Evidence Hub

Metal Complexes and AuNP Formulations of a Moxifloxacin–Salicylaldehyde Hydrazone: Synthesis, Coordination Features, and Biological Evaluation

Adel S. Orabi, Sara Reda Fisal, Ibrahim Ahmed Ibrahim Ali, Warren Christopher Boyd, Haitham Kalil, Abbas M. Abbas‎

Inorganics, 2026

Abstract

Moxifloxacin-based Schiff-base ligands provide a useful platform for tuning the coordination and biological properties of fluoroquinolone derivatives. Here, a moxifloxacin–salicylaldehyde hydrazone ligand (MOX-S) was prepared and coordinated with cobalt(II), nickel(II), copper(II), oxovanadium(IV), and gadolinium(III) ions to obtain a series of metal complexes. Citrate-stabilized gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) were also prepared and functionalized with MOX-S and the Cu(II) complex to evaluate the effect of nanoformulation on biological performance. The compounds were characterized using complementary analytical, spectroscopic, magnetic, thermal, and microscopic techniques. The combined data support 1:2 metal-to-ligand formulations for the complexes and indicate coordination mainly through the azomethine nitrogen and oxygen donor sites of MOX-S. In antimicrobial screening, the activity was strongly metal- and organism-dependent. Cu–MOX-S and VO–MOX-S showed the most pronounced activity against Gram-positive bacteria, with inhibition zones of up to 30 mm, while Cu–MOX-S displayed MIC values of 19.53 and 39.06 µg mL−1 against Bacillus subtilis and Staphylococcus aureus, respectively. Cytotoxicity assays showed that MOX-S was more active than moxifloxacin against MCF-7 and HepG2 cells, while Cu–MOX-S showed enhanced potency, particularly toward HepG2 cells, with an IC50 of 0.98 µM and a selectivity index of 5.97. AuNP formulations further increased the apparent antiproliferative…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a experimental / empirical study, done in cell cultures (in vitro), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free