Structures of Hydrated Li<sup>+</sup>−Thymine and Li<sup>+</sup>−Uracil Complexes by IRMPD Spectroscopy in the N−H/O−H Stretching Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interaction of lithium ions with two pyrimidine nucleobases, thymine and uracil, as well as the solvation of various complexes by one and two water molecules, has been studied in the gas phase. IRMPD spectra are reported for each of B-Li(+)-(H(2)O)(n) (n = 1-2) and B(2)-Li-(H(2)O)(m) (m = 0-1) for B = thymine, uracil over the 2500-4000 cm(-1) region. Calculations were performed using the B3LYP density functional in conjunction with the 6-31+G(d,p) basis set to model the vibrational spectra as well as MP2/6-311++G(2d,p) theory to model the thermochemistry of potential structures. Experimental and theoretical results were used in combination to determine structures of each complex, which are reported here. The lithium cation in all complexes was found to bond to the O4 oxygen in both thymine and uracil, and the first two water molecules of solvation were found to bond to Li(+). The experimental spectra obtained for BLi(+)(H(2)O)(n) (n = 1-2) and B(2)Li(+) for thymine and uracil clearly resemble one another, suggesting similar structural features in terms of bonding between the base and Li(+), as well as for solvation. This was confirmed through theoretical work. The addition of water to the lithium ion-bound DNA base dimers has been shown to induce a significant change in structure of the dimer to a hydrogen-bonded system similar to base pairing in the Watson-Crick model of DNA.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".