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; dpacF2 = 7,8‐difluorodipyrido[3,2‐a:2′,3′‐c]acridine; dpacF4 = 6,7,8,9‐tetrafluorodipyrido[3,2‐a:2′,3′‐c]acridine) and their respective RuII complexes were synthesized and extensively studied. The photophysical and theoretical studies revealed that Ru‐DPAC and Ru‐DPACF2 allow emission from a 3MLCTphen/dpac excited state at 597 and 604 nm, respectively, whereas the lowest excited state for Ru‐DPACF4 shifts from a bright 3MLCTphen/dpac state towards a poorly luminescent 3MLCTdpac state (λem = 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 RuII 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 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".