The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
DNA Binding and Photocleavage in Vitro by New Dirhodium(II) dppz Complexes: Correlation to Cytotoxicity and Photocytotoxicity
Abstract
Two new dirhodium(II) complexes possessing the intercalating dppz ligand (dppz = dipyrido[3,2-a:2',3'-c]phenazine), cis-[Rh(2)(mu-O(2)CCH(3))(2)(dppz)(eta(1)-O(2)CCH(3))(CH(3)OH)](+) (1) and cis-[Rh(2)(mu-O(2)CCH(3))(2)(dppz)(2)](2+) (2), were synthesized and characterized as potential agents for photochemotherapy. Various techniques show that 1 binds to DNA through intercalation, although some aggregation of the complex on the DNA surface is also present. In contrast, 2 does not intercalate between the DNA bases; however, strong hypochromic behavior is observed in the presence of DNA, which can be attributed to intermolecular pi-stacking of 2 enhanced by the polyanion. The apparent DNA binding constants determined using optical titrations are compared to those from dialysis experiments. Both complexes photocleave pUC18 plasmid in vitro under irradiation with visible light (lambda(irr) >or= 395 nm, 15 min), resulting in the nicked, circular form. Greater photocleavage is observed for 1 relative to 2, which may be due to the ability of 1 to intercalate between the DNA bases. The cytotoxicity toward human skin cells (Hs-27) measured as the concentration at which 50% cell death is recorded, LC(50), was found to be 135 +/- 8 microM for 2 in the dark (30 min), which is significantly lower than those of 1 (LC(50) = 27 +/- 2 microM) and Rh(2)(O(2)CCH(3))(4) (LC(50) = 15 +/- 2 microM). Irradiation of cell cultures containing 1 and Rh(2)(O(2)CCH(3))(4) with visible light (400-700 nm, 30 min) has little effect on their cytotoxicity, with LC(50) values of 21 +/- 3 and 13 +/- 2 microM, respectively. Interestingly, a 3.4-fold increase in the toxicity of 2 is observed when the cell cultures are irradiated (400-700 nm, 30 min), resulting in LC(50) = 39 +/- 1 microM. The greater toxicity of 1 compared to 2 in the dark may be related to the ability of the former compound to intercalate between the DNA bases. The lower cytotoxicity of 2, together with its significantly greater photocytotoxicity, makes this complex a potential agent for photodynamic therapy (PDT). These results suggest that intercalation or strong DNA binding may not be a desirable property of a potential PDT agent.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hypoxia — a key regulatory factor in tumour growth
Harris, A. L. (2002) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc704 · Cited by 5,177
Cisplatin: mode of cytotoxic action and molecular basis of resistance
Siddik, Z. H. (2003) · Oncogene · doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1206933 · Cited by 3,335
Metadata
- Authors
- Angeles-Boza, A. M., Bradley, P. M., Fu, P. K.-L., Wicke, S. E., Bacsa, J., Dunbar, K. R., & Turro, C.
- Venue
- Inorganic Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2004-11-18
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 26
- Pages
- 8510-8519
- ISSN
- 0020-1669 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-510X
- OpenAlex
- W2053987411
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: DNA Binding and Photocleavage in Vitro by New Dirhodium(II) dppz Complexes: Correlation to Cytotoxicity and Photocytotoxicity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ic049091h
- The paper
- Angeles-Boza, A. M., Bradley, P. M., Fu, P. K.-L., Wicke, S. E., Bacsa, J., Dunbar, K. R., & Turro, C. (2004). DNA Binding and Photocleavage in Vitro by New Dirhodium(II) dppz Complexes: Correlation to Cytotoxicity and Photocytotoxicity. Inorganic Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/ic049091h
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.