Histidine, Lysine, and Arginine Radical Cations: Isomer Control via the Choice of Auxiliary Ligand (L) in the Dissociation of [Cu<sup>II</sup>(L)(amino acid)]<sup>•2+</sup> Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Histidine, lysine, and arginine radical cations have been generated through collision-induced dissociation (CID) of complexes [CuII(auxiliary ligand)namino acid]*2+, using tri-, bi-, as well as monodentate auxiliary ligands. On the basis of the observed CID products, the existence of two isomeric amino-acid populations is postulated. The Type 1 radical cations of histidine and lysine, stable on the mass spectrometer time scale, were found to lose water, followed by the loss of carbon monoxide under more energetic CID conditions. The arginine Type 1 radical cation behaved differently, losing dehydroalanine. The Type 2 radical cations were metastable and easily fragmented by the loss of carbon dioxide, effectively preventing direct observation. Type 1 radical cations are proposed to result from neutral (canonical) amino-acid coordination, whereas Type 2 radical cations are from zwitterionic amino-acid coordination to copper in the complex. The ratio of Type 1/Type 2 ions was found to be dependent on the auxiliary ligand, providing a method of controlling which radical cation would be formed primarily. Density functional calculations at B3LYP/6-311++G(d,p) have been used to determine the relative energies of five His*+ isomers. Barriers against interconversion between the isomers and against fragmentation have been calculated, giving insight as to why the Type 1 ions are stable, while only fragmentation products of the Type 2 ions are observable under CID conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".