Computational study on the deamination reaction of adenine with OH<sup>−</sup>/<i>n</i>H<sub>2</sub>O (<i>n</i> = 0, 1, 2, 3) and 3H<sub>2</sub>O
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deamination of adenine is one of several forms of premutagenic lesions occurring in DNA. In the present study, mechanisms for the deamination reaction of adenine with OH − /nH 2 O (n = 0, 1, 2, 3) and 3H 2 O were investigated. HF/6-31G(d), B3LYP/6-31G(d), MP2/6-31G(d), and B3LYP/6-31+G(d) levels of theory were employed to search for and optimize all geometries. Energies were calculated at the G3MP2B3 and CBS-QB3 levels of theory. The effect of solvent (water) was computed using the polarizable continuum model (PCM). Intrinsic reaction coordinate (IRC) calculations were performed for all transition states. Five pathways were investigated for the deamination reaction of adenine with OH − /nH 2 O and 3H 2 O. The first four pathways (A–D) are initiated by deprotonation at the amino group of adenine by OH − , while pathway E is initiated by tautomerization of adenine. For all pathways the next two steps involve formation of a tetrahedral intermediate followed by dissociation to products via a 1,3-proton shift. Deamination with a single OH − has a high activation barrier (190 kJ mol −1 using the G3MP2B3 level) for the rate-determining step. The addition of one water molecule reduces this barrier by 68 kJ mol −1 at the G3MP2B3 level. Adding additional water molecules decreases the overall activation energy of the reaction, but the effect becomes smaller with each additional water molecule. The most plausible mechanism is pathway E, the deamination reaction of adenine with 3H 2 O, with an overall G3MP2B3 activation energy of 139 and 137 kJ mol −1 for the gas phase and PCM, respectively. This barrier is lower than that for the deamination with OH − /3H 2 O by 6 and 2 kJ mol −1 for the gas phase and PCM, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".