Serine–Ca<sup>2+</sup> versus serine–Cu<sup>2+</sup> complexes — A theoretical perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association of Ca2+ and Cu2+ to serine was investigated by means of B3LYP DFT calculations. The [serine–M]2+ (M = Ca, Cu) potential energy surfaces include, as does the neutral serine, a large number of conformers, in which a drastic reorganization of the electron density of the serine moiety is observed. This leads to significant changes in the number and strength of the intramolecular hydrogen bonds existing in the neutral serine tautomers. In some cases, a proton is transferred from the carboxylic OH group to the amino group and accordingly, some of the more stable [serine–M]2+ complexes can be viewed as the result of the interaction of the zwiterionic form of serine with the doubly charged metal ion. Whereas the interaction between Ca2+ and serine is essentially electrostatic, that between Cu2+ and serine has a non-negligible covalent character, reflected in larger electron densities at the bond critical points between the metal and the base, in the negative values of the electron density between the two interacting systems, and in much larger Cu2+ than Ca2+ binding energies. More importantly, the interaction with Cu2+ is followed by a partial oxidation of the base, which is not observed when the metal ion is Ca2+. The main consequence is that in Cu2+ complexes a significant acidity enhancement of the serine moiety takes place, which strongly favors the deprotonation of the [serine–Cu]2+ complexes. This is not the case for Ca2+ complexes. Thus, [serine–Ca]2+ complexes, like those formed by urea, thiourea, selenourea, or glycine, should be detected in the gas phase. Conversely, the complexes with Cu2+ should deprotonate spontaneously and therefore only [(serine–H)–Cu]+ monocations should be experimentally accessible.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".