MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024912040 · doi:10.1021/jp8014047

Color-Tuning Mechanism in Firefly Luminescence: Theoretical Studies on Fluorescence of Oxyluciferin in Aqueous Solution Using Time Dependent Density Functional Theory

2008· article· en· W2024912040 on OpenAlexaff
Zhongwei Li, Ai‐Min Ren, Jing‐Fu Guo, Tianxiao Yang, John D. Goddard, Ji‐Kang Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicbioluminescence and chemiluminescence research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTime-dependent density functional theoryDensity functional theoryChemistryAqueous solutionFluorescenceCounterionTautomerPhotochemistryExcited stateLuminescenceFirefly protocolSinglet stateComputational chemistryIonPhysical chemistryStereochemistryAtomic physicsOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first singlet excited state geometries of various isomers and tautomers of firefly oxyluciferin (OxyLH2), as well as their fluorescence spectra in aqueous solution, were studied using time dependent density functional theory (TDDFT). With changing pH in aqueous solution, three fluorescence peaks, blue (450 nm), yellow-green(560 nm), and red (620 nm) correspond to neutral keto and enolic forms, the monoanionic enolic form,and the monocationic keto form respectively. A counterion, Na+, was predicted to cause a blue shift in the fluorescence of anionic OxyLH2. The contributions of a charge transfer (CT) state upon electronic excitation of the planar and twisted structures were predicted. CT was large for the twisted structures but small for the planar ones. The differences between pK and pK* of various oxyluciferin species were predicted using a Forster cycle. A new possible light emitter, namely, the monocation keto form (keto+1), was considered.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations39
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicbioluminescence and chemiluminescence researchFrench-language works237,207