Synthesis and Characterization of Ru(II) Complexes with π‐Expansive Imidazophen Ligands for the Photokilling of Human Melanoma Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ru(II) complexes were synthesized with π‐expanding (phenyl, fluorenyl, phenanthrenyl, naphthalen‐1‐yl, naphthalene‐2‐yl, anthryl and pyrenyl groups) attached at a 1H‐imidazo[4,5‐f][1,10]phenanthroline ligand and 4,4′‐dimethyl‐2,2′‐bipyridine (4,4′‐dmb) coligands. These Ru(II) complexes were characterized by 1D and 2D NMR, and mass spectroscopy, and studied for visible light and dark toxicity to human malignant melanoma SK‐MEL‐28 cells. In the SK‐MEL‐28 cells, the Ru(II) complexes are highly phototoxic (EC50 = 0.2–0.5 µm) and have low dark toxicity (EC50 = 58–230 µm). The highest phototherapeutic index (PI) of the series was found with the Ru(II) complex bearing the 2‐(pyren‐1‐yl)‐1H‐imidazo[4,5‐f][1,10]phenanthroline ligand. This high PI is in part attributed to the π‐rich character added by the pyrenyl group, and a possible low‐lying and longer‐lived 3IL state due to equilibration with the 3MLCT state. While this pyrenyl Ru(II) complex possessed a relatively high quantum yield for singlet oxygen formation (Φ∆ = 0.84), contributions from type‐I processes (oxygen radicals and radical ions) are competitive with the type‐II (1O2) process based on effects of added sodium azide and solvent deuteration.
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".