
Ma, H.; Jiang, Q.; Han, S.; Wu, Y.; Tomshine, J. C.; Wang, D.; Gan, Y.; Zou,
G. Mol. Imaging 2012, 11, 487–498.
[72]
Kapałczyńska, M.; Kolenda, T.; Przybyła, Weronika Zajączkowska, Maria
K. Arch. Med. Sci. 2018, 4, 910–919.
[73]
Friedrich, J.; Seidel, C.; Ebner, R.; Kunz-schughart, L. A. Nat. Protoc. 2009, 4,
309–324.
[74]
Baek, N. H.; Seo, O. W.; Kim, M. S.; Hulme, J.; An, S. S. A. Onco. Targets.
Ther. 2016, 9, 7207–7218.
[75]
Mikhail, A. S.; Eetezadi, S.; Allen, C. PLoS One 2013, 8.
[76]
Belmokhtar, A. C.; Hillion, J.; Ségal-Bendirdjian, E. Oncogene 2001, 3354–
3362.
[77]
Zeng, L.; Chen, Y.; Huang, H.; Wang, J.; Zhao, D.; Ji, L.; Chao, H. Chemistry
2015, 21, 15308–15319.
[78] Zisowsky, J.; Koegel, S.; Leyers, S.; Devarakonda, K.; Kassack, M. U.; Osmak,
M.; Jaehde, U. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2007, 73, 298–307.
[79]
Dedov, V. N.; Cox, G. C.; Roufogalis, B. D. Micron 2001, 32, 653–660.
[80]
Zorova, L. D.; Popkov, V. A.; Plotnikov, E. Y.; Silachev, D. N.; Pevzner, B.;
Jankauskas, S. S.; Babenko, V. A.; Zorov, S. D.; Balakireva, A. V; Juhaszova,
M.; et al. Anal. Biochem. 2018, No. 552, 50–59.
[81]
Sakamuru, S.; Attene-ramos, M. S.; Xia, M. Mitochondrial Membrane Potential
Assay. In High-Throughput Screening Assays in Toxicology, Methods in
Molecular Biology,; 2016; Vol. 1473, pp 17–22.
[82]
Terada, H. Environ. Health Perspect. 1990, 87, 213–218.
[83]
Fulmer, G. R.; Miller, A. J. M.; Sherden, N. H.; Gottlieb, H. E.; Nudelman, A.;
44
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
Teresiak, A.; Filas, V.; Ibbs, M.; Bliźniak, R.; Łuczewski, Łukasz Lamperska,
10.1002/chem.201904877
Chemistry - A European Journal
Stoltz, B. M.; Bercaw, J. E.; Goldberg, K. I. Organometallics 2010, 29, 2176–
2179.
[84]
Krachler, M. J. Environ. Monit. 2007, 9, 790–804.
[85]
Mari, C.; Pierroz, V.; Rubbiani, R.; Patra, M.; Hess, J.; Spingler, B.; Oehninger,
L.; Schur, J.; Ott, I.; Salassa, L.; et al. Chem. Eur. J. 2014, 20, 1–17.
Beaven, G. H.; Chen, S.; Albis, A. D.; Gratzer, W. B. Eur. J. Biochem. 1974,
546, 539–546.
[87]
Gans, P.; Sabatini, A.; Vacca, A. Talanta Investig. 1996, 43, 1739–1753.
[88]
Https://rockland-inc.com/Nuclear-Extract-Protocol.aspx.
(accessed
the
03.10.2019).
[89]
Tharaud, M.; Gardoll, S.; Khelifi, O.; Benedetti, M. F.; Sivry, Y. Microchem. J.
2015, 121, 32–40.
45
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Accepted Manuscript
[86]