Observed in the presence of ssDNA These results are attributed to

Observed in the presence of ssDNA These results are attributed to the inability of ssDNA and ds26 to fold into a quadruplex even in the presence of monovalent cations. However, the emission significantly increased in the presence of the DNA quadruplexes HTG21 and G4T2. The emission response of L-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+ with G-quadruplexes was approximately four times higher than that with ds26. This can be very obviously enucleated that these chiral complexes exhibited high selectivity for quadruplexes over duplexes, particularly for the human telomeric DNA HTG21.We further examined the interaction between the chiral complexes and HTG21.Absorption and emission luminescence spectroscopic studies. Electronic absorption spectroscopy is one of the mostuseful techniques in DNA-binding studies. Hypochromism and bathochroism are usually observed when a complex binds to DNA through Dimethylenastron supplier intercalation because of the strong stacking interaction between an aromatic chromophore and the DNA base pairs in the intercalation mode. In general, the extent of hypochromism indicates the intercalative binding strength [37]. The absorption spectra of the chiral Ru(II) complexes L[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+ and D-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+ are shown inChiral Ru Complexes Inhibit Telomerase ActivityFigure 2. Selectivity of the Ru complex between quadruplex DNA and non-quadruplex DNA. The concentration of the ruthenium complex was 4 mM, and the concentration of the DNA was 8 mM in Tris-HCl (pH = 7.4) and KCl (100 mM): a) L-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+, b) D[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+, c) L/D -[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+. d)Relative emission strength of L-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+, D-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+, and L/D [Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050902.gFigure S1. Hypochromism increased was accompanied by a red shift in the metal-ligand charge-transfer (MLCT) band of the complexes. Both complexes strongly bound to the DNA in an intercalative mode. The hypochromism (H ) of L-[Ru(phen)2(pHPIP)]2+ and D-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+ were fixed at approximately 25.0 (with a 2 nm red shift) and 10.2 , respectively (Table 1). The spectral characteristics obviously showed that the two Ru(II) complexes interacted with DNA most likely through a mode that involves a stacking interaction between the aromatic chromophore and the DNA base pairs. In addition, the binding constant Kb and the red shift values of L-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+ are higher than those of D-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+. This result can be explained by the shallower intercalation of D-[Ru(phen)2(pHPIP)]2+ compared with L-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+, which may be due 1407003 to the direct hydrogen-bonding between the hydroxyl group ofTable 1. Absorption spectra (lmax/nm) and hypochromism of L-[Ru(phen)2(P-HPIP)]2+ and D-[Ru(phen)2(P-HPIP)]2+.Complexes L-Rulmax/nm 458 283H( )25.0 25.9 30.1 10.2 22.2 26.Red shift/nm 0 4 2 3 5Kb8.96106 MD-Ru464 2828.36106 Mdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050902.tthe p-HPIP ligands and the MedChemExpress SC-1 oxygen or nitrogen components of the bases as well as of the neighboring phosphate groups of DNA. The emission intensity of the Ru (II) polypyridyl complexes and DNA increased after their binding [38]. The emission intensities of L-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+, D-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+, and L/D[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+ increased approximately 4.32-, 3.53-, and 4.25-fold compared with the original intensities, respectively (Figure 3d). These results suggest that the three complexes can strongly interact with and be efficiently protected by DNA. The intrinsic bin.Observed in the presence of ssDNA These results are attributed to the inability of ssDNA and ds26 to fold into a quadruplex even in the presence of monovalent cations. However, the emission significantly increased in the presence of the DNA quadruplexes HTG21 and G4T2. The emission response of L-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+ with G-quadruplexes was approximately four times higher than that with ds26. This can be very obviously enucleated that these chiral complexes exhibited high selectivity for quadruplexes over duplexes, particularly for the human telomeric DNA HTG21.We further examined the interaction between the chiral complexes and HTG21.Absorption and emission luminescence spectroscopic studies. Electronic absorption spectroscopy is one of the mostuseful techniques in DNA-binding studies. Hypochromism and bathochroism are usually observed when a complex binds to DNA through intercalation because of the strong stacking interaction between an aromatic chromophore and the DNA base pairs in the intercalation mode. In general, the extent of hypochromism indicates the intercalative binding strength [37]. The absorption spectra of the chiral Ru(II) complexes L[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+ and D-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+ are shown inChiral Ru Complexes Inhibit Telomerase ActivityFigure 2. Selectivity of the Ru complex between quadruplex DNA and non-quadruplex DNA. The concentration of the ruthenium complex was 4 mM, and the concentration of the DNA was 8 mM in Tris-HCl (pH = 7.4) and KCl (100 mM): a) L-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+, b) D[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+, c) L/D -[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+. d)Relative emission strength of L-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+, D-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+, and L/D [Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050902.gFigure S1. Hypochromism increased was accompanied by a red shift in the metal-ligand charge-transfer (MLCT) band of the complexes. Both complexes strongly bound to the DNA in an intercalative mode. The hypochromism (H ) of L-[Ru(phen)2(pHPIP)]2+ and D-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+ were fixed at approximately 25.0 (with a 2 nm red shift) and 10.2 , respectively (Table 1). The spectral characteristics obviously showed that the two Ru(II) complexes interacted with DNA most likely through a mode that involves a stacking interaction between the aromatic chromophore and the DNA base pairs. In addition, the binding constant Kb and the red shift values of L-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+ are higher than those of D-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+. This result can be explained by the shallower intercalation of D-[Ru(phen)2(pHPIP)]2+ compared with L-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+, which may be due 1407003 to the direct hydrogen-bonding between the hydroxyl group ofTable 1. Absorption spectra (lmax/nm) and hypochromism of L-[Ru(phen)2(P-HPIP)]2+ and D-[Ru(phen)2(P-HPIP)]2+.Complexes L-Rulmax/nm 458 283H( )25.0 25.9 30.1 10.2 22.2 26.Red shift/nm 0 4 2 3 5Kb8.96106 MD-Ru464 2828.36106 Mdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050902.tthe p-HPIP ligands and the oxygen or nitrogen components of the bases as well as of the neighboring phosphate groups of DNA. The emission intensity of the Ru (II) polypyridyl complexes and DNA increased after their binding [38]. The emission intensities of L-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+, D-[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+, and L/D[Ru(phen)2(p-HPIP)]2+ increased approximately 4.32-, 3.53-, and 4.25-fold compared with the original intensities, respectively (Figure 3d). These results suggest that the three complexes can strongly interact with and be efficiently protected by DNA. The intrinsic bin.