The affinity of HGGG, GHGG, GGHG, and GGGH peptides for copper(II) and the structures of their complexes — An ab initio study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structures and relative free energies in aqueous solution of the Cu(II) complexes of the “histidine walk” peptides, AcHGGGNH2, AcGHGGNH2, AcGGHGNH2, and AcGGGHNH2, were determined as a function of pH. Numerous structures of each species were found by gaseous- and solution-phase geometry optimization at the B3LYP/6–31G(d) level, and the effect of solvation estimated by the IEFPCM continuum solvation model. Free energies of solvation of the ionic species are large and favour structures with an extended peptide chain. In all Cu(II)–peptide complexes, deprotonation of two amide groups occurs readily at or below pH 7. In each system, the most abundant species at pH 7 is a neutral 1:1 complex with N3O1 coordination pattern. Binding in the forward direction toward the C terminus is preferred. The results are compared to recent experimental spectroscopic and potentiometric studies on related systems. Alternative explanations are offered for some of the experimental observations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".