Multinuclear Cytotoxic Metallodrugs: Physicochemical Characterization and Biological Properties of Novel Heteronuclear Gold–Titanium Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An unprecedented series of titanocene-gold bi- and trimetallic complexes of the general formula [[(η(5)-C(5)H(5))(μ-η(5):κ(1)-C(5)H(4)(CH(2))(n)PPh(2))TiCl(2)](m)AuCl(x)](q+) (n = 0, 2, or 4; m = 1, x = 1, q = 0 or m = 2, x = 0, q = 1) have been prepared and characterized spectroscopically. The luminescence spectroscopy and photophysics of one of the compounds, [[(η(5)-C(5)H(5))(μ-η(5):κ(1)-C(5)H(4)PPh(2))TiCl(2)](2)Au]PF(6), have been investigated in 2MeTHF solution and in the solid state at 77 and 298 K. Evidence for interfragment interactions based on the comparison of electronic band positions and emission lifetimes, namely, triplet energy transfer (ET) from the Au- to the Ti-containing chromophores, is provided. The cytotoxicity of the complexes was evaluated on A2780 ovarian cancer cells and on their cisplatin-resistant cell line A2780cisR; the compounds showed activity in the low micromolar range that was markedly more active than the corresponding titanocene-phosphine precursors [(η(5)-C(5)H(5))(η(5)-C(5)H(4)(CH(2))(n)PPh(2))TiCl(2)], cisplatin, and, for some of them, the gold analogue [(PPh(3))AuCl]. In an attempt to draw preliminary structure-activity relationships, cell uptake measurements and interaction studies with plasmid DNA and the model protein ubiquitin (Ub) have been undertaken on some of the compounds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".