MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986546432 · doi:10.1021/jp048318r

Effects of Hydrogen Bonding on the Acidity of Uracil Derivatives

2004· article· en· W1986546432 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah R. Whittleton, Ken C. Hunter, Stacey D. Wetmore

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsUracilSubstituentElectronegativityChemistryHydrogen bondMoleculeProtonPhotochemistryComputational chemistryStereochemistryOrganic chemistryDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study uses density functional theory to investigate the effects of hydrogen bonding on the acidity of C5- and C6-substituted uracil derivatives. The proton affinities and acidities of uracil donor and acceptor sites generally decrease and increase, respectively, with an increase in the electronegativity of the uracil substituent. Despite these substituent effects, the binding strengths of small molecules (NH 3, H 2 O, or HF) to the uracil derivatives are relatively independent of the substituent, which indicates that the changes in the uracil proton affinity and acidity effectively cancel. The acidities of substituted uracil complexes increase not only with the electronegativity of the substituent, but also with the acidity of the small molecule bound to the uracil ring. However, the magnitude of the effect of hydrogen bonding on the acidity of uracil derivatives is not dependent on the nature or position of the substituent. Our results lead to a greater fundamental understanding of the effects of substituents on the hydrogen-bonding properties of uracil, which may have implications for understanding biological applications and processes that involve these modified nucleobases.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations51
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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