Ligand-Based Radical Reactivity of Metal Thiosemicarbazones Prompts the Identification of Platinum(II)-Based Cytoprotectants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
, prompting its evaluation to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and other neurodegenerative conditions in the clinic. We recently demonstrated that CuATSM functions as a potent radical-trapping antioxidant (RTA), inhibiting lipid peroxidation and associated ferroptotic cell death by a noncanonical mechanism based on radical addition to the ligand backbone. Herein we report our investigations of the generality of this reactivity, which include studies of corresponding complexes of various other metals, including Co, Ru, Ni, Pd, Pt, and Au. Inhibited autoxidations of styrene and dioxane reveal that most of these complexes exhibit RTA activity, consistent with ligand-based reactivity, but the identity of the metal atom nevertheless plays a role. In particular, analyses of the electronic structures of the complexes of metals within the same group (i.e., the group 10 metals Ni, Pd and Pt) highlight how the metal atom can modulate the ligand-based reactivity by enabling spin delocalization to the other thiosemicarbazone moiety. The RTA activity determined in organic solution largely translates to phospholipid bilayers and mammalian cells, where most complexes inhibited lipid peroxidation and associated ferroptotic cell death. A preliminary structure-activity study revealed Pt complexes with potencies eclipsing those of archetype ferroptosis inhibitors ferrostatin-1 and liproxstatin-1, suggesting that Pt (and to a lesser extent Ni) bis(thiosemicarbazone)s may be better suited to optimization for therapeutic development than those based on Cu.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | high |
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".