Developing a computational model that accurately reproduces the structural features of a dinucleoside monophosphate unit within B-DNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of a dinucleoside monophosphate to mimic the conformation of B-DNA was tested using a combination of different phosphate models (anionic, neutral, counterion), environments (gas, water), and density functionals (B3LYP, MPWB1K, M06-2X) with the 6-31G(d,p) basis set. Three sequences (5'-GX(Py)-3', where X(Py) = T, U or (Br)U) were considered, which vary in the (natural or modified) 3' pyrimidine nucleobase (X(Py)). These bases were selected due to their presence in natural DNA, structural similarity to T and/or applications in radical-initiated anti-tumour therapies. The accuracy of each of the 54 model, method and sequence combinations was judged based on the ability to reproduce key structural features of natural B-DNA, including the stacked base-base orientation and important backbone torsion angles. B3LYP yields distorted or tilted relative base-base orientations, while many computational challenges were encountered for MPWB1K. Despite wide use in computational studies of DNA, the neutral (protonated) phosphate model could not consistently predict a stacked arrangement for all sequences. In contrast, stacked base-base arrangements were obtained for all sequences with M06-2X in conjunction with both the anionic and (sodium) counterion phosphate models. However, comparison of calculated and experimental backbone conformations reveals the charge-neutralized counterion phosphate model best mimics B-DNA. Structures optimized with implicit solvent (water) are comparable to gas-phase structures, which suggests similar results should be obtained in an environment of intermediate polarity. We recommend the use of either gas-phase or water M06-2X optimizations with the counterion phosphate model to study the structure and/or reactivity of natural or modified DNA with a dinucleoside monophosphate.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".