Modeling the Reaction Mechanisms of the Amide Hydrolysis in an <i>N</i>-(<i>o</i>-Carboxybenzoyl)-<scp>l</scp>-amino Acid
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reaction mechanisms of the amide hydrolysis from the protonated, neutral, and deprotonated forms of N-(o-carboxybenzoyl)-l-amino acid have been investigated by use of the B3LYP density functional method. Our calculations reveal that in the amide hydrolysis the reaction barrier is significantly lower in solution than that in the gas phase, in contrast with the mechanism for imide formation in which the solvent has little influence on the reaction barrier. In the model reactions, the water molecules function both as a catalyst and as a reactant. The reaction mechanism starting from the neutral form of N-(o-carboxybenzoyl)-l-amino acid, which corresponds to pH 0-3, is concluded to be the most favored, and a concerted mechanism is more favorable than a stepwise mechanism. This conclusion is in agreement with experimental observations that the optimal pH range for amide hydrolysis of N-(o-carboxybenzoyl)-l-leucine is pH 0-3 where N-(o-carboxybenzoyl)-l-leucine is predominantly in its neutral form. We suggest that besides the acid-catalyzed mechanism the addition-elimination mechanism is likely to be an alternative choice for cleaving an amide bond. For the reaction mechanism initiated by protonation at the amidic oxygen (hydrogen ion concentration H(0) < -1), the reaction of the model compound with two water molecules lowers the transition barrier significantly compared with that involving a single water molecule.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it