Ru<sup>III</sup> Complexes of Edta and Dtpa Polyaminocarboxylate Analogues and Their Use as Nitric Oxide Scavengers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study a series of Ru III complexes, chelated by analogues of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (edta) and diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (dtpa), were produced and tested for NO scavenging ability. Modifications to the edta and dtpa ligand frameworks were made in an effort to alter the reactivity, aqueous stability and pharmacokinetics of the resulting Ru III complexes. The X‐ray structure of the nitrosyl complex 38 confirms that the Ru III complex 27 reacts with NO to form a linear {Ru–NO} complex. The nitrosyl complex [C 15 H 15 N 4 O 11 Ru] crystallized in the P 2 1 / c space group with a = 12.731(3) Å, b = 10.894(2) Å, c = 14.241 (3) Å, β = 107.320(4)°, V = 1885.6(7) Å 3 , and Z = 4. Kinetic studies on the reactions of 14 ( k = 2.38 × 10 6 M –1 s –1 ) and 27 ( k = 2.30 × 10 5 M –1 s –1 ) with NO exemplify the difference in chemical properties obtained by ligand framework manipulation. Binding constants of 14 ( K B = 5 × 10 6 M –1 ) and 27 ( K B = 2 × 10 5 M –1 ) with NO were also measured, indicating the tight binding of NO by the Ru III complexes. The activity of the Ru III complexes to scavenge nitric oxide was evaluated using RAW264 murine macrophage cells. Ligand analogues of edta that have a pyridine donor as part of the N , N chelate such as 20 and 24 exhibit similar scavenging activity to the parent compound. Ligand analogues of dtpa that have R groups at the central amine in place of the carboxylic acid such as 31 , 34 , and 37 are also efficient NO scavengers. (© Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 69451 Weinheim, Germany, 2005)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".