Primary Fragmentation Pathways of Gas Phase [M(Uracil−H)(Uracil)]<sup>+</sup> Complexes (M=Zn, Cu, Ni, Co, Fe, Mn, Cd, Pd , Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, and Pb): Loss of Uracil versus HNCO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complexes formed between metal dications, the conjugate base of uracil, and uracil are investigated by sustained off-resonance irradiation collision-induced dissociation (SORI-CID) in a Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance (FTICR) mass spectrometer. Positive-ion electrospray spectra show that [M(Ura-H)(Ura)](+) (M=Zn, Cu, Ni, Co, Fe, Mn, Cd, Pd, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, or Pb) is the most abundant ion even at low concentrations of uracil. SORI-CID experiments show that the main primary decomposition pathway for all [M(Ura-H)(Ura)](+) , except where M=Ca, Sr, Ba, or Pb, is the loss of HNCO. Under the same SORI-CID conditions, when M is Ca, Sr, Ba, or Pb, [M(Ura-H)(Ura)](+) are shown to lose a molecule of uracil. Similar results were observed under infrared multiple-photon dissociation excitation conditions, except that [Ca(Ura-H)(Ura)](+) was found to lose HNCO as the primary fragmentation product. The binding energies between neutral uracil and [M(Ura-H)](+) (M=Zn, Cu, Ni, Fe, Cd, Pd ,Mg, Ca, Sr Ba, or Pb) are calculated by means of electronic-structure calculations. The differences in the uracil binding energies between complexes which lose uracil and those which lose HNCO are consistent with the experimentally observed differences in fragmentation pathways. A size dependence in the binding energies suggests that the interaction between uracil and [M(Ura-H)](+) is ion-dipole complexation and the experimental evidence presented supports this.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".