DNA–protein π-interactions in nature: abundance, structure, composition and strength of contacts between aromatic amino acids and DNA nucleobases or deoxyribose sugar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four hundred twenty-eight high-resolution DNA-protein complexes were chosen for a bioinformatics study. Although 164 crystal structures (38% of those searched) contained no interactions, 574 discrete π-contacts between the aromatic amino acids and the DNA nucleobases or deoxyribose were identified using strict criteria, including visual inspection. The abundance and structure of the interactions were determined by unequivocally classifying the contacts as either π-π stacking, π-π T-shaped or sugar-π contacts. Three hundred forty-four nucleobase-amino acid π-π contacts (60% of all interactions identified) were identified in 175 of the crystal structures searched. Unprecedented in the literature, 230 DNA-protein sugar-π contacts (40% of all interactions identified) were identified in 137 crystal structures, which involve C-H···π and/or lone-pair···π interactions, contain any amino acid and can be classified according to sugar atoms involved. Both π-π and sugar-π interactions display a range of relative monomer orientations and therefore interaction energies (up to -50 (-70) kJ mol(-1) for neutral (charged) interactions as determined using quantum chemical calculations). In general, DNA-protein π-interactions are more prevalent than perhaps currently accepted and the role of such interactions in many biological processes may yet to be uncovered.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".