Using 2-Aminopurine Fluorescence To Detect Bacteriophage T4 DNA Polymerase−DNA Complexes That Are Important for Primer Extension and Proofreading Reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fluorescence of the base analogue 2-aminopurine (2AP) was used to probe bacteriophage T4 DNA polymerase-induced conformational changes in the template strand produced during the nucleotide incorporation and proofreading reactions. 2AP fluorescence in DNA is quenched by 2AP interactions with neighboring bases, but T4 DNA polymerase binding to DNA substrates labeled with 2AP in the templating position produces large increases in fluorescence intensity. Fluorescence lifetime studies were performed to characterize the fluorescent complexes. Three fluorescence lifetime components were observed for unbound DNA substrates as reported previously, but T4 DNA polymerase binding modulated the amplitudes of these components and created a new, highly fluorescent 10.5 ns component. Experimental evidence for correlation of fluorescence lifetimes with functionally distinct complexes was obtained by forming complexes under different reaction conditions. T4 DNA polymerase complexes were formed with DNA substrates with matched and mismatched primer ends and with A+T- or G+C-rich primer-terminal regions. dTTP was added to binary complexes to form ternary DNA polymerase-DNA-nucleotide complexes. The effect of temperature on complex formation was studied, and complexes were formed with proofreading-defective T4 DNA polymerases. Complexes characterized by the 10.5 ns lifetime were demonstrated to be formed at the crossroads of the primer-extension and proofreading pathways.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".