MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978999625 · doi:10.1021/jp205194g

Low-Energy Electron-Induced Damage in a Trinucleotide Containing 5-Bromouracil

2011· article· en· W1978999625 on OpenAlexafffund
Zejun Li, Pierre Cloutier, Léon Sanche, J. Richard Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsThymineChemistryBond cleavagePhotochemistryRadicalMoleculeIonizing radiationElectron transferIrradiationDNAOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reaction of low-energy electrons (LEEs; 10 eV) with 5'-TpXpT-3' (TXT), where X is uracil (U), thymine (T), and 5-bromouracil (5BrU), was examined by HPLC-UV analysis. The presence of 5BrU increased total damage by >50%. The radiation products of T5BrUT included TUT (40%), free U, T, 5BrU (23%), and fragments (13%). These products may be explained by initial capture of LEEs by the nucleobase to form a transient anion, followed by transfer of the electron within the molecule and cleavage of susceptible bonds by dissociative electron attachment (C-Br, C-N, or C-O bonds). In addition, these products may arise from the uracilyl-5-yl (U-5-yl) radicals that undergo H-atom abstraction from the sugar moiety. Interestingly, several products contained two sites of cleavage (U, pUT, and TUp). The formation of these products was linear with dose, and thus, they arise from the single-electron reactions. To explain these products, we propose that the reaction of LEEs (10 eV) involves the coupling of two dissociative processes in the same molecule (for example, dissociative excitation and dissociative electron attachment). The latter reactions may contribute to the formation of clustered damage, which is the most deleterious damage induced by ionizing radiation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207