Electrostatics of DNA nucleotide–carbon nanotube hybrids evaluated from QM:MM simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomolecule-functionalized carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have been studied vastly in recent years due to their potential applications for instance in cancer detection, purification and separation of CNTs, and nanoelectronics. Studying the electrostatic potential generated by a biomolecule-CNT hybrid is important in predicting its interactions with the surrounding environment such as charged particles and surfaces. In this paper, we performed atomistic simulations using a QM:MM approach to evaluate the electrostatic potential and charge transfer for a hybrid structure formed by a DNA nucleotide and a CNT in solution. Four types of DNA nucleotides and two CNTs with chiralities of (4,4) and (7,0) were considered. The types of nucleotides and CNTs were both found to play important roles in the electrostatic potential and charge transfer of the hybrid. At the same distance from the CNT axis, the electrostatic potential for the nucleotide-(4,4) CNT hybrids was found to be stronger compared with that for the nucleotide-(7,0) CNT hybrids. Higher electric charge was also shown to be transferred from the DNA nucleotides to the (7,0) CNT compared with the (4,4) CNT. These results correlate with the previous finding that the nucleotides bound more tightly to the (7,0) CNT compared with the (4,4) CNT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".