SARs Investigation of α-, β-, γ-, δ-, ε-RuCl2(Azpy)2 Complexes as Antitumor Drugs

Structure Activity-Relationships (SARs) of the five possible isomers of RuCl2(Azpy)2 were predicted thanks to DFT method. Azpy stands for 2-phenylazopyridine and the structure of the isomers α-RuCl2(Azpy)2, β-RuCl2(Azpy)2, γ-RuCl2(Azpy)2, δ-RuCl2(Azpy)2 and ε-RuCl2(Azpy)2 call respectively α-Cl, β-Cl, γ-Cl, δ-Cl and ε-Cl are defined according to chlorine atoms orientations. Hence, they are divided into two groups. In the first group comprising α-Cl, β-Cl and ε-Cl, both chlorine atoms are in cis position and Azpy ligands are intervertical. Whereas the two others isomers (γ-Cl and δ-Cl), they form the second group. Here, both chlorine are in trans position and Azpy are planar. The five synthesized isomers were investigated as potential antitumor agents. Then, regarding the DNA, its bases are stacked by pair. Therefore, complexes are assumed to insert and to stack on them through intercalative mode. So the electronic and geometric structures become more important to describe their SARs. Consequently, group 2 regarding γ-Cl and δ-Cl presents the best structure to allow intercalation between DNA base-pairs. Besides, the energy order of the lower unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of the isomers is ELUMO(β-Cl) > ELUMO(α-Cl) > ELUMO(ε-Cl) > ELUMO(γ-Cl) > ELUMO(δ-Cl). The energy gap between LUMO and HOMO was also sorted as Δ(L-H)(β-Cl) > Δ(L-H)(α-Cl) > Δ(L-H)(ε-Cl) > Δ(L-H)(γ-Cl) > Δ(L-H)(δ-Cl). In addition, the total dipole moment was classified as μ(ε-Cl) > μ(β-Cl) > μ(α-Cl) > μ(γ-Cl) > μ(δ-Cl). Finally, net charge of the ligand Azpy was also classified as QL(δ-Cl) > QL(γ-Cl) > QL(ε-Cl) > QL(α-Cl) > QL(β-Cl). All those parameters show that δ-Cl isomer displays the highest activity as antitumor drug when intercalating between the DNA basepairs Cytosine-Guanine/Cytosine-Guanine (CG/CG).

Theoretical Investigation of Ru(II) Complexes as Photosensitizer for Photodynamic Therapy

This work was undertaken to see how Ru II complexes can be suitable for photodynamic therapy through theoretical prediction. For that, four Ru II complexes, α-RuCl2(Azpy)2, , and were used in unrestricted state by providing with no more energy than 2.68 eV. The unrestricted state allows the complex molecule to display each of its electrons in one orbital. All the calculations such as optimization, frequency and TD-DFT calculations were performed at WB97XD/Lanl2dz level. It resulted from this investigation that Ru II complexes are active for both mechanisms suitable for photodynamic therapy in presence or absence of 3O2. Moreover, this reaction was assumed to take place only with Guanine DNA base as demonstrated in literature. Therefore, Guanine is admitted as the base most reacting with ruthenium complexes for photodynamic therapy. This work confirms our prediction regarding metallic complexes that are assumed to be photosensitized in condition that an electron must be isolated to favor the excitation. Nevertheless, Ru II complexes are found suitable for superficial therapy while Ru III must be active for deep therapy.

NBO Population Analysis and Electronic Calculation of Four Azopyridine Ruthenium Complexes by DFT Method

The molecular structure, the Natural Bond orbital (NBO) and the Time Dependent-DFT of both isomers cis or γ-Cl and trans or δ-Cl of RuCl2(L)2, where L stands respectively for 2-phenylazopyridine (Azpy), 2,4-dimethyl-6-[phenylazo]pyridine (Dazpy), 2-[(3,5-dimethylphenyl)azopyridine] (Mazpy) and 2-pyridylazonaphtol (Nazpy) were calculated with DFT method at B3LYP/LANL2DZ level. The prediction of the frontier orbitals (Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital or HOMO and Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital or LUMO) shows that the most active complexes suitable for electronic reactions are admitted to be the trans isomers. Moreover, δ-RuCl2 (Azpy)2 is discovered to react more actively as photo-sensitizer since its energy gap is the minimum. Besides, electronic structures of all complexes through NBO calculation indicate that Ru-N bonds are made of delocalization of occupancies from lone pair orbital of N atoms to the ruthenium. Moreover, Ru was assumed to have almost the same charge regardless the structure of the azopyridine ligands in the complex indicating that the ligands provide only a steric effect that is responsible for the ruthenium’s selectivity. Concerning the transition state, NBO analysis also highlights that the transition LP(Ru) π*(N1-N2) does correspond to t2g?π*(L). This transition is assumed to correspond to Metal to Ligand Charge Transfer (MLCT) that is responsible for the photo-sensitiveness of the metallic complex. Besides, TDDFT calculation of complexes showed that δ-RuCl2(Nazpy)2 displays the largest band during the absorption. For that reason, it is admitted to be the best photosensitizer due to a large system of conjugation provided by Nazpy ligand.