Landscape of<i>π</i>–<i>π</i>and sugar–<i>π</i>contacts in DNA–protein interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There were 1765 contacts identified between DNA nucleobases or deoxyribose and cyclic (W, H, F, Y) or acyclic (R, E, D) amino acids in 672 X-ray structures of DNA-protein complexes. In this first study to compare π-interactions between the cyclic and acyclic amino acids, visual inspection was used to categorize amino acid interactions as nucleobase π-π (according to biological edge) or deoxyribose sugar-π (according to sugar edge). Overall, 54% of contacts are nucleobase π-π interactions, which involve all amino acids, but are more common for Y, F, and R, and involve all DNA nucleobases with similar frequencies. Among binding arrangements, cyclic amino acids prefer more planar (stacked) π-systems than the acyclic counterparts. Although sugar-π interactions were only previously identified with the cyclic amino acids and were found to be less common (38%) than nucleobase-cyclic amino acid contacts, sugar-π interactions are more common than nucleobase π-π contacts for the acyclic series (61% of contacts). Similar to DNA-protein π-π interactions, sugar-π contacts most frequently involve Y and R, although all amino acids adopt many binding orientations relative to deoxyribose. These DNA-protein π-interactions stabilize biological systems, by up to approximately -40 kJ mol(-1) for neutral nucleobase or sugar-amino acid interactions, but up to approximately -95 kJ mol(-1) for positively or negatively charged contacts. The high frequency and strength, despite variation in structure and composition, of these π-interactions point to an important function in biological systems.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".