Computational Study of the Deamination Reaction of Cytosine with H<sub>2</sub>O and OH<sup>-</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanism for the deamination reaction of cytosine with H(2)O and OH(-) to produce uracil was investigated using ab initio calculations. Optimized geometries of reactants, transition states, intermediates, and products were determined at RHF/6-31G(d), MP2/6-31G(d), and B3LYP/6-31G(d) levels and for anions at the B3LYP/6-31+G(d) level. Single-point energies were also determined at B3LYP/6-31+G(d), MP2/GTMP2Large, and G3MP2 levels of theory. Thermodynamic properties (DeltaE, DeltaH, and DeltaG), activation energies, enthalpies, and free energies of activation were calculated for each reaction pathway that was investigated. Intrinsic reaction coordinate analysis was performed to characterize the transition states on the potential energy surface. Two pathways for deamination with H(2)O were found, a five-step mechanism (pathway A) and a two-step mechanism (pathway B). The activation energy for the rate-determining steps, the formation of the tetrahedral intermediate for pathway A and the formation of the uracil tautomer for pathway B, are 221.3 and 260.3 kJ/mol, respectively, at the G3MP2 level of theory. The deamination reaction by either pathway is therefore unlikely because of the high barriers that are involved. Two pathways for deamination with OH(-) were also found, and both of them are five-step mechanisms. Pathways C and D produce an initial tetrahedral intermediate by adding H(2)O to deprotonated cytosine which then undergoes three conformational changes. The final intermediate dissociates to product via a 1-3 proton shift. Deamination with OH(-), through pathway C, resulted in the lowest activation energy, 148.0 kJ/mol, at the G3MP2 level of theory.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".