Antibacterial, in vitro antitumor activity and structural studies of rhodium and iridium complexes featuring the two positional isomers of pyridine carbaldehyde picolinic hydrazone ligand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Half-sandwich organometallic rhodium and iridium complexes [1–6] have been synthesized with ligands L1 (L1 = Pyridin-2-ylmethylene picolinichydrazine) and L2 (L2 = Pyridin-3-ylmethylene picolinichydrazine). Treatment of [{Cp∗MCl2}2] (M = Rh/Ir) with L1 in methanol has yielded mononuclear cationic complexes such as [{Cp∗M(L1N∩N)Cl}]PF6 where {M = Rh (1) and Ir (2)} and dinuclear complexes such as [{(Cp∗MCl)2(L1N∩N, N∩N)}]PF6 where {M = Rh (3) and Ir (4)} in 1:2 and 1:1 metal dimer to ligand ratios respectively. Reactions of [{Cp∗MCl2}2] with L2 in both 1:2 and 1:1 metal dimer to ligand ratios have yielded two metalla-macrocyclic dinuclear and dicationic complexes such as [{Cp∗M(L2N∩NμN)}2](PF6)2 where {M = Rh (5) and Ir (6)}. Spectroscopic and crystallographic data were used to elucidate the structures of the synthesized complexes. The in vitro antitumor evaluation of the complexes 1 and 2 by fluorescence based apoptosis study revealed their antitumor activity against Dalton’s ascites lymphoma (DL) cells. The antibacterial evaluation of complexes 1, 2, 5 and 6 by agar well-diffusion method revealed their significant activity against the two species considered viz., Proteus vulgaris (MTCC 426) and Vibrio parahaemolyticus (MTCC 451) with zone of inhibition up to 43 mm. The docking study with few key enzymes associated with cancer viz., ribonucleotide reductase, thymidylate synthase, thymidylate phosphorylase and topoisomerase II revealed their strong interactions with complexes under study. Complexes 1–6 exhibited a HOMO (highest occupied molecular orbital) – LUMO (lowest unoccupied molecular orbital) energy gap from 2.95 eV to 3.59 eV. TDDFT calculations explain the nature of electronic transitions and found well agreement with the experiments.
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".