Ab Initio Study of Lowest-Energy Conformers of Lewis X (Le<sup>x</sup>) Trisaccharide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the first ab initio conformational study of the Gal-β-1,4-[Fuc-α-1,3]-GlcNAc-β-OCH3 and Gal-β-1,4-[Fuc-α-1,3]-GlcNAc-β-OH trisaccharides (Lewis x) in the gas phase. Their lowest-energy conformers were selected first by the MM2*-SUMM conformational search technique. MM2* relative energies do not follow the same order for the two similar compounds. The molecular geometries and energies of the lowest-energy rotamers (7 of the acetal and 11 of the hemiacetal) were further analyzed at the HF/6-31G(d) level of theory. The ab initio method yields the same energetic order for the rotamers of the two molecules with considerably larger energetic differences for the first 7 rotamers: the MM2* method provides 0.3−0.5 kcal/mol, whereas the HF/6-31G(d) method provides 4.5 kcal/mol. In the most stable MM2* structures the hydrogen-bonded chains of galactose (in counterclockwise direction) and fucose (in clockwise direction) are not connected. The Gal(O6H) is a hydrogen bond donor (in clockwise direction) to the O3 glycosidic oxygen of GlcNAc. The Fuc(O2H)→(O C)GlcNAc interaction connects the fucose and GlcNAc. In contrast, the most stable HF/6-31G(d) structure has a long chain of seven ordered hydrogen bonds including a Gal(O6H)→(O3)Fuc interaction (with clockwise hydrogen-bonded chain in galactose and fucose). The torsion angles for Fuc-α-1,3-GlcNAc and Gal-β-1,4-GlcNAc glycosidic bonds agree well in the solid, liquid, and gas phases. For example there is a rather good overlap between the GlcNAc moiety of one of the X-ray structures and the most similar HF/6-31G(d) structure. The stacking of the fucose and galactose moieties is similar. The orientations of the hydroxyl groups are usually different, as they are influenced by intramolecular hydrogen bonding in the gas-phase Hartree−Fock structure versus intermolecular hydrogen bonding in the solid-phase X-ray structure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".