Novel Copper(II) Coordination Compounds Containing Pyridine Derivatives of N4-Methoxyphenyl-Thiosemicarbazones with Selective Anticancer Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ten coordination compounds, [Cu(L1)Cl] (C1), [Cu(L1)NO3] (C2), [Cu(L2)Cl] (C3), [Cu(L2)NO3] (C4), [Cu(L3)Cl] (C5), [Cu(L3)NO3] (C6), [Cu(L4)NO3] (C7), [Cu(L4)Cl] (C8), [Cu(L5)Cl] (C9), and [Cu(L5)NO3] (C10), containing pyridine derivatives of N4-methoxyphenyl-thiosemicarbazones were synthesized and characterized. The molecular structure of four compounds was investigated using single crystal X-ray diffraction. Spectral analysis techniques such as FT-IR, 1H NMR, 13C NMR, elemental analysis, and molar conductivity were used for all the synthesized compounds. The tested synthesized compounds were evaluated for their anticancer activity and selectivity against a variety of cancer cell lines, including HL-60, LNCaP, MCF-7, HepG-2, K-562, HeLa, BxPC-3, RD, and MDCK normal cell line. Most compounds demonstrated selective anticancer activity superior to doxorubicin. Notably, all ligands showed high antiproliferative activity against HL-60 cells, with IC50 values between 0.01 and 0.06 µM and a selectivity index as high as 5000. Coordination of copper(II) with ligands HL1 and HL3 notably enhanced antiproliferative activity, lowering the IC50 to 0.03 µM. Additionally, the antioxidant activity of these compounds was assessed, revealing that all tested ligands and most coordination compounds exhibited greater antioxidant activity compared to Trolox, with some ligands showing activity up to 12.3 times higher. Toxicity studies on Daphnia magna indicated low toxicity for the ligands, generally less than doxorubicin, with LC50 values ranging from 13 to 90 µM, suggesting moderate toxicity. Conversely, the coordination complexes were more toxic, with LC50 values between 0.5 and 13 µM.
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) | 0.001 | 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".