Heteropentanuclear Oxalato-Bridged nd-4f (n=4, 5) Metal Complexes with NO Ligand: Synthesis, Crystal Structures, Aqueous Stability and Antiproliferative Activity

A series of heteropentanuclear oxalate-bridged Ru(NO)-Ln (4d-4f) metal complexes of the general formula (nBu(4)N)(5)[Ln{RuCl3(-ox)(NO)}(4)], where Ln=Y (2), Gd (3), Tb (4), Dy (5) and ox=oxalate anion, were obtained by treatment of (nBu(4)N)(2)[RuCl3(ox)(NO)] (1) with the respective lanthanide salt in 4:1 molar ratio. The compounds were characterized by elemental analysis, IR spectroscopy, electrospray ionization (ESI) mass spectrometry, while 1, 2, and 5 were in addition analyzed by X-ray crystallography, 1 by Ru K-edge XAS and 1 and 2 by (CNMR)-C-13 spectroscopy. X-ray diffraction showed that in 2 and 5 four complex anions [RuCl3(ox)(NO)](2-) are coordinated to Y-III and Dy-III, respectively, with formation of [Ln{RuCl3(-ox)(NO)}(4)](5-) (Ln=Y, Dy). While Y-III is eight-coordinate in 2, Dy-III is nine-coordinate in 5, with an additional coordination of an EtOH molecule. The negative charge is counterbalanced by five nBu(4)N(+) ions present in the crystal structure. The stability of complexes 2 and 5 in aqueous medium was monitored by UV/Vis spectroscopy. The antiproliferative activity of ruthenium-lanthanide complexes 2-5 were assayed in two human cancer cell lines (HeLa and A549) and in a noncancerous cell line (MRC-5) and compared with those obtained for the previously reported Os(NO)-Ln (5d-4f) analogues (nBu(4)N)(5)[Ln{OsCl3(ox)(NO)}(4)] (Ln=Y (6), Gd (7), Tb (8), Dy (9)). Complexes 2-5 were found to be slightly more active than 1 in inhibiting the proliferation of HeLa and A549 cells, and significantly more cytotoxic than 5d-4f metal complexes 6-9 in terms of IC50 values. The highest antiproliferative activity with IC50 values of 20.0 and 22.4M was found for 4 in HeLa and A549 cell lines, respectively. These cytotoxicity results are in accord with the presented ICP-MS data, indicating five- to eightfold greater accumulation of ruthenium versus osmium in human A549 cancer cells

IRBs and Best Practices for Ethical Data Sharing

Materials associated with 2017-07-30 sessio

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field