Electrophilic Activation of Oxidized Sulfur Ligands and Implications for the Biological Activity of Ruthenium(II) Arene Anticancer Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surprisingly, the anticancer activity of half-sandwich Ru arene complexes [(η(6)-arene)Ru(en)Cl](+) appears to be promoted and not inhibited by binding to the intracellular thiol glutathione. Labilization of the Ru-S bond allowing DNA binding appeared to be initiated by oxygenation of the thiolate ligand, although oxidation by itself did not seem to weaken the Ru-S bond. In this study, we have investigated the solvation and acidic perturbations of mono (sulfenato) and bis (sulfinato) oxidized species of [(η(6)-arene)Ru(en) (SR)](+) complex in the presence of Brønsted and Lewis acids. Sulfur K-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy together with density functional theory calculations show that solvation and acidic perturbation of sulfenato species produce a significant decrease in the S3p character of the Ru-S bond (Ru4dσ* ← S1s charge donation). Also there is a drastic fall in the overall ligand charge donation to the metal center in both sulfenato and sulfinato species. Our investigation clearly shows that mono oxidized sulfenato species are most susceptible to ligand exchange, hence providing a possible pathway for in vivo activation and biological activity.
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) | 0.001 | 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".