4.6 Article

Ruthenacarborane and Quinoline: A Promising Combination for the Treatment of Brain Tumors

Journal

MOLECULES
Volume 26, Issue 13, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26133801

Keywords

ruthenacarborane; autophagy; glucose deprivation; glioma

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Developement of the Republic of Serbia [451-03-68/2020-14/200007]
  2. DFG [HE 1376/38-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The combination of a ruthenacarborane derivative with 8-hydroxyquinoline linked via an ester bond was found to significantly affect cellular viability in glioma cells by inhibiting the autophagic machinery, potentially offering a new approach to overcoming resistance mechanisms in brain tumors.
Gliomas and glioblastomas are very aggressive forms of brain tumors, prone to the development of a multitude of resistance mechanisms to therapeutic treatments, including cytoprotective autophagy. In this work, we investigated the role and mechanism of action of the combination of a ruthenacarborane derivative with 8-hydroxyquinoline (8-HQ), linked via an ester bond (complex 2), in rat astrocytoma C6 and human glioma U251 cells, in comparison with the two compounds alone, i.e., the free carboxylic acid (complex 1) and 8-HQ, and their non-covalent combination ([1 + 8-HQ], in 1:1 molar ratio). We found that only complex 2 was able to significantly affect cellular viability in glioma U251 cells (IC50 11.4 mu M) via inhibition of the autophagic machinery, most likely acting at the early stages of the autophagic cascade. Contrary to 8-HQ alone, complex 2 was also able to impair cellular viability under conditions of glucose deprivation. We thus suggest different mechanisms of action of ruthenacarborane complex 2 than purely organic quinoline-based drugs, making complex 2 a very attractive candidate for evading the known resistances of brain tumors to chloroquine-based therapies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available