Objective: To assess the cytotoxic effects of two synthesised compounds against HT-29 human colon adenocarcinoma cells and human CCD-18Co normal colon cells.
Materials and methods: Two successfully synthesised compounds were characterised using elemental (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulphur) analysis, Fourier-Transform Infrared (FTIR), and 1H, 13C 119Sn Nucleus Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopies. The single-crystal structure of both compounds was determined by X-ray single-crystal analysis. The cytotoxicity of the compounds was assessed using 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazholium bromide (MTT) assay upon 24 h of treatment. While the mode of cell death was determined based on the externalisation of phosphatidylserine using a flow cytometer.
Results: The elemental analysis data of the two compounds showed an agreement with the suggested formula of (C6H5)2Sn[S2CN(C3H5)2]2 for Compound 1 and (C6H5)3Sn[S2CN(C3H5)2] for Compound 2. The two major peaks of infrared absorbance, i.e., ν(C = N) and ν(C = S) were detected at the range of 1475-1479 cm-1 and 972-977 cm-1, respectively. The chemical shift of carbon in NCS2 group for Compound 1 and 2 were found at 200.82 and 197.79 ppm. The crystal structure of Compound 1 showed that it is six coordinated and crystallised in monoclinic, P21/c space group. While the crystal structure of Compound 2 is five coordinated and crystallised in monoclinic, P21/c space group. The cytotoxicity (IC50) of the two compounds against HT-29 cell were 2.36 μM and 0.39 μM. Meanwhile, the percentage of cell death modes between 60% and 75% for compound 1 and compound 2 were mainly due to apoptosis, suggesting that both compounds induced growth arrest.
Conclusion: Our study concluded that the synthesised compounds showed potent cytotoxicity towards HT-29 cell, with the triphenyltin(IV) compound showing the highest effect compared to diphenyltin(IV).
METHODS: A literature search was conducted with the use of three online databases namely, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. Developed keywords strategy was used to include only the relevant articles. A Population Intervention Comparison Outcomes (PICO) strategy was used to develop the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Image quality was analyzed quantitatively based on peak signal-noise-ratio (PSNR), Mean Squared Error (MSE), Absolute Mean Brightness Error (AMBE), Entropy, and Contrast Improvement Index (CII) values.
RESULTS: Nine studies with four types of image enhancement techniques were included in this study. Two studies used histogram-based, three studies used frequency-based, one study used fuzzy-based and three studies used filter-based. All studies reported PSNR values whilst only four studies reported MSE, AMBE, Entropy and CII values. Filter-based was the highest PSNR values of 78.93, among other types. For MSE, AMBE, Entropy, and CII values, the highest were frequency-based (7.79), fuzzy-based (93.76), filter-based (7.92), and frequency-based (6.54) respectively.
CONCLUSION: In summary, image quality for each image enhancement technique is varied, especially for breast cancer detection. In this study, the frequency-based of Fast Discrete Curvelet Transform (FDCT) via the UnequiSpaced Fast Fourier Transform (USFFT) shows the most superior among other image enhancement techniques.