MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088329517 · doi:10.1021/jp907887y

Noncovalent Interactions Involving Histidine: The Effect of Charge on π−π Stacking and T-Shaped Interactions with the DNA Nucleobases

2009· article· en· W2088329517 on OpenAlexaff
Cassandra D. M. Churchill, Stacey D. Wetmore

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersUniversities Space Research Association
KeywordsNucleobaseProtonationStackingHistidineChemistryDimerCrystallographyNon-covalent interactionsImidazoleComputational chemistryStereochemistryDNAMoleculeHydrogen bondAmino acidIonOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detailed (gas-phase) MP2/6-31G*(0.25) potential energy surface scans and CCSD(T) energy calculations at the complete basis set (CBS) limit were used to analyze the (face-to-face) stacking and (edge-to-face) T-shaped interactions between histidine (modeled as imidazole) and the DNA nucleobases. For the first time, a variety of relative monomer arrangements between both neutral and protonated histidine and the natural nucleobases were considered to determine the effects of charge on the optimum dimer geometry and binding strength. Our results reveal that protonation of histidine changes the preferred relative orientations of the monomers and propose that these geometric differences may be combined with experimental crystal structures to assess the protonation state of histidine in different environments. It is also found that protonation affects the nucleobase binding preference, as well as the magnitude of the stacking and T-shaped interactions. Indeed, the maximum possible stacking and T-shaped interactions involving the neutral histidine range between approximately 20 and 45 kJ mol(-1), while this range increases to 40-105 kJ mol(-1) upon protonation, which represents an up to 330% enhancement. Although an increase in the interaction energies upon protonation of histidine is expected, the present work provides a measure of the magnitude of this enhancement in the gas phase and reveals that the amplification is almost entirely due to larger electrostatic contributions. The relative strengthening of different classifications of dimers upon protonation leads to stronger T-shaped interactions than stacking energies for protonated histidine, while the stacking and T-shaped interactions involving neutral histidine are of comparable magnitude. Thus, there is a significant difference in the nature of the pi(cation)-pi interactions involving protonated histidine and the pi-pi interactions involving neutral histidine. The calculated strengths of the interactions studied in the present work suggest that both neutral and cationic histidine contacts will provide significant stabilization to DNA-protein complexes. Although solvation effects will decrease the magnitude of the reported interactions, our results are applicable to a variety of low-polarity, biologically-relevant environments such as nonpolar enzyme active sites. Therefore, our calculations suggest that these interactions may also be important for many biological processes. The proposed significance of these interactions is supported by the large number of histidine-nucleobase contacts that appear in experimental crystal structures. The highly accurate (MP2/6-31G*(0.25)) preferred structures and (CCSD(T)/CBS) binding strengths reported in the present work can be used as benchmarks to analyze the performance of existing, or to develop new, molecular mechanics force fields for use in large-scale molecular dynamics (MD) studies of DNA-protein complexes.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations86
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207