Polycyclic Azoniahetarenes: Assessing the Binding Parameters of Complexes between Unsubstituted Ligands and G‐Quadruplex DNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polycyclic azoniahetarenes were employed to determine the effect of the structure of unsubstituted polyaromatic ligands on their quadruplex-DNA binding properties. The interactions of three isomeric diazoniadibenzo[b,k]chrysenes (4 a-c), diazoniapentaphene (5), diazoniaanthra[1,2-a]anthracene (6), and tetraazoniapentapheno[6,7-h]pentaphene (3) with quadruplex DNA were examined by DNA melting studies (FRET melting) and fluorimetric titrations. In general, penta- and hexacyclic azoniahetarenes bind to quadruplex DNA (K(b) ≈10(6) M(-1)) even in the absence of additional functional side chains. The binding modes of 4 a-c and 3 were studied in more detail by ligand displacement experiments, isothermal titration calorimetry, and CD and NMR spectroscopy. All experimental data indicate that terminal π stacking of the diazoniachrysenes to the quadruplex is the major binding mode; however, because of different electron distributions of the π systems of each isomer, these ligands align differently in the binding site to achieve ideal binding interactions. It is proposed that tetraazonia ligand 3 binds to the quadruplex by terminal stacking with a small portion of its π system, whereas a significant part of the bulky ligand most likely points outside the quadruplex structure, and is thus partially placed in the grooves. Notably, 3 and the known tetracationic porphyrin TMPyP4 exhibit almost the same binding properties towards quadruplex DNA, with 3 being more selective for quadruplex than for duplex DNA. Overall, studies on azonia-type hetarenes enable understanding of some parameters that govern the quadruplex-binding properties of parent ligand systems. Since unsubstituted ligands were employed in this study, complementary and cooperative effects of additional substituents, which may interfere with the ligand properties, were eliminated.
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 | 0.001 | 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".