Syntheses of ruthenium(II)-4,4′-biimidazole complexes and their potential anti-tumour activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthesis and characterization of the RuII complexes, [Ru(N−N)3][CF3SO3]2, where N−N is 4,4′-biimidazole (complex 1a) or 2,2′-dimethyl-4,4′-biimidazole (1b), and the dimethylsulfoxide complexes RuCl2(DMSO)2(N−N) are reported. The air-stable, water-soluble complexes were characterized by elemental analysis, 1H NMR and IR spectroscopies, mass spectrometry, and solution conductivity. Evidence is presented also for the existence of the diruthenium complexes Ru2Cl4(DMSO)4(N−N), but there are insufficient data for elucidation of their structure. The complexes (and cisplatin) were tested against human breast-cancer cells (MDA-MB-435S) using an in vitro MTT assay, a colorimetric determination of cell viability: 1a and 1b exhibit the lowest IC50 values of 18 ± 5 and 36 ± 5 µmol/L, respectively, with cisplatin exhibiting an IC50 value of 35 ± 5 µmol/L. Isolation of DNA from cells treated with a solution of the Ru species showed no evidence of DNA-binding to the metal, although examination of the cells indicated that Ru was being taken up into the cells.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".