MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007719751 · doi:10.1021/ja068725b

Gas-Phase Ionic Syntheses of Amino Acids:  β versus α

2007· article· en· W2007719751 on OpenAlexaff
Jamie Snow, Galina Orlova, Voislav Blagojevic, Diethard K. Böhme

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryProtonationPropanoic acidYield (engineering)HydroxylamineDissociation (chemistry)OzonideHydrogen bondStereochemistryCrystallographyIonMedicinal chemistryMoleculePhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryOzonolysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both theoretical and experimental studies are reported for the gas-phase reactions of protonated hydroxylamine with acetic and propanoic acids which yield protonated glycine and alanine, GlyH+ and AlaH+, respectively. The key step for these reactions is an insertion of the amino group into a C-H bond. For the formation of AlaH+, the reaction barrier for insertion into a Cbeta-H bond is ca. 5 kcal.mol-1 lower than that for the insertion into a Calpha-H bond; the product beta-AlaH+ is ca. 6 kcal mol-1 lower in energy than alpha-AlaH+. Thus, both kinetics and thermodynamics favor formation of the beta-form. The energetic preference for the beta-form is due to more efficient hydrogen bonding between the amino group and the carbonyl oxygen in the limiting transition structure and in the beta-AlaH+ product. These theoretical results are in excellent accord with selected ion flow tube measurements of the gas-phase synthesis which show striking specificity for the beta-isomer according to multi-collision-induced dissociation of the AlaH+ product ion. The results suggest that Gly and beta-Ala found in carbonaceous chondrite meteorites are products of interstellar chemistry.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations47
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207