Substituent Effects in Carbon−Nitrogen Cleavage of Thiamin Derivatives. Fragmentation Pathways and Enzymic Avoidance of Cofactor Destruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combination of thiamin and benzaldehyde can produce benzoin but also destroys thiamin. The destruction comes from fragmentation of the conjugate of thiamin and benzaldehyde undergoing a process that produces a phenyl thiazole ketone and pyrimidine. The key step in this process is cleavage of the C-N bond between the heterocycles, which occurs by an unknown mechanism. Enzymes that utilize similar intermediates do not fragment the cofactor although fragmentation is inherent to the structure. To analyze the nature of the C-N cleavage step, the rates of fragmentation of a series of phenyl-substituted N1'-methyl-2-(1-hydroxybenzyl)thiamin derivatives were determined under two sets of conditions: (1) where proton transfer in the step prior to C-N bond breaking is rate-determining and (2) where C-N bond breaking is rate-determining. The resulting rho values are 1.6 and 1.8, respectively, leading to the conclusion that C-N cleavage is insensitive to substituent effects. On the basis of these results, we conclude that cleavage occurs by a facile process that resembles the outcome of a [1,5] sigmatropic rearrangement. An enzyme may avoid the fragmentation by holding the intermediate in a conformation that prevents such a process, allowing the normal catalytic process to proceed.
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".