22
C.G. Oliveira et al. / Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry 132 (2014) 21–29
inhibitory concentration (MIC, defined as the lowest concentration
resulting in 90% of growth inhibition of the bacteria) value similar
to that of free isoniazid as well as a good selectivity index. Its
mechanism of action is supposed to be independent of the KatG
enzyme since it is active against INH-resistant MTB [10]. Similar
to iron complexes, manganese species also take part in many
biological redox processes and can easily achieve different oxi-
dation states.
were carried out at room temperature in dichloromethane or dimethyl
sulfoxide containing 0.1 M tetrabutylammonium perchlorate (PTBA)
(Fluka Purum) as supporting electrolyte, using an electro-chemical
analyzer μAutolab III or a Bioanalytical Systems Inc. (BAS), model
100BW. The working and auxiliary electrodes were stationary Pt
and the reference electrode was Ag/AgCl, a medium in which
ferrocene is oxidized at 0.5 V (Fc/Fc+), carried out with a rate
sweep of 100 mV s−1
.
Thiosemicarbazones (TSCs) are of great interest both in chemistry and
biology, especially due to their antiparasital [11], antitumor [12–14] and
antibacterial activities [15]. Moreover, the biological properties of the
TSCs are often referred to their complex formation since it can increase
the biological activity by forming chelates with metal ions [12,16,17].
Previous studies showed that V(IV,V) complexes [18] and octahedral
Ni(II) complexes [19] derived from 2-acetylpyridine thiosemicarbazones
possess anti-MTB activity that can be increased by structural mod-
ifications on the thiosemicarbazone moiety.
Literature data dealing with manganese complexes with thiosemi-
carbazones [20,21] have evaluated the biological activity of these
compounds against cancer cells and some bacteria other than MTB.
Believing in the high potential of such compounds as anti-MTB
agents and also contributing to their full characterization, here
we describe the preparation of manganese complexes derived
from 2-acetylpyridine-thiosemicarbazones, their characterization
by diverse methods as well as the study of their anti-MTB activity
and cytotoxicity.
2.3. Preparations
The Mn(II) complexes were synthesized by adding 0.25 mmol
MnCl2·2H2O to solutions of 0.5 mmol of the desired ligands in
15 mL of MeOH containing 3 drops of Et3N. The resulting solutions
were stirred for 4 h under reflux. The brown solids precipitated
during this time were filtered off, washed with water and dried
under vacuum. By slow evaporation of the mother solution of
3, orange crystals suitable for X-ray diffraction analysis were
obtained.
[Mn(atc)2]·H2O (1·H2O): Yield 0.057 g (48%). Analysis: Found: C,
41.51; H, 4.31; N, 24.55%. Calc. for C16H20N8OS2Mn: C, 41.82; H,
4.39; N, 24.40%. IR (νmax/cm−1): 3373, 3124 ν(N\H), 1624, 1593,
1548 ν(C_N) + ν(C_C), 989 ν(N\N), 773 ν(C\S). UV–Vis in
3.39 × 10−5 M CH2Cl2 solution [λmax ( , M−1 cm−1)]: 392.00 nm
(18466), 296.00 nm (20324). Molar conductivity (1 × 10−3
dichloromethane): 0.24 μS cm−1. μeff: 6.03BM.
M
2. Experimental
[Mn(atc-Me)2] (2): Yield 0.062g (53%). Analysis: Found: C, 45.42; H,
4.72; N, 23.84%. Calc. for C18H22N8S2Mn: C, 46.05; H, 4.73; N, 23.88%.
IR (νmax/cm−1): 3329 ν(N\H), 1591, 1548, 1506 ν(C_N) +
2.1. Materials
ν(C_C), 972 ν(N\N), 781 ν(C\S). UV–Vis in 1.06 × 10−5
M
2-Acetylpyridine, thiosemicarbazide, 4-methyl-3-thiosemicarbazide,
4-ethyl-3-thiosemicarbazide, 4-phenyl-3-thiosemicarbazide and analyt-
ical reagent grade chemicals and solvents were obtained commercially
and used without further purification. 4-Cyclohexyl-3-thiosemicarbazide
and 3-morpholynylthiosemicarbazide were prepared as previously de-
scribed [3,22]. The ligands Hatc, Hatc-Me, Hatc-Et, Hatc-Ch, Hatc-
Ph and Hatc-Mf were prepared by refluxing equimolar ethanolic
solutions containing the desired thiosemicarbazide (10 mmol)
and 2-acetylpyridine (10 mmol) for 1 h, as reported elsewhere
[18,23].
CH2Cl2 solution [λmax ( , M−1 cm−1)]: 397.5 nm (78301), 309.0 nm
(63962). Molar conductivity (1 × 10−3
M dichloromethane):
0.24 μS cm−1. μeff: 5.90 BM.
[Mn(atc-Et)2] (3): Yield 0.080 g (64%). Analysis: Found: C, 48.15; H,
5.31; N, 22.51%. Calc. for C20H26N8S2Mn: C, 48.28; H, 5.27; N, 22.54%.
IR (νmax/cm−1): 3203 ν(N\H), 1593, 1550, 1517 ν(C_N) +
ν(C_C), 972 ν(N\N), 780 ν(C\S). UV–Vis in 2.21 × 10−5
M
CH2Cl2 solution [λmax ( , M−1 cm−1)]: 399.00 nm (20814),
309.50 nm (27511). Molar conductivity (1 × 10−3 M dichloro-
methane): 0.08 μS cm−1. μeff: 6.09BM.
2.2. Instruments
[Mn(atc-Ch)2] (4): Yield: 0.092g (61%). Analysis: Found: C, 55.67; H,
6.40; N, 18.76%. Calc. for C28H38N8S2Mn: C, 55.52; H, 6.33; N, 18.51%.
IR (νmax/cm−1): 3290 ν(N\H), 1591, 1543, 1516 ν(C_N) +
FTIR spectra were measured as KBr pellets on a Shimadzu IR
Prestige-21 spectrophotometer between 400 and 4000cm−1. Elemental
analyses were determined using a Perkin-Elmer CHN 2400 equipment.
EPR spectra were collected on an X-band BrukerER-580 spectrometer
equipped with an Oxford low temperature system at 6 K. The spectra
were simulated with the Symphonia program from BRUKER. The
measurement conditions include microwave frequency of 9.476 GHz,
modulation frequency and amplitude of 100 kHz and 0.4 mT,
respectively, magnetic field scan range of 5–605 mT, gain of 45 dB,
microwave power of 2.5mW, time constant of 20.48ms and conversion
time of 81.92 ms. The quantification of the two species in the EPR
spectra of some of the complexes was estimated by double integration
of each spectrum. Magnetic susceptibilities were measured on a
JOHNSON MATTHEY MSB balance at 298 K and converted into the
corresponding molar susceptibilities in the usual way [24,25].
Diamagnetic corrections, applied to the molar susceptibilities of
the paramagnetic substances, are reported as χdiam. The latter
corrections were calculated using the standard Pascal's constants
[24,25]. The conductivities of the complexes were measured in
CH2Cl2 solutions using an Orion Star Series conductometer. UV–
visible (UV–vis) spectra were measured with a Shimadzu UV-1800
spectrophotometer in CH2Cl2 solutions. The electrochemical experiments
ν(C_C), 989 ν(N\N), 773 ν(C\S). UV–Vis in 3.30 × 10−5
M
CH2Cl2 solution [λmax ( , M−1 cm−1)]: 400.50 nm (25894);
311.50 nm (21121). Molar conductivity (1 × 10−3 M dichloro-
methane): 0.22 μS cm−1. μeff: 6.10BM.
[Mn(atc-Ph)2] (5): Yield 0.118g (80%). Analysis: Found: C, 56.37; H,
4.80; N, 18.88%. Calc. for C28H26N8S2Mn: C, 56.65; H, 4.42; N, 18.89%.
IR (νmax/cm−1): 3313 ν(N\H), 1593, 1537, 1494 ν(C_N) +
ν(C_C), 987 ν(N\N), 777 ν(C\S). UV–Vis in 1.76 × 10−5
M
CH2Cl2 solution [λmax ( , M−1 cm−1)]: 415.50 nm (13851),
369.00 nm (26136), 315.50 nm (34545). Molar conductivity
(1× 10−3 M dichloromethane): 0.03 μS cm−1. μeff: 6.30BM.
[Mn(atc-Mf)2] (6): Yield: 0.080g (55%). Analysis: Found: C, 49.21; H,
4.95; N, 18.75%. Calc. for C24H30N8O2S2Mn: C, 49.56; H, 5.20; N,
19.28%. IR (νmax/cm−1): 1593, 1543, 1450 ν(C_N) + ν(C_C), 985
ν(N\N), 788 ν(C\S). UV–Vis in 2.06 × 10−5 M CH2Cl2 solution
[λmax ( , M−1 cm−1)]: 407.50 nm (1 817), 313.00 nm (12718).
Molar conductivity (1 × 10−3 M dichloromethane): 0.14 μS cm−1
eff: 6.55BM.
.
μ