Influence of Oxygenation on the Reactivity of Ruthenium−Thiolato Bonds in Arene Anticancer Complexes: Insights from XAS and DFT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thiolate ligand oxygenation is believed to activate cytotoxic half-sandwich [(eta(6)-arene)Ru(en)(SR)](+) complexes toward DNA binding. We have made detailed comparisons of the nature of the Ru-S bond in the parent thiolato complexes and mono- (sulfenato) and bis- (sulfinato) oxygenated species including the influence of substituents on the sulfur and arene. Sulfur K-edge XAS indicates that S(3p) donation into the Ru(4d) manifold depends strongly on the oxidation state of the sulfur atom, whereas Ru K-edge data suggest little change at the metal center. DFT results are in agreement with the experimental data and allow a more detailed analysis of the electronic contributions to the Ru-S bond. Overall, the total ligand charge donation to the metal center remains essentially unchanged upon ligand oxygenation, but the origin of the donation differs markedly. In sulfenato complexes, the terminal oxo group makes a large contribution to charge donation and even small electronic changes in the thiolato complexes are amplified upon ligand oxygenation, an observation which carries direct implications for the biological activity of this family of complexes. Details of Ru-S bonding in the mono-oxygenated complexes suggest that these should be most susceptible to ligand exchange, yet only if protonation of the terminal oxo group can occur. The potential consequences of these results for biological activation are discussed.
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) | 0.002 | 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".