Oxidative Damage to a Supercoiled DNA by Water Soluble Peroxyl Radicals Characterized with DNA Repair Enzymes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earlier work (Paul, T., et al. (2000) Biochemistry 39, 4129-4135) has demonstrated that the water soluble positively charged peroxyl radical, (H(2)N)(2)(+)CC(CH(3))(2)OO(*) ((+)AOO(*)), caused direct strand scission of the Escherichia coli plasmid supercoiled DNA, pBR 322, with ca. 50% scission occurring at a (+)AOO(*)/base pair (bp) ratio of 0.2. There was no measurable direct scission with a negatively charged peroxyl ((-)BOO(*)) at (-)BOO(*)/bp = 24, nor with a neutral peroxyl (COO(*)) at COO(*)/bp = 5. Base modification (BM) of the same DNA by the same peroxyls has now been investigated using four base excision repair (BER) glycosylases. At (+)AOO(*)/bp = 0.04, there is 10% direct strand scission, and the Fpg protein recognized an additional 25% BM, while endonuclease (Endo) IV recognized an additional 20% BM and the other two BER enzymes did not give statistically significant BMs. None of the BER enzymes showed BMs in the DNA treated with -BOO(*). However, Fpg and Endo IV showed that at COO(*)/bp = 3.4 there was a BM comparable to that observed at (+)AOO(*)/bp = 0.04. Thus, COO(*) radicals are only ca. 1.2% as reactive toward the DNA's bases as (+)AOO(*). These results underline the importance of Coulombic forces in DNA reactions. It is also proposed that (+)AOO(*) has a higher intrinsic reactivity in H-atom abstractions and electron transfer processes than (-)BOO(*) or COO(*) radicals.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".