Synthesis and crystallographic investigation of dicobalt tetrahedrane complexes ligated by 2-butyne-1,4-diol. In silico evaluation of their efficiency as anticancer metallodrugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Synthesis and spectroscopic characterization of a series of 2-butyn-1,4-diol and acetylenic dithioether-based dicobalt tetrahedranes. • Intra- and intermolecular interactions studies based on single-crystal X-ray diffraction including Hirshfeld analyses. • Evaluation of the anticancer efficacy of the Co 2 tetrahedrane series against prostate, breast and liver cancers through in silico docking simulations with five protein residues. • The most potent candidates as homobimetallic metallodrugs are the diphosphine- and P(OAr) 3 -substituted derivatives. A series of dicobalt carbonyl dimetallatetrahedranes of type [Co 2 (CO) 4 L 2 (µ-HOCH 2 C CCH 2 OH)] (L = CO, P(OR) 3 ; L 2 = Ph 2 PN(H)PPh 2 , Ph 2 PN(Me)PPh 2 , Ph 2 PCH 2 PPh 2 ), ligated by 1,4-butynediol (BUD) was synthesized and structurally characterized at 100 K by single-crystal X-ray diffraction to analyze in addition to the molecular architectures their propensity to generate intra- and intermolecular secondary interactions. For several selected examples, also Hirshfeld surface analyses have been performed. To evaluate the replacement of OH vs. SR, this series of BUD-based dimetallatetrahedranes ( 1 - 3 ) was completed by the preparation of the structurally related complexes [Co 2 (CO) 4 L 2 (µ-RSCH 2 C CCH 2 SR)] ( 4 - 5 ). The crystallographically characterized complex [Co 2 (CO) 4 {P(OPh) 3 } 2 (µ- t- BuSCH 2 C CCH 2 SBu- t )] ( 4 ) was obtained in a Nicholas-type reaction between [Co 2 (CO) 4 {P(OPh) 3 } 2 (µ-HOCH 2 C CCH 2 OH)] ( 2a ) and t -BuSH. Alternatatively, the latter series 4-5 was obtained in much improved yield by direct treatment of [Co 2 (CO) 6 L 2 ] with the thioether-functionalized alkynes RSCH 2 C CCH 2 SR (R = t -Bu, Ph, Bz). The experimental crystallographic data were compared with those obtained by DFT computing. The anticancer capacity of this series of compounds was evaluated against prostate, breast and liver cancers through in silico docking simulations. Some compounds displayed docking scores against prostate, breast, and liver cancer proteins in the range between -4.91 – -11.01 kcal/mol, indicating a potential as bimetallic metallodrugs in cancer therapy, deserving more detailed in vitro investigations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".