Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 297

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ligand substitutions between ruthenium–cymene compounds can control protein versus DNA targeting and anticancer activity

Open access
Adhireksan, Zenita, Davey, Gabriela E., Campomanes, Pablo, Groessl, Michael, Clavel, Catherine M., Yu, Haojie, Nazarov, Alexey A., Yeo, Charmian Hui Fang, Ang, Wee Han, Dröge, Peter, Rothlisberger, Ursula, Dyson, Paul J., Davey, Curt A.·2014·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/ncomms4462
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Ruthenium compounds have become promising alternatives to platinum drugs by displaying specific activities against different cancers and favourable toxicity and clearance properties. Nonetheless, their molecular targeting and mechanism of action are poorly understood. Here we study two prototypical ruthenium-arene agents—the cytotoxic antiprimary tumour compound [(η6-p-cymene)Ru(ethylene-diamine)Cl]PF6 and the relatively non-cytotoxic antimetastasis compound [(η6-p-cymene)Ru(1,3,5-triaza-7-phosphaadamantane)Cl2]—and discover that the former targets the DNA of chromatin, while the latter preferentially forms adducts on the histone proteins. Using a novel ‘atom-to-cell’ approach, we establish the basis for the surprisingly site-selective adduct formation behaviour and distinct cellular impact of these two chemically similar anticancer agents, which suggests that the cytotoxic effects arise largely from DNA lesions, whereas the protein adducts may be linked to the other therapeutic activities. Our study shows promise for developing new ruthenium drugs, via ligand-based modulation of DNA versus protein binding and thus cytotoxic potential, to target distinguishing epigenetic features of cancer cells. Ruthenium-cymene-based compounds are investigated as potential anticancer drugs. Here, Adhireksan et al.study two ruthenium-containing compounds with varying cytotoxicity and show that differences in ligand structure may explain their activity and binding to different subcellular targets.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ncomms4462

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 297

Metadata

Authors
Adhireksan, Z., Davey, G. E., Campomanes, P., Groessl, M., Clavel, C. M., Yu, H., Nazarov, A. A., Yeo, C. H. F., Ang, W. H., Dröge, P., Rothlisberger, U., Dyson, P. J., & Davey, C. A.
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-03-18
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
3462-3462
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/ncomms4462
OpenAlex
W2040727845
Cited by
297
References
57
FWCI
16.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

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.