Synthesis, Physicochemical Characterization, Biological Evaluation, In Silico and Molecular Docking Studies of Pd(II) Complexes with P, S-Donor Ligands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One homoleptic (1) and three heteroleptic (2–4) palladium(II) complexes were synthesized and characterized by various physicochemical techniques, i.e., elemental analysis, FTIR, Raman spectroscopy, 1H, 13C, and 31P NMR. Compound 1 was also confirmed by single crystal XRD, showing a slightly distorted square planar geometry. The antibacterial results obtained via the agar-well diffusion method for compound 1 were maximum among the screen compounds. All the compounds have shown good to significant antibacterial results against the tested bacterial strains, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia, and Staphylococcus aureus, except 2 against Klebsiella pneumonia. Similarly, the molecular docking study of compound 3 has shown the best affinity with binding energy scores of −8.6569, −6.5716, and −7.6966 kcal/mol against Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia, and Staphylococcus aureus, respectively. Compound 2 has exhibited the highest activity (3.67 µM), followed by compound 3 (4.57 µM), 1 (6.94 µM), and 4 (21.7 µM) against the DU145 human prostate cancer cell line using the sulforhodamine B (SRB) method as compared to cisplatin (>200 µM). The highest docking score was obtained for compounds 2 (−7.5148 kcal/mol) and 3 (−7.0343 kcal/mol). Compound 2 shows that the Cl atom of the compound acts as a chain side acceptor for the DR5 receptor residue Asp B218 and the pyridine ring is involved in interaction with the Tyr A50 residue via arene-H, while Compound 3 interacts with the Asp B218 residue via the Cl atom. The physicochemical parameters determined by the SwissADME webserver revealed that no blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeation is predicted for all four compounds, while gastrointestinal absorption is low for compound 1 and high for the rest of the compounds (2–4). As concluding remarks based on the obtained in vitro biological results, the evaluated compounds after in vivo studies might be a good choice for future antibiotics and anticancer agents.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".