Caesalpinia ferrea Martius has traditionally been used in Brazil for many medicinal purposes, such as the treatment of bronchitis, diabetes and wounds. Despite its use as a medicinal plant, there is still no data regarding the genotoxic effect of the stem bark. This present work aims to assess the qualitative and quantitative profiles of the ethanolic extract from the stem bark of C. ferrea and to evaluate its mutagenic activity, using a Salmonella/microsome assay for this species. As a result, a total of twenty compounds were identified by Flow Injection Analysis Electrospray Ionization Ion Trap Mass Spectrometry (FIA-ESI-IT-MS/MSⁿ) in the ethanolic extract from the stem bark of C. ferrea. Hydrolyzable tannins predominated, principally gallic acid derivatives. The HPLC-DAD method was developed for rapid quantification of six gallic acid compounds and ellagic acid derivatives. C. ferrea is widely used in Brazil, and the absence of any mutagenic effect in the Salmonella/microsome assay is important for pharmacological purposes and the safe use of this plant.

Herein we synthesized two new ruthenium(ii) compounds [Ru(pySH)(bipy)(dppb)]PF6 (1) and [Ru(HSpym)(bipy)(dppb)]PF6 (2) that are analogs to an antitumor agent recently described, [Ru(SpymMe2)(bipy)(dppb)]PF6 (3), where [(Spy) = 2-mercaptopyridine anion; (Spym) = 2-mercaptopyrimidine anion and (SpymMe2) = 4,6-dimethyl-2-mercaptopyrimidine anion]. In vitro cell culture experiments revealed significant anti-proliferative activity for 1–3 against HepG2 and MDA-MB-231 tumor cells, higher than the standard anti-cancer drugs doxorubicin and cisplatin. No mutagenicity is detected when compounds are evaluated by cytokinesis-blocked micronucleus cytome and Ames test in the presence and absence of S9 metabolic activation from rat liver. Interaction studies show that compounds 1–3 can bind to DNA through electrostatic interactions and to albumin through hydrophobic interactions. The three compounds are able to inhibit the DNA supercoiled relaxation mediated by human topoisomerase IB (Top1). Compound 3 is the most efficient Top1 inhibitor and the inhibitory effect is enhanced upon pre-incubation with the enzyme. Analysis of different steps of Top1 catalytic cycle indicates that 3 inhibits the cleavage reaction impeding the binding of the enzyme to DNA and slows down the religation reaction. Molecular docking shows that 3 preferentially binds closer to the residues of the active site when Top1 is free and lies on the DNA groove downstream of the cleavage site in the Top1–DNA complex. Thus, 3 can be considered in further studies for a possible use as an anticancer agent.

Herein we discuss five ruthenium(II) complexes with good cytotoxicity against cancer cells. These complexes are named [Ru(tzdt)(bipy)(dppb)]PF₆ (1), [Ru(mmi)(bipy)(dppb)]PF₆ (2), [Ru(dmp)(bipy)(dppb)]PF₆ (3), [Ru(mpca)(bipy)(dppb)]PF₆ (4) and [Ru(2mq)(bipy)(dppb)]PF₆ (5), where tzdt = 1,3-thiazolidine-2-thione, mmi = mercapto-1-methyl-imidazole, dmp = 4,6-diamino-2-mercaptopyrimidine, mpca = 6-mercaptopyridine-3-carboxylic acid, 2mq = 2-mercapto-4(3H)-quinazolinone, bipy = 2,2′-bipyridine and dppb = 1,4-bis(diphenylphosphino)butane. In vitro cell culture experiments revealed significant cytotoxic activity for 1–5 against MDA-MB-231, MCF-7, A549, DU-145 and HepG2 tumor cells, higher than that for the standard anticancer drug cisplatin. Compound/DNA interaction studies were carried out showing that 1–5 interact with DNA by electrostatic force of attraction or by hydrogen bonding. Moreover, the complexes interact, moderately and spontaneously, with human serum albumin (HSA) through the hydrophobic region. The five complexes are able to inhibit the DNA supercoiled relaxation mediated by human topoisomerase IB (TopIB), and complex 1 is found to be the most efficient TopIB inhibitor among the five compounds. The inhibitory effect and analysis of different steps of the TopIB catalytic cycle indicate that complex 1 inhibits the cleavage reaction impeding the binding of the enzyme to DNA and has no effect on the religation step. Complexes 1, 2 and 3 did not show mutagenic activity when they were evaluated by the cytokinesis-block micronucleus cytome assay in HepG2 cells and the Ames test in the presence and absence of mouse liver S9 metabolic activation. Therefore, it is necessary to perform further in-depth analysis of the therapeutic potential of these promising ruthenium complexes as anticancer drugs.