Abstract A003: In vitro anticancer activities of some organoplatinum (IV) derivatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent investigations into organoplatinum (IV) complexes as potential anticancer agents have shown considerable promise. Unlike cisplatin, these compounds are more stable in physiological environments and generally exhibit fewer side effects. Additionally, chelating aromatic ancillary ligands have been found to enhance the intercalation of metal-based agents into tumor DNA. This study aimed to synthesize novel organoplatinum (IV) complexes with chelating aromatic ligands and evaluate their anticancer efficacy through in vitro assays. Five complexes were synthesized: [Pt(CH3)2X2{2,2’-bipyridine-4,4’-R2}] (X = Br, I; R = H, CO2H) and [{Pt(CH3)3}2(μ-I)2(μ-adenine)]. These were characterized by single crystal X-ray diffraction and assessed for anticancer activity. The MTT assays indicated that the [Pt(CH3)2X2{2,2’-bipyridine}] complexes were more cytotoxic to the ZR-75-1 human breast cancer cell line than cisplatin, with LC50 values of 6.1 µM for X = I, 11.5 µM for X = Br, compared to 16.4 µM for cisplatin. Furthermore, the sulforhodamine B assays conducted by the National Cancer Institute's Developmental Therapeutics Program revealed that [Pt(CH3)3}2(μ-I)2(μ-adenine)] was highly effective against various cancer cell lines. Notably, it showed an LC50 value of 5.20 µM against the glioblastoma multiforme SF-539 cell line, whereas cisplatin and temozolomide had LC50 values exceeding 100 µM. Similarly, [Pt(CH3)3}2(μ-I)2(μ-adenine)] had an LC50 value of 5.99 µM against the renal carcinoma RXF-393 cell line, with cisplatin and cabozantinib showing LC50 values above 100 µM. While these results highlight the superior cytotoxicity of the tested organoplatinum (IV) complexes, further research and development are required before these compounds can be considered for commercial use as chemotherapy drugs. Citation Format: William A. Howard. In vitro anticancer activities of some organoplatinum (IV) derivatives [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Optimizing Therapeutic Efficacy and Tolerability through Cancer Chemistry; 2024 Dec 9-11; Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2024;23(12_Suppl):Abstract nr A003
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) | 0.002 | 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".