yDNA versus xDNA Pyrimidine Nucleobases: Computational Evidence for Dependence of Duplex Stability on Spacer Location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structural and binding properties of the natural and x- and y-pyrimidines were compared using computational methods. Our calculations show that although the x-pyrimidines favor different orientations about the glycosidic bond compared to the natural pyrimidines, which could have implications for the formation and resulting stability of xDNA duplexes and jeopardize the selectivity of expanded nucleobases, y-pyrimidines have rotational profiles more similar to the natural bases. Increasing the pyrimidine size using a benzene spacer leads to relatively minor changes in the hydrogen-bond strength of isolated Watson-Crick base pairs. However, differences in the anomeric carbon distances in pairs composed of x- or y-pyrimidines suggest yDNA may yield a more optimal expanded structure. By stacking two monomers via their centers of mass, we find that the expanded nucleobases stack much stronger than the natural bases. Additionally, although replacing xT by yT changes the stacking energy by less than 5 kJ mol (-1), replacing xC by yC significantly strengthens complexes with the natural nucleobases (by up to 30%). Calculations on larger duplex models composed of four nucleobases reveal that x- and y-pyrimidines can increase duplex stability of natural helices by strengthening both the intra and interstrand stacking interactions. Furthermore, when the total stability (sum of all hydrogen-bonding and (intrastrand and interstrand) stacking interactions) of the larger models is considered, y-pyrimidines lead to more stable complexes than x-pyrimidines for all but three duplex sequences. Thus, through analysis of a variety of properties, our calculations suggest that the location of the benzene spacer affects the properties of expanded nucleobases and the stability of expanded duplexes, and therefore should be carefully considered when designing future expanded analogues.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".