Cationic Ru<sup>II</sup> Cyclopentadienyl Complexes with Antifungal Activity against Several <i>Candida</i> Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fungal infections, including those caused by antifungal‐resistant Candida, are a very challenging health problem worldwide. Whereas different ruthenium complexes were previously studied for their anti‐Candida potential, Ru‐cyclopentadienyl complexes were overlooked. Here, we report an antifungal activity assessment of three Ru‐cyclopentadienyl complexes with some insights into their potential mode of action. Among these complexes, only the cationic species [Ru‐ACN]+ and [Ru‐ATZ]+ displayed a significant antifungal activity against different Candida strains, notably against the ones that did not respond to one of the most currently used antifungal drugs fluconazole (FCZ). However, no apparent activity was observed for the neutral species, Ru−Cl, thus indicating the important role of the cationic backbone of these complexes in their biological activity. We suggest that reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation might be involved in the mechanism of action of these complexes as, unlike neutral Ru−Cl, [Ru‐ACN]+ and [Ru‐ATZ]+ could generate intracellular concentration‐dependent ROS. We also observed a correlation between the ruthenium cellular uptake, ROS generation and fungal growth inhibitory activity of the compounds. Furthermore, docking simulations showed that the CYP51 enzyme can form more energetically favorable complexes with [Ru‐ATZ]+ than fluconazole (FCZ); this suggests that CYP51 inhibition could also be considered as a potential mode of action.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".