PREPARATION, DNA-BINDING, AND IN-VITRO CYTOTOXICITY OF A PAIR OF ENANTIOMERIC PLATINUM(II) COMPLEXES, [(R)-3-AMINOHEXAHYDROAZEPINE]DICHLORO-PLATINUM(II) AND (S)-3-AMINOHEXAHYDROAZEPINE]DICHLORO-PLATINUM(II) - CRYSTAL-STRUCTURE OF THE S-ENANTIOMER
Rr. Fenton et al., PREPARATION, DNA-BINDING, AND IN-VITRO CYTOTOXICITY OF A PAIR OF ENANTIOMERIC PLATINUM(II) COMPLEXES, [(R)-3-AMINOHEXAHYDROAZEPINE]DICHLORO-PLATINUM(II) AND (S)-3-AMINOHEXAHYDROAZEPINE]DICHLORO-PLATINUM(II) - CRYSTAL-STRUCTURE OF THE S-ENANTIOMER, Journal of medicinal chemistry, 40(7), 1997, pp. 1090-1098
A pair of enantiomeric Pt(II) complexes, [Pt(R-ahaz)Cl-2] and [Pt(S-ah
az)Cl-2] (ahaz = 3-aminohexahydroazepine), has been investigated for t
heir ability to bind enantioselectively to DNA. Improved synthetic pro
cedures were developed for preparing both the ligands and the Pt compl
exes. The structure of the complex of the S enantiomer was determined
by X-ray crystallographic methods. Crystals of [Pt(S-ahaz)Cl-2] are or
thorhombic, space group P2(1)2(1)2(1), with a = 6.917(1) Angstrom, b =
11.167(1) Angstrom, c = 12.373(2) Angstrom, Z = 4, and the structure
was refined to R = 0.023 (1505F). Molecular modeling techniques were u
sed to investigate the role of steric interactions between the ligand
and DNA in influencing the bifunctional binding of the two enantiomers
, and it was found that the S enantiomer should bind more readily. The
binding of the S enantiomer, to calf thymus DNA, was indeed found to
be slightly greater than that for the R enantiomer though slightly les
s than that for cis-DDP. Assays of the proportion of monofunctional ad
ducts showed that a substantially greater proportion of monofunctional
adducts remained for the R enantiomer and cisplatin than for the S en
antiomer. Each of the enantiomers was subjected to in vitro cytotoxici
ty assays using cultures of human bladder (BL13/0), lung and resistant
lung (PC9 and PC9cisR), and prostate (DU145) cancer cells. The R enan
tiomer was found to be slightly more cytotoxic in,the bladder cell lin
e and may be less cytotoxic in the lung cell line but there were no si
gnificant differences in the resistant cell line nor in the prostate c
ell line. The two enantiomers were taken up equally by the bladder can
cer cells.