MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005219385 · doi:10.1021/ja030068p

Hydration Changes Accompanying Nucleic Acid Intercalation Reactions:Volumetric Characterizations

2003· article· en· W2005219385 on OpenAlexaff
Feixue Han, Tigran V. Chalikian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleic acidChemistryIntercalation (chemistry)CompressibilityDNALigand (biochemistry)ThermodynamicsStereochemistryCrystallographyOrganic chemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use high precision ultrasonic velocimetric and densimetric techniques to determine at 25 degrees C the changes in volume, deltaV, and adiabatic compressibility, deltaK(S), that accompany the binding of ethidium to the poly(rA)poly(rU), poly(dAdT)poly(dAdT), poly(dGdC)poly(dGdC), and poly(dIdC)poly(dIdC) duplexes, as well as to the poly(rU)poly(rA)poly(rU) triplex. The binding of ethidium to each of the duplexes and the triplex is accompanied by negative changes in volume, deltaV, and adiabatic compressibility, deltaK(S). We discuss the basis for relating macroscopic and microscopic properties, particularly, emphasizing how measured changes in volume and compressibility can be quantitatively interpreted in terms of the differential hydration properties of DNA and RNA structures in their ligand-free and ligand-bound states. We also estimate the entropic cost of intercalation-induced changes in hydration of each of the nucleic acid structures and the drug. In general, our results emphasize the vital role of hydration in modulating the energetics of drug-DNA binding, while also underscoring the fact that hydration must be carefully taken into account in analysis and prediction of the energetics of nucleic acid recognition.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations42
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207