Is “Frank” DNA-Strand Breakage via the Guanine Radical Thermodynamically and Sterically Possible?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the reduction potential of one-electron oxidized guanosine in water and the pKa values of the radical and of the parent, the N1-H bond energy of the 2'-deoxyguanosine moiety is determined to be (94.3+/-0.5) kcal mol(-1). Using the DFT method, the energy of the N1-centered guanosine radical is calculated and compared with those of the C1'- and C4'-radicals formed by H-abstraction from the 2'-deoxyribose moiety of the molecule. The result is that these deoxyribose-centered radicals appear to be more stable than the N1-centered one by up to 3 kcalmol(-1). Therefore, H-abstraction from a 2'-deoxyribose C-H bond by an isolated guanosine radical should be thermodynamically feasible. However, if the stabilization of a guanine radical by intrastrand pi-pi interaction with adjacent guanines and the likely lowering of the oxidation potential of guanine by interstrand proton transfer to the complementary cytosine base are taken into account, there is no more thermodynamic driving force for H-abstraction from a deoxyribose unit. As a further criterion for judging the probability of occurrence of such a reaction in DNA, the stereochemical situation that a DNA-guanosine radical faces was investigated utilizing X-ray data for relevant model oligonucleotides. The result is that the closest H-atoms from the neighboring 2'-deoxyribose units are at distances too large for efficient reaction. As a consequence, H-abstraction from 2'-deoxyribose by the DNA guanine radical leading subsequently to a "frank" DNA strand break is very unlikely. The competing reaction of the guanine radical cation with a water molecule which eventually yields 8-oxo-2'-deoxyguanosine (leading to "alkali-inducible" strand breaks) has thus a chance to proceed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".