English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In metal-based photoactivated chemotherapy (PACT), two photoproducts are generated by light-triggered photosubstitution of a metal-bound ligand: the free ligand itself and an aquated metal complex. By analogy with cisplatin, the aquated metal complex is usually presented as the biologically active species, as it can typically bind to DNA. In this work, we show that this qualitative assumption is not necessarily valid by comparing the biological activity, log P, and cellular uptake of three ruthenium-based PACT complexes: [Ru(bpy) 2 (dmbpy)] 2+ , [Ru(bpy) 2 (mtmp)] 2+ , and [Ru(Ph 2 phen) 2 (mtmp)] 2+ . For the first complex, the photoreleased dmbpy ligand is responsible for the observed phototoxicity, whereas the second complex is not phototoxic, and for the third complex it is the ruthenium bis-aqua photoproduct that is the sole cytotoxic species.

To cage or to be caged? The cytotoxic species in ruthenium-based photoactivated chemotherapy is not always the metal