Investigation of the Interactions of <i>β</i>‐Peptides with DNA Duplexes by Circular Dichroism Spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The interaction of β‐peptides with the DNA duplexes of dA20dT20 and a GCN4‐binding CRE sequence was examined. To gauge the factors that govern these interactions, two β‐pentadecapeptides, 1 and 2, a β‐dodecapeptide, 3, three β‐decapeptides, 4–6, three β‐heptapeptides, 7–9, and β‐octaarginine 10 were designed and synthesized. The β‐peptides were conceived to adopt a β‐peptide 314 helix, in which the side chains at position i and i + 3 are aligned vertically along one side of the helix. The side chains of Lys, Asn, and Arg were positioned such that potential H‐bonding sites were created for a helical conformation to interact with the base pairs of DNA. CD Analysis showed that β‐peptides 1, 2, and 10 interacted with dA20dT20. In addition, β‐peptides 1 and 2 showed significant interaction with a DNA‐duplex 20mer containing the ATF/CREB recognition sequence for the regulatory protein GCN4. It is impossible, at this stage of the investigation, to make a safe proposal about the actual nature of the interaction of the structures(s) of the complexes, the formation of which is suggested by the CD spectra reported herein.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".