Effects of the biological backbone on stacking interactions at DNA–protein interfaces: the interplay between the backbone⋯π and π⋯π components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The (gas-phase) MP2/6-31G*(0.25) π···π stacking interactions between the five natural bases and the aromatic amino acids calculated using (truncated) monomers composed of conjugated rings and/or (extended) monomers containing the biological backbone (either the protein backbone or deoxyribose sugar) were previously compared. Although preliminary energetic results indicated that the protein backbone strengthens, while the deoxyribose sugar either strengthens or weakens, the interaction calculated using truncated models, the reasons for these effects were unknown. The present work explains these observations by dissecting the interaction energy of the extended complexes into individual backbone···π and π···π components. Our calculations reveal that the total interaction energy of the extended complex can be predicted as a sum of the backbone···π and π···π components, which indicates that the biological backbone does not significantly affect the ring system through π-polarization. Instead, we find that the backbone can indirectly affect the magnitude of the π···π contribution by changing the relative ring orientations in extended dimers compared with truncated dimers. Furthermore, the strengths of the individual backbone···π contributions are determined to be significant (up to 18 kJ mol(-1)). Therefore, the origin of the energetic change upon model extension is found to result from a balance between an additional (attractive) backbone···π component and differences in the strength of the π···π interaction. In addition, to understand the effects of the biological backbone on the stacking interactions at DNA-protein interfaces in nature, we analyzed the stacking interactions found in select DNA-protein crystal structures, and verified that an additive approach can be used to examine the strength of these interactions in biological complexes. Interestingly, although the presence of attractive backbone···π contacts is qualitatively confirmed using the quantum theory of atoms in molecules (QTAIM), QTAIM electron density analysis is unable to quantitatively predict the additive relationship of these interactions. Most importantly, this work reveals that both the backbone···π and π···π components must be carefully considered to accurately determine the overall stability of DNA-protein assemblies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".