MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074159394 · doi:10.1667/rr3025

Alteration of Protein Constituents Induced by Low-Energy (<35 eV) Electrons: II. Dissociative Electron Attachment to Amino Acids Containing Cyclic Groups

2003· article· en· W2074159394 on OpenAlexafffund
Hassan Abdoul‐Carime, Léon Sanche

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsChemistryDesorptionFragmentation (computing)Dissociation (chemistry)IonAmino acidHistidineTryptophanElectronMass spectrometryMoleculeCrystallographyPhotochemistryAdsorptionPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryBiochemistryPhysicsChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report measurements of the desorption of anions from thin condensed films of tryptophan (Trp), histidine (His) and proline (Pro) stimulated by 5-35 eV electron impact. H-, O-, OH- and CN- desorb from Trp, His and Pro, whereas CH2- is observed only from Pro fragmentation. Below 12 eV, the anion yield functions exhibit resonant structures indicative of dissociative electron attachment. For all three amino acids, this process is likely to be initiated by the resonant capture of the incident electron at the NH3(+)-CH-.....-COO- and/or NH2-CH-.....-COOH group of the molecule. Temporary electron attachment to the ring leads to anion desorption only for tryptophan and proline. The energy-averaged yields measured at the detector of the mass spectrometer are (4.9, 0.3 and 54.0) x 10(-8) H-/incident electron and (3.4, 2.9, 1.8) x 10(-11) O-/incident electron, respectively, from Trp, His and Pro dissociation. Fragmentation of amino acids is found to be as intense as that of the nucleic acid bases. These results are discussed within the context of radiobiological damage induced by secondary electrons.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation ResearchSame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207