Synthesis, Characterization, DNA Binding, and Photocleavage of [Ru(bpy)2(MFIP)]2+ and [Ru(phen)2(MFIP)]2+
Lifeng Tan A B D , Sheng Zhang A , Xiaohua Liu C and Yue Xiao 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 College of Chemical Engineering, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan 411105, China.
D Corresponding author. Email: lfwyxh@yahoo.com.cn
Australian Journal of Chemistry 61(9) 725-731 https://doi.org/10.1071/CH08119
Submitted: 23 March 2008 Accepted: 18 July 2008 Published: 5 September 2008
Abstract
The new ligand 2-(5-methyl-furan-2-yl)imidazo[4,5-f][1, 10]phenanthroline (MFIP) and its complexes [Ru(bpy)2(MFIP)]2+ 1 (bpy = 2,2′-bipyridine) and [Ru(phen)2(MFIP)]2+ 2 (phen = 1,10-phenanthroline) were synthesized and characterized by elemental analysis, mass spectrometry, and 1H NMR spectroscopy. The DNA binding properties of the two complexes were investigated by different spectrophotometric methods and viscosity measurements. The results suggest that both complexes bind to calf thymus DNA (CT-DNA) through intercalation, and both complexes can enantioselectively interact with CT-DNA. The Λ enantiomers of both complexes are slightly predominant for binding to CT-DNA over the Δ enantiomer. When irradiated at 400 nm, the two complexes promote the photocleavage of pBR322 DNA, and complex 2 cleaves DNA more effectively than complex 1 under comparable experimental conditions. Furthermore, mechanism studies reveal that singlet oxygen (1O2) plays a significant role in the photocleavage.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Provincial Natural Science Fund of Hunan (06JJ50023), the Scientific Research Fund of Hunan Provincial Education Department (08B086), and the Doctoral Foundation of Xiangtan University (05QDZ11) for their support of the present research.
[1]
[2]
A. M. Pyle,
J. P. Rehmann,
R. Meshoyrer,
C. V. Kumar,
N. J. Turro,
J. K. Barton,
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1989, 111, 3051.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
|
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
|
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
|
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |