New heteroleptic palladium(II) dithiocarbamates: synthesis, characterization, packing and anticancer activity against five different cancer cell lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two new heteroleptic palladium(II) complexes have been synthesized by reacting equimolar quantities of palladium(II) chloride, sodium 4‐(2‐methoxyphenyl)piperazine‐1‐carbodithioate and diphenyl‐ p ‐tolylphosphine ( 1 ) or tri‐ p ‐tolylphosphine ( 2 ). Complexes 1 and 2 have been characterized using elemental analysis, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, multinuclear NMR ( 1 H, 13 C and 31 P) spectroscopy and single‐crystal X‐ray analysis. The latter technique confirms a pseudo square‐planar geometry in which two adjacent positions are occupied by bidentate dithiocarbamate while chloro and substituted triphenylphosphine are present at the remaining two positions. The anticancer activity of both complexes against five different cancer cell lines (LU – human lung carcinoma, established at UIC, Department of Surgical Oncology; MCF7 – human breast adenocarcinoma, ATCC number HTB‐22™; MDA‐MB‐231 – human breast adenocarcinoma, ATCC number HTB‐26™; Hepa‐1c1c7 – mouse liver hepatoma, ATCC number CRL‐2026™; PC‐3 – human prostate adenocarcinoma, ATCC number CRL‐1435™) was determined by MTT assay, revealing 2 has higher activity than 1 . A drug–calf thymus DNA binding study with UV–visible spectroscopy reveals a higher DNA binding affinity of 2 (3.511 × 10 4 M −1 ) than 1 (4.213 × 10 3 M −1 ). Density functional theory studies confirm the relatively more stable nature of 2 than 1 . Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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".