Mechanistic Study of the Deamination Reaction of Guanine: A Computational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanism for the deamination of guanine with H(2)O, OH(-), H(2)O/OH(-) and for GuaH(+) with H(2)O has been investigated using ab initio calculations. Optimized geometries of the reactants, transition states, intermediates, and products were determined at RHF/6-31G(d), MP2/6-31G(d), B3LYP/6-31G(d), and B3LYP/6-31+G(d) levels of theory. Energies were also determined at G3MP2, G3MP2B3, G4MP2, and CBS-QB3 levels of theory. Intrinsic reaction coordinate (IRC) calculations were performed to characterize the transition states on the potential energy surface. Thermodynamic properties (ΔE, ΔH, and ΔG), activation energies, enthalpies, and Gibbs free energies of activation were also calculated for each reaction investigated. All pathways yield an initial tetrahedral intermediate and an intermediate in the last step that dissociates to products via a 1,3-proton shift. At the G3MP2 level of theory, deamination with OH(-) was found to have an activation energy barrier of 155 kJ mol(-1) compared to 187 kJ mol(-1) for the reaction with H(2)O and 243 kJ mol(-1) for GuaH(+) with H(2)O. The lowest overall activation energy, 144 kJ mol(-1) at the G3MP2 level, was obtained for the deamination of guanine with H(2)O/OH(-). Due to a lack of experimental results for guanine deamination, a comparison is made with those of cytosine, whose deamination reaction parallels that of guanine.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".