1. Polyoxometalates against Emerging Health Pollutants
The behavior of humanity has a major impact on the release of organic and/or inorganic pollutants into the environment, and has a profound effect on our lives. In the 21st century, POMs have gained attention as efficient adsorbents and/or green catalysts, and have been used in the development of multifunctional POM materials that could, and can, solve environmental problems, such as water pollution
[1][2][3]. Thus, POMs have been chosen as agents against emergent pollutants. In fact, about 10% (about 1100) of the total of the articles published within the word “polyoxometalate” (POM) (11,000) are studies associated with the environment. In a search on the Web of Science, about 850 articles about POM and degradation can be found, 650 for dyes, 202 for POM and pollutants, 135 for waste, 75 for industrial chemicals, and 70 for wastewater. A lower number of papers were found for POM and pesticides and antibiotics
[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Herein, we describe examples of recent studies about POMs’ ability for the degradation of mainly antibiotics, pesticides, and plastics.
Erythromycin and others antibiotics, such as ciprofloxacin, azithromycin, and cefalexin, were also found in effluents and surface waters
[13][14]. Ciprofloxacin and erythromycin, together with the macrolide azithromycin, clarithromycin, and the penicillin-type amoxicillin, were included in the surface water watch list under the European Water Framework Directive
[14]. More recently, this report was actualized, and the antibacterials sulfamethaxazole and trimethoprim; the anti-fungals clotrimazole, flucozanole, and miconazole; the antidepressant venlafaxine; and the synthetic hormone norethisterone were all added to the 3rd water watch list
[15].
POMs were described as a good choice for antibiotic degradation, thus reducing the pharmaceutical environmental impact. In fact, C
3N
4 nanosheet composites loaded with POMs efficiently remove ciprofloxacin, tetracycline, as well as others pollutants, such as bisphenol A
[4][5]. Polyoxotungstates (decatungstate, W
10) also showed the ability to decompose antibiotics, such as sulfasalazine (SSZ) and one of its human metabolites, sulfapyridine (SPD), with different specificities and rates
[6]. W
10 also has a role in the degradation of pesticides, for example, the ones used for plant growth, namely 2-(1-naphthyl)acetamide (NAD)
[7]. A metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) composite of PW12@MFM was shown to display catalytic degradation of sulfamethazine
[8]. Besides pharmaceutical drugs, POMs-incorporated frameworks were also found to have applications for the decontamination of dyes, phenolic compounds, and pesticides
[9]. Polyoxometalate-based ionic liquid (POM-IL) was used also for the extraction of triazole pesticides, such as hexaconazole, triticonazole, and difenoconazole from aqueous samples
[10].
2. Anticancer Activity of Polyoxometalates
As observed above regarding the bacterial studies, the number of studies about POMs with antitumor activities in the past 10 years also represents the majority of the POM anticancer studies: around 87% of all the papers in this field, since the first report by 1965
[16]. Similarly, POT and POMos studies together represent the majority (90%), whereas for POVs and PONbs, lower percentages can be found. In fact, more than 120 articles/papers have been published with POMos and polyoxotungstates POTs in antitumor studies
[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. POMs in cancer therapy and diagnostics, their modes of action, and future perspectives were reviewed
[32][33][34][35][36]. Here are examples of POMs’ anticancer effects and putative modes of action, particularly for POVs, for the last five years.
The decavanadate complex proved to exhibit anti-tumor activity against various cancer cell lines, including specific toxicity against human cancer cells, whereas normal human cells were not affected, even for high concentrations of the complex
[26]. This complex presented IC
50 values of 0.72 and 1.8 μM against the human lung adenocarcinoma cell line (A549) and human breast adenocarcinoma cell line (MDA-MB-231), respectively. When V
10 complex was compared to the antitumor drug cisplatin for its cytotoxicity, it exhibited lower cytotoxicity against A549 than cisplatin, whereas its IC
50 for MDA-MB-231 cells was 1.7 μM against 700 μM of cisplatin, meaning that it is 400 times more effective. On the other hand, decavanadate alone also showed anticancer activity against HeLa, Hep-2, HepG2, and MDA-MB-231, inducing apoptosis as the process of cell death
[26]. The anti-proliferation activity of another POV, V
18, was observed to affect the cellular cycle, and to mediate the arrest of MCF-7 cells in the G2/M phase and induction of apoptosis, besides DNA-, BSA-, and HSA-binding
[27]. POV studies were also performed with U-87 and human liver SMMC-7721 cancer cells, and cell cycle arrest, DNA damage, and apoptosis were observed
[27][37].
Considering all the cancer POMs studies in recent years, only very few were performed in vivo
[18][20][29][31][33]. In one of these studies, it was described that the degradability of an organic POMo, based in Mo
6O
18, is the key to inhibit human malignant glioma cells (U251), besides having the capacity to cross the blood brain barrier, pointing to a new type of anticancer agent
[29]. Another recent study demonstrated the anti-tumor activity of an iron heptatungsten phosphate polyoxometalate complex, Na
12H[Fe(HPW
7O
28)
2] (IHTPO), against large cell lung cancer (NCi-H460), human hepatoma (HepG2), leukemia (K-562), and lung carcinoma (A549)
in vitro, and against S180 sarcoma transplanted in mice in vivo
[18]. Even the cytotoxic effects were only seen at higher concentrations, with IC
50 values superior to 60 μM, and IHPTO proved to be more efficient against S180 sarcoma transplanted mice. It was concluded that even if this POT exhibited lower antitumor activity than the already approved chemotherapeutic drugs, such as cisplatin, the interesting part is that IHTPO activity might be correlated to an immunomodulatory activity
[18].
In another in vivo study, Fu et al. synthesized an amphiphilic organic-inorganic hybrid POT, [(C
16H
33)
2NCONH(CH
2)
3SiNaP
5W
29O
110] (abbreviated Na-lipidP
5W
29), to improve biocompatibility, bioactivity, and biospecificity
[20]. Basically, a long chain organoalkoxysilane lipid was grafted into a lacunary Preyssler-type, [NaP
5W
29O
107]
14− (abbreviated P
5W
29) in order to produce the desired complex. The hybrid POT, Na-lipidP
5W
29, was tested for its antitumor activity against human colorectal cancer cells (HT29), and the results were compared to the parental POT, P
5W
29, and to 5-FU. For all concentrations tested, Na-lipidP
5W
29 exhibited higher inhibitory rates than its parental POT and 5-FU. The cytotoxic effect of the studied POT was also tested against human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs). Finally, it was suggested that the higher antitumor effect of Na-lipidP
5W
29 was due to its higher capacity to penetrate the cell, since it can spontaneously assemble into a vesicle
[20]. In vivo studies with a Keggin-type POT, [PW
11O
39]
7− (abbreviatedPW
11) were also performed against colorectal cancer
[29]. To improve bioactivity, and decrease the toxicity effect of this POT, an organometallic derivative of PW
11 was synthesized and encapsulated to form nanoparticles of Pt
IV-PW11-DSPE-PEG2000 (NPs). Results showed that these NPs were more efficient in inhibiting the growth of WT20 cancer cells, and treating human colorectal cancer in mice than cisplatin, pointing once again to a new strategy to fight against cancer
[29].
Mechanisms of Action of Polyoxometalates against Cancer Cells
As described above regarding the effects of POMs on cancer cells, several effects were referred, such as cell cycle arrest, apoptosis cell death, and interactions with DNA, among other observations and/or suggestions. However, the multiple mechanisms of action of polyoxometalates as antitumor agents are not yet fully understood. Recently, POMs as anticancer agents were reviewed
[32]. In this section, it will resume some of them.
Research is looking for new non-competitive inhibitors of protein kinases, such as the human protein kinase CK2 inhibitors that have already been designated as promising drug targets in cancers
[38][39]. POMs, such as P
2Mo
18, have been described as non-competitive and potent CK2 inhibitors (IC
50 = 5 nM); although, due to its instability, it was not possible to know if this POM was responsible for the observed effects
[39]. Nevertheless, POMs represent non-classical kinase inhibitors with increasing interest. Recently, aquaporins were also described to be potential protein membrane targets for POTs
[40]. Aquaporins (AQPs) were found to be overexpressed in tumors, making their inhibitors of particular interest as anticancer drugs
[41]. POTs strongly affect AQP3 activity, and induce inhibition of melanoma cancer cell migration and growth, unveiling their potential as anticancer drugs against tumors, opening a new window in this field of research
[40]. P-type ATPases play a crucial role in cellular ion homeostasis, and have been described as potential molecular targets for several types of compounds used in the treatment of ulcers, cancer, heart ischemic failure, among other diseases. Among these compounds, several POMs have been described as PMCA (plasmatic membrane calcium ATPase) and SERCA (sarco(endo)plasmatic membrane calcium ATPase) inhibitors, and the effects compare with other inorganic compounds, as well as with therapeutic drugs
[42][43][44][45][46][47].
Decavanadate species, and POMs in general, were described as strong inhibitors of phosphatases, such as alkaline phosphatase (ALP)
[48][23]. Seven POTs were assessed for their inhibitory effect on alkaline phosphatases ALP, and as putative antitumor agents
[48][23]. Abnormal levels of ALP in the serum are detected in cancer patients, since tumors are an abnormal cellular growth proliferating faster than normal cells, and thus, the inhibition of ALP will affect tumor cell metabolism and function. Three different POMs, P
5W
30, V
10, and the Anderson-Evans type [TeW
6O
24]
6− (abbreviated TeW
6), with chitosan-encapsulated nanoassemblies were tested as anticancer agents on HeLa cells
[49]. The maximum cytotoxicity against HeLa cells was observed for the compound chitosan-P
5W
30, which also has higher phosphatase inhibition. It was suggested, in both studies, that the POT with the largest number of tungsten and phosphorus atoms may provide the optimal interaction with the phosphatase
[49][23]. Finally, disturbance of antioxidant systems is a plausible anticancer strategy once tumor cells have rapid growth and metastasis. It was found that PW
9Cu concentrations that induced osteosarcoma cells death in vitro also increased ROS, and decreased the reduced gluthatione/oxidized glutathione (GSH/GSSG) ratio in the cells
[24]. Moreover, the cytotoxicity of the compound was prevented with the addition of GSH, suggesting that oxidative stress is a mechanism of POMs to induce cancer cell death
[24].
3. Antiviral Activity of Polyoxometalates
The number of studies using POMs that address viral infection is comparatively lower than the ones found for cancer and bacteria. Nevertheless, and due to the SARS-CoV2 pandemic
[50], the number of studies testing metallodrugs which include POMs for treatment of viral infection has increased in recent years
[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66]. Still, the studies performed so far in the past 10 years represent almost 50% of the total. Among the studies described, and since 1971
[67], the ones using POTs represent the major contribution in this field (75%). Herein, it summarized examples of POMs’ antiviral effects and putative modes of action in recent years, highlighting, as above, the in vivo studies.
Considering all the POMs studies published on different types of viruses, it can be observed that influenza, HIV, herpes, and corona are the viruses most studied (
Figure 1). Thus, the antiviral activity of POMs has been prevalent in respiratory tract viruses, mainly influenza viruses (
Figure 1). A study with one Keggin-type POM, [SiVW
11O
40]
5− (abbreviated SiVW
11), and two double Keggin-type POMs, (K
10Na[(VO)
3(SbW
9O
33)
2]) and (K
11H[(VO)
3(SbW
9O
33)
2]), showed activity against dengue virus (DFV), influenza virus (FluV A), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenza virus (PfluV 2), distemper virus (CDV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
[55]. It was further demonstrated that (K
10Na[(VO)
3(SbW
9O
33)
2]) strongly inhibits the binding of the viral gp120 antibodies
[55]. P
2W
18 was also studied on influenza virus (FluV) in MDCK cell line
[54]. It was suggested that P
2W
18 could inhibit the role hemagglutinin A (HA), responsible for the first stage of viral attachment
[54]. Thus, the Wells–Dawson-type POM P
2W
18 is likely to have a dual mechanism of action in the inhibition of FluV replication: it reduces the binding of HA to the host cell membrane glycoprotein receptors, and impedes the fusion of viral particles into the cell
[54].
Figure 1. Studies published with all types of POMs on different types of viruses (influenza, HIV, corona, herpes).
It is known that HIV specially targets CD4 molecules present in T lymphocytes, monocytes, and macrophage lineage. It is also well-known that a glycoprotein, denominated gp120, allows it’s binding on CD4 cells, and, consequently, the injection of viral material into the host cell
[61]. The activity against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was demonstrated for some POTs
[51][53][62]. It was suggested that POMs exhibited their antiviral effect by inhibiting the binding of virus to the host cell and/or its penetration
[68][69][51][53]. For example, the single Wells–Dawson structure of the compound (α
2-[NMe
3H]
7[CH
3C
5H
4TiP
2W
17O
61]), and the double Wells–Dawson of the structure compound (Na
16[Mn
4(H
2O)
2(P
2W
15O
56)
2]) both inhibited the binding of HIV particles to CD4 cells by blocking the binding of gp120 to SUP-T1 cells
[53]. Other studies reported that POMs could inhibit proteases in a non-competitive manner at low micro molar concentrations
[48][51][53], thus affecting virus infection.
As referred before for the cancer studies, in vivo POMs antiviral studies remain scarce, and very few studies
[63][64] have been performed (
Table 1). In this table, it compared the effects of two POTs and two clinically approved drugs in a mouse, the animal model. The Keggin-type POM[PW
10Ti
2O
40]
7− (abbreviated PW
10Ti
2) shows a survival rate (SR), indicating the percentage of mice that were still alive on day 14 after infection was 97%, for the treatment of HSV-2 virus infection when 25 mg/kg was administrated
[63]. Higher survival rates of 90% were also observed upon a variant of influenza virus (FM1) infection for the POT Ce
2H
3[BW
9VIW
2VMn(H
2O)O
39] (abbreviated BW
9VIW
2VMn). However, 10 times of the amount administrated was needed to obtain the same rate of survival upon oral administration (100 mg/kg) in comparison with the intraperitoneal mode (10 mg/kg). Lower rates of SR were observed using well-known clinically approved drugs, such as acyclovir (anti-HSV agent) and ribavirin (broad-spectrum antiviral agent)
[63][64]. For acyclovir, a 33% survival rate was observed for a 50 mg/kg administration upon HSV-2 virus infection, whereas for ribavirin, a 70% survival rate was obtained after a 200 mg/kg administration for the FM1 influenza virus infection (
Table 1). In sum, when comparing the same mode of oral administration upon the same influenza virus infection for the clinically approved drug, ribavirin, and the new antiviral compound, BW
9VIW
2VMn, it clear that this POT has a higher SR (90% against 70%) for half of the dose administrated (100 mg/kg against 200 mg/kg).
Table 1. In vivo antiviral activity of POMs.
| Polyoxotungstates |
Virus |
Animal |
Survival Rate (SR) |
Dose (Mode of Administration) |
Ref. |
| K7[PW10Ti2O40] |
HSV-2 |
mouse |
97% |
25.0 mg/kg |
[63] |
| Ce2H3[BW9VIW2VMn(H2O)O39] |
FM1 |
mouse |
90% |
100 mg/kg (o.a.) |
[64] |
| Ce2H3[BW9VIW2VMn(H2O)O39] |
FM1 |
mouse |
90% |
10 mg/kg (i.p.) |
[64] |
| Clinically approved drugs |
|
|
|
|
|
| Acyclovir |
HSV-2 |
mouse |
33% |
50.0 mg/kg |
[63] |
| Ribavirin |
FM1 |
mouse |
70% |
200 mg/kg (o.a) |
[64] |