Synthesis, Characterization, DNA-Binding, and DNA-Photocleavage Properties of RuII Complexes
Lifeng Tan A B C , Xuejiao Chen A and Jianliang Sheng AA College of Chemistry, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan 411105, China.
B Key Lab of Environment-friendly Chemistry and Application in Ministry of Education, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan 411105, China.
C Corresponding author. Email: lfwyxh@yahoo.com.cn
Australian Journal of Chemistry 62(12) 1646-1654 https://doi.org/10.1071/CH09075
Submitted: 7 February 2009 Accepted: 28 April 2009 Published: 10 December 2009
Abstract
A new polypyridyl ligand 2-benzo[b]thiophen-3-yl-1H-1,3,7,8-tetraazacyclopenta[l]phenanthrene (BTCP) and its RuII complexes [Ru(bpy)2(BTCP)]2+ (1) (bpy = 2,2′-bipyridine), [Ru(phen)2(BTCP)]2+ (2) (phen = 1,10-phenanthroline), and [Ru(dmb)2(BTCP)]2+ (3) (dmb = 4,4′-dimethyl-2,2′-bipyridine), have been synthesized and characterized. The DNA-binding properties of the three complexes were investigated by spectroscopic methods and viscosity measurements. The results indicate that complexes 1, 2, and 3 bind to DNA by an intercalative mode and the ancillary ligands have a significant effect on the binding strengths of RuII complexes to DNA. When irradiated at 365 nm, complex 2 was found to be a more effective DNA-cleaving agent than complexes 1 and 3.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Provincial Natural Science Fund of Hunan (09JJ6019), the Scientific Research Foundation of Hunan Provincial Education Department (08B086), and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (20080440986) for their support of this research.
[1]
L. N. Ji,
X. H. Zou,
J. G. Liu,
Coord. Chem. Rev. 2001, 216–217, 513.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
