MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088249879 · doi:10.1139/v06-079

One-electron oxidation of methionine peptides — Stability of the three-electron S—N(amide) bond

2006· article· en· W2088249879 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrick Brunelle, Christian Schöneich, Arvi Rauk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicFree Radicals and Antioxidants
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsChemistryDeprotonationIntramolecular forceSolvationDelocalized electronAmideElectron transferRadiolysisPhotochemistryCrystallographyComputational chemistryAqueous solutionIonPhysical chemistryStereochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possibility of sulfur–nitrogen (S—N) three-electron bond formation in a one-electron oxidized methionine peptide model was investigated computationally following the detection of such species in pulse radiolysis experiments (C. Schöneich, D. Pogocki, G.L. Hug, and K. Bobrowski. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 125, 13700 (2003)). Geometry optimiza tions were carried out at the B3LYP/6-31G(d) level of theory. Relative free energies in aqueous solution at pH 7 were predicted for all intermediates with enthalpy evaluations at the CCSD(T)/6-31+G(d′) level and free energies of solvation predicted using a continuum model (CPCM). Both the initial oxidation product and the intermediate formed at higher pH were identified as cyclic S—N bonded species in which the intramolecular three-electron interaction is between the S atom and the π orbital of the amide group. TD-B3LYP calculations of the UV spectra support the assignments. A mechanism for the conversion to the most stable α-C-centered radical is proposed. The mechanism involves a novel deprotonation–reprotonation via an intermediate backbone-delocalized radical anion.Key words: methionine oxidation, three-electron bonding, S—N bonding, B3LYP.

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)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicFree Radicals and AntioxidantsFrench-language works237,207