Design and Photophysical Studies of Acridine‐Based Ru<sup>II</sup> Complexes for Applications as DNA Photoprobes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of new extended planar aromatic ligands based on an acridine core (dpac = dipyrido[3,2‐ a :2′,3′‐ c ]acridine; dpacF 2 = 7,8‐difluorodipyrido[3,2‐ a :2′,3′‐ c ]acridine; dpacF 4 = 6,7,8,9‐tetrafluorodipyrido[3,2‐ a :2′,3′‐ c ]acridine) and their respective Ru II complexes were synthesized and extensively studied. The photophysical and theoretical studies revealed that Ru‐DPAC and Ru‐DPACF 2 allow emission from a 3 MLCT phen/dpac excited state at 597 and 604 nm, respectively, whereas the lowest excited state for Ru‐DPACF 4 shifts from a bright 3 MLCT phen/dpac state towards a poorly luminescent 3 MLCT dpac state ( λ em = 609 nm) owing to the formation of hydrogen bonds with water molecules in the excited state. These complexes exhibit up to sevenfold luminescence enhancement in the presence of complementary and mismatched DNA, demonstrating a strong binding to polynucleotides. The results emphasize the interest in Ru II complexes bearing acridine derivatives as DNA interacting agents as a complement to the well‐known phenazine‐based derivatives.
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) | 0.001 | 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".