Glycosidic bond cleavage in deoxynucleotides — A density functional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Density functional theory was used to study the glycosidic bond cleavage in deoxynucleotides with the main goal to determine the effects of the nucleobase, hydrogen bonding with the nucleobase, and the (bulk) environment on the reaction energetics. Since direct glycosidic bond cleavage is a high-energy process, two nucleophile models were considered (HCOO–···H2O and HO–), which represent different stages of activation of a water nucleophile. The glycosidic bond cleavage barriers were found to decrease, while the reaction exothermicity increases, with an increase in the nucleobase acidity. The gas-phase barriers and reaction energies for bond cleavage in all deoxynucleotides were found to be significantly affected by hydrogen-bonding interactions with the nucleobase (by up to 30 kJ mol–1 depending on the nucleophile). Although the barriers increase and reaction energies become less exothermic in enzymatic and aqueous environments, the effects of the bulk environment are similar in the presence and absence of small molecules bound to the nucleobase. Therefore, the effects of hydrogen bonding with the bases are approximately the same in all environments. Our results suggest that hydrogen bonding with the nucleobase may play an important role in the glycosidic bond cleavage in both pyrimidine and purine nucleotides in a variety of environments.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".